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

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/7/2016 at 9:15 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Version: 3 Date: 2/7/16

Opposing Early Throat Wound Testimonies

Version: 4 Date: 2/9/16 (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.

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.)

2. Above the Shirtline

Currently there are no known early testimonies of the wound being above the shirtline.

 

 

Notes

Carrico's Later Reversal

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. 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.

LATER ADDITION: One other thing about Dr. Carrico's testimony: James Gordon mentioned in another thread (Post 29) that Carrico was actually in Trauma Room 2 with Governor Connally when JFK arrived at Trauma Room 1 and began having his clothes removed by nurse Diane Bowran. So there is some doubt as to what he actually saw regarding the location of the throat wound. Note, however, that Tom Neal questions what Gordon said in that thread (Post 45).

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Version: 9 Date: 2/7/16

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 10 Date: 2/9/16 (Changes shown in red.)

Below The Collar Line

1. A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat.
2. 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. These scenarios are supported by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below.
• 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

1. A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
2. 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. These scenarios are contradicted by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below.
• 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

1. 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.

   This scenario is supported by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below.

Related Posts

Post 556 on this page: Opposing Early 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.)

(Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 557 on this page.)

Edited February 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Why would two obvious scalpel slits in a shirt collar be tested for the presence of metal from a bullet jacket?

What scalpel slits? I don't see any.

In other words, good point.

I'll bet the scalpel slit idea originated from a desire to discount the SBT.

(Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 557 on this page.)

Edited February 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited February 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

+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").

That's right, every careless mistake you make is MY fault.

[Tom Neal]

Why would two obvious scalpel slits in a shirt collar be tested for the presence of metal from a bullet jacket?

Robert,

From the above it appears that you believe there were definite holes through the shirt halves in addition to the 'slits' - is this correct?

[Tom Neal]

+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").

That's right, every careless mistake you make is MY fault.

All I have to do is read all of your posts and correct the SAME mistake EACH and EVERY time you repeat it despite my complaints. I am forced to read your Reductio Ad Absurdum replies in which you point out that only an evil human being such as me would criticize your careless posts. Of course ignoring that fact that I am not the only person to state objections to this behavior.

Let's make it REALLY SIMPLE. I have no interest in your posts. Do NOT USE MY NAME IN ANY OF YOUR POSTS and I won't have to bother reading your inane posts.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

DUPE POST DELETED...

Edited February 9, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Cliff Varnell]

Ashton finds it highly plausible that JFK was struck in the throat at Parkland with a toxin delivery system traceable to Dr. Edward M Gunn, who worked as Chief, Operations Division, Office of Medical Services in the CIA.

I find it highly plausible that JFK was struck in the throat in Dealey Plaza with a paralytic delivery system, and then struck in the back with a toxin delivery system, which can be traced back to shadowy figures -- an Army colonel and an Air Force colonel -- who worked for the CIA project MK/NAOMI.

We're students of the same small universe of potential perps.

Our beef over the throat wound can be filed under "minutia".

Edited February 9, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

Why would two obvious scalpel slits in a shirt collar be tested for the presence of metal from a bullet jacket?

Robert,

From the above it appears that you believe there were definite holes through the shirt halves in addition to the 'slits' - is this correct?

My question has nothing to do with what I personally believe. It has more to do with why anyone testing the shirt for deposits left by bullet jacket material would bother testing two obvious scalpel slits, if it was that plain they were not holes made by a projectile.

[Sandy Larsen]

Why would two obvious scalpel slits in a shirt collar be tested for the presence of metal from a bullet jacket?

Robert,

From the above it appears that you believe there were definite holes through the shirt halves in addition to the 'slits' - is this correct?

My question has nothing to do with what I personally believe. It has more to do with why anyone testing the shirt for deposits left by bullet jacket material would bother testing two obvious scalpel slits, if it was that plain they were not holes made by a projectile.

Also, why would the holes/slits behind the tie be tested if the wound was above the tie and collar line?

[Sandy Larsen]

Version: 10 Date: 2/9/16

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 11 Date: 2/10/16 (Changes shown in red.)

Below The Collar Line

1. A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat.
2. A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat.

Common Notes:

• These scenarios are supported by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below.
• The holes/slits in the shirt were made by the projectile. But a test done on the holes showed no traces of metal.
• 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

1. A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
2. A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.)

Common Notes:

• These scenarios are contradicted by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below.
• The shirt holes/slits were suspected of being bullet holes, as they were tested for traces of metal. There seems to be no explanation for this test being performing if the wound was above the collar line, or if the the holes/slits looked like scalpel cuts. (Incidentally, the test revealed no traces of metal.)
• 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

1. 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.

   This scenario is supported by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below.

   The major difficulties for this scenario are 1) there had to have been a nurse or doctor involved in the conspiracy; 2) who happened to be in the right place to perform the injection; and 3) who did so in front of others, thus risking being caught.

   According to Cliff Varnell, the neck x-ray (declared genuine by Dr. Mantik) conflicts with this scenario. (See details under the Below the Collar Line scenarios, above.)

Related Posts

Post 556 on this page: Early 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.)

(Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 567 on this page.)

Edited February 10, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

Why would two obvious scalpel slits in a shirt collar be tested for the presence of metal from a bullet jacket?

Robert,

From the above it appears that you believe there were definite holes through the shirt halves in addition to the 'slits' - is this correct?

My question has nothing to do with what I personally believe. It has more to do with why anyone testing the shirt for deposits left by bullet jacket material would bother testing two obvious scalpel slits, if it was that plain they were not holes made by a projectile.

At the moment I can't find any mention of the slits being caused by a scalpel theory prior to Harold Weisberg in 1971 following his interview with Carrico. So it *appears* that Hoover had no explanation other than the exit of a bullet/fragment, and he certainly wasn't looking for one. He needed an exit wound corresponding to the back entry wound, preferably as low as possible to promote the LHO acting alone scenario.

The scalpel theory, like every other scenario for the throat wound/shirt damage/tie damage, *IMO* has major issues. I have yet to come up with a workable theory for this wound and clothing damage.

BuLab's report describes the shirt damage as a 'ragged slit' with no mention of any 'round' holes. Having done no real work on the WC description of this 'slit' I can't say whether they ever indicated there was any damage beyond a slit, but I don't recall any. If you have any information that supports/denies this, please post it and save me some time...

Why would they test the slit and the nick? My speculations:

• to the FBI the 'slit' was NOT an 'obvious scalpel slit'
• they had the shirt and tie in the lab and had tested the back hole, why wouldn't they test the 'slit' and nick as well? They had nothing to lose because they could suppress a negative result and if they found metal they had the bullet exit they needed

Edited February 10, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

In my list of "Early Throat Wound Testimonies" (Version 4, Post 556 above), I removed what Harold Weisberg wrote about Dr. Carrico telling him that the throat wound was above the shirtline.

I wish to make clear my reasons for removing Weisberg's comment about Carrico:

• Ashton Gray objected to it on the grounds that it was hearsay. His point was good IMO.
• In Carrico's testimony before the WC, it seems that he's trying to say that the wound was behind the tie, whereas Allen Dulles is attempting to lead his testimony elsewhere. That's my opinion.
• Carrico had a history of changing his testimony to meet the official story. (He did that with his back-of-head gaping wound testimony.) Therefore, I concluded, he very well could have done the same with his throat wound testimony.
• Nobody reading this thread has asked me to put Weisberg's comment back.

If anybody feels strongly about putting Weisberg's comment back on the list, let me know.

EDIT: I corrected an error I made in bullet point three: I changed "Weisberg" to "Carrico."

Edited March 22, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

I believe the Z film is 100% authentic for two reasons:

1. Using 1960's technology, there's no way they could have made alterations to the film, and because the government knew that the public was not going to see the film in its entirety, this brings me to #2...

2. There simply was no reason to fake the Z film as long as it was kept from the public. And it was indeed kept from the public until 1975 when Groden snuck a copy on a late-night talk show for all to see.

With that said, watch the Z film carefully and it's obvious Kennedy is reacting to a frontal throat shot. Then, just a few frames afterward, you can see his body lurch forward, his head moving backward and then forward as the back shot hits him. He's the only one who reacts this way, which means it has nothing to do with the car slowing down or speeding up. It looks almost as if someone took their hand and smacked him really hard on the back.

So I just don't see how the title of this thread is valid.