Dr. Malcolm Perry R.I.P. (1929-2009)

Peter Fokes · December 8, 2009

Passed away today.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6757817.html

On President Kennedy's wounds:

Regards,

Peter Fokes

J. Raymond Carroll · December 8, 2009

Passed away today.
Regards,

Peter Fokes

The New York TImes, as we have come to expect, just cannot quite bring itself to tell the simple truth when it comes to the assassination of JFK.

Even more fatefully, when he was asked by reporters if he thought the bullet hole was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, “It could have been either.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/us/08per...ref=todayspaper.

THis is obfuscation. Perry was unsure about the head wound, but he was very clear that the throat wound was an entrance wound.

DR. MALCOM PERRY- The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=10

December 8, 2009

The complicity of The New York Times in concealing the true causes of

death of our 35th President stains it reputation forever. I have replied

to a very sad post from François Carlier, which those who make it their

business to join The Times in this unsavory enterprise are, no doubt,

going to use to bolster their case. This is completely unconscionable,

but also entirely predictable from those who are betraying the truth.

Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:27:32 -0600 [08:27:32 AM CST]

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: "François Carlier" <Fra-Carlier@orange.fr>

Cc: "Barb Junkkarinen" <Barbjfk@comcast.net>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: copy of a post

All,

Quite a few years ago, I also wrote to Malcolm Perry, M.D., about his

experiences during the treatment of President John F. Kennedy, but I,

unlike Francois Carlier, was aware of his contemporaneous reports about

the wound the the throat and was therefore acutely distressed by what

I received in reply. It was a handwritten letter on lined paper that,

as in her case, affirmed the findings of THE WARREN REPORT (1964). But

I had the advantage of having read the Parkland Press Conference, which

began at 3:16 PM on 22 November 1963, during which he described the wound

to the throat as "an entrance wound", "as a wound of entrance", and said

"the bullet was coming at him". Dr. Perry was grossly abused by the FBI,

Commander Humes, and Arlen Specter and intimidated into changing his mind

about the wound, which he knew "up close and personal". Anyone who thinks

that Perry was thereafter speaking or writing the truth, I am sorry to say,

has thereby demonstrated their incompetence in relation to his role in the

assassination. Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who was the last physician to view

the body before it was wrapped in sheets and placed in the large, bronze-

colored ceremonial casket at Parkland, drew diagrams of the appearance of

the throat wound before and after Perry performed a tracheostomy incision

through the wound. It was a clean, neat puncture wound, clearly of entry,

through which he made a simple, straight incision. CrenshaW also sent me

diagrams of the wound to the back of the head, which I published with his

diagrams of the throat wound as Appendix A of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).

The Parkland Press Conference transcript, which was never provided to the

Warren Commission, may also be found there as Appendix C. For those who

are unfamiliar with the research that appears here, I recommend that they

track it down, since it includes studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.,

that proved the autopsy x-rays had been altered and by Robert Livingston,

M.D., a world authority on the human brain, concluding that the images of

a brain in diagrams and photographs stored at the National Archives cannot

possibly be of the brain of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Since these studies

shattered the cover-up in the death of JFK, you might want to read them to

come up-to-speed with respect to the most important research ever conducted

on the medical evidence, which was reinforced by studies by Mantik and by

Douglas Horne, the senior analyst for military affairs for the AARB, which

are published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and are now being confirmed

by a five-volume study of the medical evidence by Horne, which is only now

being released and is accessible via amazon.com. In relation to the basic

evidence concerning the body and even the Zapruder film, which is analyzed

in both of my books and in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), where Horne

corroborates our finding that it's a fabrication, the case has been solved.

For those who still linger to the illusion that THE WARREN REPORT was right,

you can download "Reasoning about Assassinations" via google, where I take

apart the "magic bullet" theory in a study that I presented at Cambridge

and published in a peer-reviewed international journal. I recommend it.

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

McKnight Professor Emeritus

University of Minnesota Duluth

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

Quoting "François Carlier" <Fra-Carlier@orange.fr>:

Hello, everybody,

Doctor Perry (Rest in Peace, you were a fine man !) once wrote a letter to me, a very

nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the medical evidence and gave his

opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street".

It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.

He was an honest man who "was there", saw the body, and did not buy the conspiracy

idiotic theories.

He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.

Everybody should know it.

As for me, if I have to choose between, on the one hand, doctor Perry, and on the other,

the likes of Lifton or Groden, ... boy, the decision is quickly reached !!!

May God bless Doctor Perry.

/François Carlier/

Passed away today.
Regards,

Peter Fokes

The New York TImes, as we have come to expect, just cannot quite bring itself to tell the simple truth when it comes to the assassination of JFK.

Even more fatefully, when he was asked by reporters if he thought the bullet hole was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, “It could have been either.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/us/08per...ref=todayspaper.

THis is obfuscation. Perry was unsure about the head wound, but he was very clear that the throat wound was an entrance wound.

DR. MALCOM PERRY- The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=10

J. Raymond Carroll · December 8, 2009

I have just sent this email to the Public Editor at the New York Times

Dear Mr. Hoyt:

Last year you were good enough to cause the Times to publish a correction to its obituary for detective Paul Bentley, after I pointed out a significant error. I want to thank you for that correction, but I must now point out another error, again relating to the JFK assassination.

Today's obituary for Doctor Malcolm Perry contains the following passage:

Dr. Perry used the bullet hole in Kennedy’s neck to perform the procedure, concluding, as the Warren Commission noted, that “it was one of the safest and easiest spots from which to reach the trachea.”
But in doing so the doctor changed the appearance of the wound, thereby making it far less valuable as evidence. Even more fatefully, when he was asked by reporters if he thought the bullet hole was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, “It could have been either.”

I attach a copy of the official transcript of the 11/22/63 press conference at Parkland hospital at which Dr. Perry made his first statements about the president's wounds. You will see that the Perry quotation in today's Times was NOT IN REFERENCE TO THE THROAT WOUND. When Dr. Perry said "it could have been either" he was referring to the HEAD WOUND.

In reference to the throat wound, here is what Dr. Perry actually said, according to the transcript:

DR. MALCOM PERRY- The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=10

As a faithful Times reader for 30 years, I am repeatedly disappointed to see that the Times appears unable to face facts -- even simple facts -- when it comes to reporting on the assassination of President Kennedy.

I respectfully submit that a correction to the Perry obituary is in order.

Yours sincerely,

December 8, 2009

Good work! Check this out: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6758471.html How long will it remain there? Best!

I have just sent this email to the Public Editor at the New York Times
Dear Mr. Hoyt:

Last year you were good enough to cause the Times to publish a correction to its obituary for detective Paul Bentley, after I pointed out a significant error. I want to thank you for that correction, but I must now point out another error, again relating to the JFK assassination.

Today's obituary for Doctor Malcolm Perry contains the following passage:

Dr. Perry used the bullet hole in Kennedy’s neck to perform the procedure, concluding, as the Warren Commission noted, that “it was one of the safest and easiest spots from which to reach the trachea.”
But in doing so the doctor changed the appearance of the wound, thereby making it far less valuable as evidence. Even more fatefully, when he was asked by reporters if he thought the bullet hole was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, “It could have been either.”

I attach a copy of the official transcript of the 11/22/63 press conference at Parkland hospital at which Dr. Perry made his first statements about the president's wounds. You will see that the Perry quotation in today's Times was NOT IN REFERENCE TO THE THROAT WOUND. When Dr. Perry said "it could have been either" he was referring to the HEAD WOUND.

In reference to the throat wound, here is what Dr. Perry actually said, according to the transcript:

DR. MALCOM PERRY- The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=10

As a faithful Times reader for 30 years, I am repeatedly disappointed to see that the Times appears unable to face facts -- even simple facts -- when it comes to reporting on the assassination of President Kennedy.

I respectfully submit that a correction to the Perry obituary is in order.

Yours sincerely,

Bernice Moore · December 8, 2009

THANKS RAYMOND....GOOD SHOW...

Robert E. Cox · December 8, 2009

I have just sent this email to the Public Editor at the New York Times

Thanks, Raymond, for your response. I've added my support to your request with the following email to Clark Hoyt at the Times, whose address, btw, is public@nytimes.com. I'm sure a few more letters to Hoyt from members of this forum wouldn't hurt. --rec

Mr. Hoyt:

I add my support to the request of J. Raymond Carroll for a correction in the New York Times obituary of Dr. Malcolm Perry, relating to Perry's comments regarding the throat wound of President John Kennedy. Mr. Carroll's request is based on solid fact, and to allow the Times's report to stand without correction is a disservice to the historical record.

Thank you for your consideration.

Robert E. Cox

Abiquiu, N.M.

J. Raymond Carroll · December 8, 2009

I've added my support to your request with the following email to Clark Hoyt at the Times, whose address, btw, is public@nytimes.com. I'm sure a few more letters to Hoyt from members of this forum wouldn't hurt. --rec

Thank you Robert.

Based on my prior experience with Clark Hoyt in the Paul Bentley matter, I expect that he will give this appropriate attention, and in due course I expect that some form of correction will appear in the Times. However I do not believe that a flurry of emails from forum members will necessarily be helpful.

I did indicate to MR. Hoyt that I was posting a cc of my email on this forum, and I suspect that Mr. Hoyt or one of his assistants will check us out anyway.

Robert E. Cox · December 8, 2009

However I do not believe that a flurry of emails from forum members will necessarily be helpful.

Raymond: You are no doubt correct. However, I do believe that something needs to be done to bring an end to the sloppy, and even government-biased journalism that too often pops up in self-styled "newspapers of record" when they purport to revisit facts of the Kennedy assassination. I certainly do not want Public Editor Hoyt to believe that it is only Raymond Carroll who takes issue with such displays of journalistic irresponsibility. Although a flurry may be overkill, a few complaints may be of benefit in the long run.

Bernice Moore · December 9, 2009

ss elmer more badgered malcolm Perry into changing his informtion on the neck wound,,,

HISTORIC NEW INFORMATION ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION

Michael T. Griffith, 1999

Missing Autopsy Photos, the Large Head Wound, and Other Issues

What follows is a brief summary of some of the historic new evidence contained in recently released autopsy witness interviews conducted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) from 1976-1979 and in interviews of key witnesses conducted over the last three years by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).

What do the abovementioned documents reveal? As we'll see in a moment, they contain, among other things, evidence that a bullet struck Kennedy in the right temple, that there was a large wound in the back of the skull (which of course indicates the bullet came from the front and exited the rear of the head), that several important autopsy photos are missing, that there was **not** a straight path from the Oswald window to the back wound to the throat wound (because the back wound was lower than the throat wound and because Kennedy was not leaning off the seat when the back missile struck), that even Secret Service agents believed there had been a conspiracy, and that autopsy photos were altered (obviously in order to give a false impression of the direction of the gunfire that struck the president).

Here are some of the important new disclosures:

* John Stringer reported that the THROAT WOUND was probed. This is key because it proves the autopsy doctors were lying when they testified that they were not aware of the throat wound until after the autopsy when Dr. Humes called Dallas and spoke with Dr. Perry.

* White House photographer Robert Knudsen told the HSCA that the probe went DOWNWARD from the throat wound, that is, the back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Knudsen assisted with the handling of the autopsy photos, and may have been present at the autopsy. The fact that the back wound was lower than the throat wound destroys the single-bullet theory.

* Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, confirmed to the ARRB that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the external occipital protuberance (EOP) UPWARD to the area of the right orbit. This is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound was not in the cowlick but rather four inches lower, very close to the EOP and just a couple inches above the hairline. Why is this so important? Because no bullet fired from the Oswald sniper's nest could have made that wound, unless Kennedy's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward, which the Zapruder film and the Muchmore film clearly show it was not.

* Saundra Kay Spencer, whom I have mentioned in previous messages, according to chain of evidence documentation processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy. However, she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives, and, as I've noted in a previous message, she told the ARRB that she did not process any of the extant autopsy photos. This suggests the black and white autopsy photos were processed elsewhere, and that there were TWO sets of autopsy photos.

* Joe O'Donnell, a White House photographer who worked with Robert Knudsen, told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. This is yet another witness who saw a sizable wound in the rear of the skull.

* O'Donnell further told the ARRB that one of the autopsy photos Knudsen showed him showed what appeared to be an ENTRY WOUND IN THE RIGHT TEMPLE. This is key because there were several reports out of Dallas of a small wound in one of the temples. O'Donnell's account strongly tends to confirm those reports. Also, a defect consistent with a wound of entry can be seen in the right temple area on the autopsy x-rays, according to three doctors who have examined them (one of whom is an expert in neuroanatomy and another of whom is a board-certified radiologist).

* Tom Robinson, the mortician, confirmed what he told the HSCA on this point, namely, that he saw a small hole in the area of the right temple, and that he filled it with wax. Although Robinson speculated the small hole was made by an exiting fragment, the hole is strong evidence of a shot from the front in light of the reports of a large wound of exit in the back of the head and in light of the other accounts of an entry-like wound in one of the temples. Indeed, White House press man Malcolm Kilduff told reporters at Parkland Hospital that afternoon that Dr. Burkley told him a bullet entered the right temple, and Kilduff pointed to his own right temple to illustrate the trajectory. This was all captured on film. One of the reporters who attended that press conference wrote in his notes "bullet entered right temple" (or "entered right temple").

* O'Donnell said that Knudsen showed him other autopsy photos that showed the back of the head intact. This corresponds with the other evidence that there were two sets of autopsy photos, one genuine and the other altered.

* Knudsen's wife, Gloria Knudsen, and both his children, told ARRB interviewers that four autopsy photos were missing and that another photo had been "badly altered" (and "severely altered"). They also reported that he told them that four or five of the autopsy photos he was shown by the HSCA did not represent what he saw during the autopsy.

* Mrs. Knudsen reported that Knudsen told her that the background in the autopsy photos he was shown was wrong. This agrees with the reports of other witnesses at the autopsy that the photos in evidence show things in the background that were not in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

* Knudsen's son Bob recalled that his father mentioned seeing probes inserted into THREE wounds. The WC said there were only two wounds of entrance, one in the back and the other low on the back of the head. Three entrance wounds means there must have been more than one gunman.

* Knudsen himself told the HSCA that he firmly recalled AT LEAST two probes inserted into wounds and that he believed he recalled one picture in which THREE probes were inserted into wounds. Again, three wounds of entrance equals conspiracy, period.

* Knudsen volunteered in his HSCA interview that there was "something shady" about the third piece of film that he handled. Incredibly, the HSCA interviewer did not ask him to explain his comment.

* Knudsen confirmed that Saundra Spencer processed color autopsy photographic material at the naval lab, and that he was personally aware that the black and white photos were done elsewhere.

* The Secret Service (SS) agent in charge of the Miami SS office told the HSCA he believed some elements of the SS might have been involved in a conspiracy in the assassination.

* SS Special Agent Elmer Moore "badgered" Dr. Malcolm Perry into changing his story that the throat wound was an entrance wound. This is revealing. Researchers have always suspected that Dr. Perry was pressured into changing his initial (and very firm) diagnosis that the throat wound was an entrance wound.

* Robert Bouck, who was the chief of the Protective Research Division of the SS in 1963, told the HSCA he believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

* Special Agent Fox made black and white autopsy photo prints at the SS lab.

* Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the ARRB he clearly remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe inserted into the body. No such photo is to be found in the autopsy photos in evidence.

* Another new witness discovered by the ARRB is John Van Hoesen. Van Hoesen was a mortician who was present when Robinson reconstructed the skull. He told the ARRB he saw an "orange-sized" hole in the back of the head. Incidentally, Robinson himself told the HSCA he very clearly recalled seeing a large wound in the back of the skull, and he even diagrammed the wound for the HSCA interviewer. Robinson, of course, not only saw this wound for a prolonged period of time, but he also HANDLED it. Is anyone going to seriously suggest that Robinson "confused" this wound for a wound that was "really" above the right ear?! (The current lone-gunman theory posits, and the extant autopsy photos show, a large wound above the right ear.

* Yet another new witness is Earl McDonald, who was a medical photographer at Bethesda Naval Hospital. McDonald trained under Stringer, in fact. McDonald told the ARRB that at Bethesda he never saw anyone use a metal brace like the one seen holding the head in the autopsy photos. Other medical technicians at the autopsy have made similar observations, i.e., that the background in the autopsy photos doesn't show the autopsy room at Bethesda.

* X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, who was present at the autopsy and assisted with the autopsy x-rays, testified to the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments. Custer is almost certainly correct. Why else would those x-rays have been suppressed? The missile fragments described by Custer are another fatal blow to the lone-gunman theory, which in turn means there must have been more than one shooter.

* Custer told the ARRB that he saw a large bullet fragment fall from the back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays.

* Custer further told the ARRB that he wanted to put his personal marker on the x-rays during the autopsy, so as to be able to identify them, but that he was unable to mark all of them because a senior military officer ordered him to stop marking them.

Interested readers can read this information in the released documents themselves, which are available from the National Archives. Or, they can read an excellent summary of those documents in the appendix to the new edition of Harrison Livingstone's best-selling book HIGH TREASON: THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK AND THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY. Livingstone quotes heavily from the newly released documents, and provides reproductions of some of them in his appendices.

Some of the sources for the information above include the following::

- HSCA deposition of Robert Knudsen, August 11, 1978

- ARRB deposition of Gloria Knudsen. October 8, 1996

- ARRB deposition of Robert Karnei, May 21, 1996

- ARRB deposition of John Stringer, July 16, 1996

- ARRB deposition of John Van Hoesen, September 26, 1996

- ARRB deposition of Earl McDonald, May 14, 1996

- ARRB deposition of Jerrol Custer, October 28, 1997

Francis O'Neill

We read in the recently released ARRB medical evidence interviews that former FBI agent Francis O'Neill told the ARRB that the large head wound was "a massive wound" that was located in the back of the head (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 69-70). He told ARRB staffer Jeremy Gunn,

O'Neill: . . . you could not miss this wound here in the head.

Gunn: Again, you're pointing to the back of your head?

O'Neill: Yes. It was--it was a massive wound. (Deposition, pp. 69-70).

Agent O'Neill, it should be remembered, got a close-up, prolonged look at the president's wounds during the autopsy.

We now have further evidence that President Kennedy's back wound was well below the neck, much lower than where Dr. Humes placed it for the Warren Commission. The low location for the back wound refutes the single-bullet theory, among other things. The recently released ARRB autopsy witness interviews contain numerous important disclosures and confirmations. Let us turn our attention to Francis O'Neill's comments on the back wound and on Dr. Boswell's relocation of the back wound. O'Neill, of course, got a close-up, prolonged look at the body during the autopsy.

O'Neill was asked about his 1-10-78 HSCA wound diagram, in which he placed the wound well below the base of the neck (the diagram can be seen on page 349 of Livingstone's KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY). He replied that he stood by the diagram, that the location he marked was accurate to the best of his recollection (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 104-107). Indeed, O'Neill said the wound was absolutely no higher than where he marked it on his diagram! Here is a part of his exchange with ARRB counsel Jeremy Gunn--O'Neill's HSCA diagram is referred to as Exhibit 86:

Gunn: If you were to make marks today or attempt to indicate where your understanding is of the wounds to the body, would you make them substantially different from the ones that appear on Exhibit 86?

O'Neill: No, no. My recollection would be just as good then. In fact--well, just as good then as it is now. To the best of my recollection, these are [correct]--once again--approximate.

Gunn: Sure, understood.

O'Neill: CERTAINLY, NOTHING UP HIGHER--LIKE THAT, NO.

Gunn: And you're referring to the shoulder wound [when you say nothing up higher]--?

O'Neill: Yes.

Gunn: -- when you say "nothing up higher"?

O'Neill: IF ANYTHING, [the wound was] LOWER. BUT CERTAINLY NOTHING HIGHER THAN THAT. (Deposition, pp. 107-108, emphasis added)

O'Neill was then asked why he had told the HSCA that he disagreed with Dr. Boswell's depiction of the back wound for the HSCA (in that depiction, Dr. Boswell located the wound markedly higher than he had on the original autopsy face sheet). Here's part of the Gunn-O'Neill exchange on this issue:

Gunn: Could you explain to me what your recollection is of that, or to what you were referring with that statement [his abovementioned statement to the HSCA]?

O'Neill: Because I had heard--I had seen, supposedly, drawings from some publication where Boswell made drawings or alluded to the bullet wound in the back not actually in the back, but in the back of the neck. And I disagreed with that thoroughly. (Deposition, p. 111).

So when Boswell claimed the back wound was not in the back but rather in the back of the neck, O'Neill "disagreed with that thoroughly."

O'Neill was then asked to examine Exhibit No. 159, on which Boswell had relocated the back wound to a spot on the back of the neck. O'Neill said in reply, ". . . naturally, I would disagree with that," adding the following:

O'Neill: But I can't understand why he [boswell] would do something like that, really, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE IT WAS IN ANY SIZE, SHAPE, OR FORM-FASHION. (Deposition, p. 114, emphasis added)

So, we now have another very solid, emphatic witness that the back wound was where Boswell ORIGINALLY marked it on the autopsy face sheet. And, as most of us know, this low location, which rules out the single-bullet theory, is supported by the holes in the back of Kennedy's shirt and coat, by the death certificate, by the 1/27/64 WC transcript, by Special Agent (SA) Clint Hill's description of the wound, by SA Glen Bennett's description of the wound, by SA Roy Kellerman's 8-24-77 HSCA wound diagram, by SA James Sibert's 8-25-77 HSCA wound diagram, and by the accounts of medical assistants at the autopsy.

James Sibert

The following is a brief summary of key points from James Sibert's deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). Sibert is a former FBI agent who witnessed the unloading of the body from the casket and who witnessed the autopsy from a distance of a few feet.

* Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory (SBT)because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be possible (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, pp. 161-162). He added that another reason he doubted the SBT was what he saw when the pathologists probed the back wound (Deposition, p. 162).

* Sibert unequivocally placed the back wound BELOW the scapula, i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade (Deposition, pp. 74-75, 114, 161-162).

* Sibert said the autopsy pathologists determined that the back wound had no point of exit (Deposition, pp. 110-112, 118-119).

* Sibert said that the placement of the back wound below the scapula was both what he saw **and that it was "the first location that Humes gave us," i.e., that that was the location Humes gave for the wound during the autopsy (Deposition, pp. 161-162). (It should be noted that that location agrees with the location given for the wound on the autopsy face sheet.)

* Sibert noted that the back wound location's matched the holes in the back of the president's shirt and coat, and he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched-up high enough to account for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped to hold the shirt in place (Deposition, p. 162).

* Sibert said there were a lot of high-ranking military officers at the autopsy, that the autopsy room was crowded, and that it was fairly noisy (Deposition, pp. 76-77, 152).

* Sibert said there was no visible damage on the head forward of the right ear (Deposition, pp. 67-68).

* Sibert said the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head (Deposition, pp. 65-72). He said his 8-25-77 wound diagram for the HSCA made the wound somewhat too small and that the wound was "a little" to the right of where he placed it in that diagram (Deposition, pp. 70-71). In the diagram he placed the wound squarely in the middle of the back of the head (see Livingstone, KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY, p. 344). Sibert said it was a little larger than that and a little more to the right of the midline (Deposition, p. 71).

* Sibert said the alleged autopsy photo of the back of the head (which shows the back of the head intact) did not "at all" match his recollection of the wound, and he speculated that for this photo scalp had been pulled over the large defect (Deposition, pp. 126-128).

* Sibert said he did not remember seeing the metal stirrup that is seen to support Kennedy's head in some of the autopsy photos (Deposition, p. 122).

* With regard to Humes's statement at the start of the autopsy that it was apparent there had been surgery to the head, Sibert said that was exactly what Humes said, and that at no point during the autopsy did Humes retract or qualify that statement (Deposition, pp. 95-96).

Edward Reed

Former Bethesda Naval Hospital x-ray technician Edward Reed told the ARRB that Kennedy's body arrived in a "typical military, aluminum casket" (Deposition of Edward F. Reed to the ARRB, October 21, 1997, pp. 25-26). When counsel asked Reed if he would describe the casket as a ceremonial casket, Reed replied, "No." Asked what kinds of handles the casket had, Reed said, "Just the normal stainless steel handles." (Some have suggested that two caskets were employed in a sort of shell game at Bethesda. Noel Twyman's examines this possibility in his 1997 book BLOODY TREASON.)

John Stringer

We can add John Stringer, who was a photographer at the autopsy, to the list of witnesses who saw an entrance wound right next to the external occipital protuberance (EOP), near the hairline. We read in the recently released ARRB medical interviews that Stringer told the ARRB (1) that the rear head entrance wound was where the autopsy doctors said it was, i.e., near the hairline, next to the EOP, and (2) that the supposed image of a higher entry wound on the skull was NOT the entrance wound he saw on the night of the autopsy (indeed, Stringer denied this image is that of a bullet wound) (Deposition of John T. Stringer to the ARRB, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196).

For any newcomers, this is very important because this is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound could not have been caused by a bullet from the so-called "Oswald sniper's window." In other words, Oswald could not have fired the missile that struck the back of President Kennedy's head.

Another point of interest is that Stringer acknowledged to the ARRB that the extant set of autopsy photos is INCOMPLETE (Deposition, pp. 215-216). Surely WC apologists will finally drop their arguments for the completeness of the existing set of autopsy photos.

What It All Means

Some 30 years later, we are finally getting a glimpse into a key phase of the assassination conspiracy, namely, the cover-up. We are also, finally, getting a pretty clear picture of the true nature of the president's wounds. The new disclosures confirm previous evidence of shots from the front.

One wonders what Warren Commission defenders will say to these disclosures. "Human error"? Was O'Donnell dreaming or mistaken when he said Knudsen showed him photos that showed a large wound in the back of the head? Is it, therefore, just a coincidence that dozens of other witnesses said they saw a large wound in the back of the head? Was O'Donnell dreaming or mistaken when he said he saw a photo that showed an apparent entrance wound in JFK's right temple? Is it just a coincidence, therefore, that initial reports from Parkland Hospital said there was an entrance wound in the right temple? Was Custer dreaming or mistaken when he said he clearly recalled taking photos showing missile fragments in the C3/C4 region of the neck? Was Custer dreaming or mistaken when he recalled seeing a large fragment from the back? Is it, therefore, just a coincidence that there are several other reports of a large fragment or bullet falling from the back or from the body wrappings at some point after the body arrived to the hospital? Was Von Hoesen dreaming or mistaken when he said he saw a large wound in the back of the head? Was he part of the alleged mass hallucination in which trained medical personnel looked at a wound that was "really" above the right ear but "mistakenly" thought they saw it in the back of the skull? Was Knudsen dreaming or mistaken when he told his wife there were autopsy photos missing and that another photo had been altered? And on and on we could go.

At some point, reason and candor must prevail. The "human error" explanation, if it can even be called such, has long since ceased to be credible. There is now powerful, compelling evidence that there was a large wound at the back of the skull, which means the autopsy photos that show the back of the head undamaged are fakes--either the wound was covered with scalp for the purpose of these photos or the photos were simply doctored after the fact. Furthermore, we now have additional evidence that a bullet struck the president in the right temple, just as the initial reports from Parkland Hospital said was the case. It's now clearer than ever that a bare minimum of one shot was fired from the front, and hence that there was a conspiracy.

Back to Michael T. Griffith

Edited September 5, 2010 by Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore · December 9, 2009

---thanks to jim Ostrowski

and geraldven fyi...from James W. Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters".

THE WARREN COMMISSION QUESTIONING TACTICS THAT MADE ARLEN SPECTER SENATOR FOR LIFE

An example of Arlen Specter "leading the witness" during his interview of the Parkland doctors is taken from James W. Douglass' book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It matters:

When the government took charge with its official story of a lone assassin firing from the rear. the doctors were pressured by the Warren Commission to change their initial observations of Kennedy's body. The Warren Commission's staff counsel, Arlen Specter, a future U.S. senator,confronted the Dallas doctors with a question that contained the answer the Commission was seeking:

"Assuming... that the bullet passed through the President's body, going in between the strap muscles of the shoulder without violating the pleura space and exited at a point in the midline of the neck, would the hole which you saw on the President's throat be consistent with an exit point, assuming the factors which I have just given to you"(note 551, Chapter 6)

As Charles Crenshaw (who was not asked to testify) pointed out later, Specter had asked the doctors, "If the bullet exited from the front of Kennedy's throat, could the wound in the front of Kennedy's throat have been an exit wound" (note 552, Chapter 6)

The doctors went along with Specter's show of logic: Yes, assuming the bullet exited from the the front of Kennedy's throat, that wound could indeed have been an exit wound. Pressed further by Warren Commission member Gerald Ford, who would later become president, Dr. Malcolm Perry repudiated as "inaccurate" the press reports of his clear description of the hole in the throat as an entrance wound.(note 553)

That was not enough for Allen Dulles, who wanted the Warren Commission to draw extensively on the doctors' denial of their earliest press statements as a way to counteract the "false rumors" of the hole in the throat as an entrance wound. The Commission, Dulles felt, needed "to deal with a great many of the false rumors that have been spread on the basis of false interpretation of these appearances before television, radio, and so forth (note 554)

Dr. Perry's retraction was not only manipulated but given under stress. He had been threatened beforehand by "the men in suits," specifically the Secret Service. As Dallas Secret Service agent Elmer Moore would admit to a friend years later, he "had been ordered to tell Dr. Perry to change his testimony." Moore said that in threatening Perry he acted "on orders from Washington and Mr. Kelly of the Secret Service Headquarters." (note 555, Chapter 6)

Moore confessed his intimidation of Dr. Perry to a University of Washington graduate student, Jim Gochenaur, with whom he became friendly in Seattle in 1970. Moore told Gochenaur he "had badgered Dr. Perry" into "making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck" (note 556) Moore admitted, "I regret what I had to do with Dr. Perry." (note 557) However, with his fellow agents, he had been given "marching order from Washington." He felt he had no choice: "I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we'd get our heads cut off." (note 558) In the cover-up the men in suits were both the intimidators and the intimidated.

With the power of the government marshaled against what the Parkland doctors had seen, they entered into what Charles Crenshaw called "a conspiracy of silence." (note 559) When Crenshaw finally broke his own silence in 1992, he wrote:

"I believe there was a common denominator in our silence-- a fearful perception that to come forward with what we believed to be the medical truth would be asking for trouble. Although we never admitted it to one another, we realized that the inertia of the established story was so powerful. so thoroughly presented, so adamantly accepted, that it would bury anyone who stood in its path... I was as afraid of the men in suits as I was of the men who had assassinated the President... I reasoned that anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor. (note 560, Chapter 6)

The above is taken from James W. Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters".

Excerpted by Gerald Ven, JFK Lancer, bold type emphasis added, Jim Ostrowski

b..

December 9, 2009

It is so unusual that a comment like this should be posted on a major newspaper in Texas that I want to preserve it. They appear to be playing it straight, except there have been three recommendations of the comment, while the paper reports zero at the top. Jim

AP Texas News

NOW

53 o

NEWSSPORTS BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT LIFE TRAVEL BLOGS

JOBSHOMES CARS CLASSIFIEDS

Mobile | SMS

icon 1 Comments

0 Recommend

Doctor who attended JFK in Dallas has died

Dec. 7, 2009, 10:37PM

Share

icon Print

iconShare

iconDel.icio.us

iconDigg

iconTwitter

Yahoo! Buzz

iconFacebook

iconStumbleUpon

DALLAS — Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry II, who attended to President John F. Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital after he was shot in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, has died. He was 80.

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, the teaching hospital for Parkland, said Monday that Perry died Saturday in Tyler after a battle with lung cancer.

Perry was an assistant professor of surgery at UT Southwestern and a vascular surgeon on the Parkland staff when he became the first staff surgeon to treat Kennedy.

In an extensive interview by the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination, Perry recalled taking the case over from the senior resident, checking the president's vital signs and finding none but noting a convulsive effort to breath. He performed a tracheotomy on the president while other staff doctors and surgeons gathered to help.

Perry and another surgeon performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Kennedy until no brain activity was detected on the trauma room instruments. At 1 p.m., Kennedy was declared dead by Dr. Kemp Clark, the UT Southwestern neurosurgery chairman, from a catastrophic head wound.

Dr. Robert McClelland was the last surgeon to attend Kennedy in Trauma Room 1. McClelland, a longtime friend and Parkland and UT Southwestern colleague of Perry's, remembers that the shock of realizing whom they were treating faded quickly when they entered the trauma room.

"At Parkland we're accustomed, all of us are, to treating many different cases," McClelland told The Associated Press on Monday. "Of course, it's the president," he said. Was it hard to put that aside? "No, not really. Everything was so rapidly happening that we were called on the peak of the moment."

Perry told the commission that the neck wound Kennedy suffered from the sniper's first rifle shot would likely have not been fatal. However, he testified that neither he nor Clark could tell from their examinations from where the bullets came.

The vascular surgeon also was one of the doctors to operate on presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, who was shot two days after Kennedy's death by Jack Ruby.

After a long career, Perry retired in 2000 as professor emeritus of surgery at UT Southwestern. But McClelland, now 80, said that after the assassination his friend never mentioned their role in the case, and that they never discussed it even among themselves.

"No, we didn't, for reasons he kept to himself. Immediately after, he had a bad experience with interviews that hurt him deeply. Whenever the subject threatened to come up, he'd raise an eyebrow and that would be that," he said.

Perry was born in Allen, Texas, a once-tiny farming-and-railroad town about 20 miles north of Dallas that is now one of the city's fastest-growing suburbs. He was raised by his grandfather and namesake, Dr. Malcolm O. Perry I, a general practitioner in the small town.

___

Associated Press writer Jamie Stengle contributed to this report.

Comments

Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Houston Chronicle. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.

You must be logged in to comment. Login | Sign up

Submit

Report item as: (required) X

Comment: (optional)

* Most recommended comments

* Most recent comments

* Hide comments

JamesFetzer (0)

JamesFetzer wrote:

Quite a few years ago, I wrote to Malcolm Perry, M.D., in relation to his

experiences during the treatment of President John F. Kennedy. Because

I was aware of his contemporaneous reports about the wound the the throat

as well as the wound to the head, I was acutely distressed by the letter that

I received in reply. It was a handwritten letter on lined paper that affirmed

THE WARREN REPORT (1964) in describing the throat wound as an exit

wound. This saddened me, having read the Parkland Press Conference, which

began at 3:16 PM on 22 November 1963, during which he described the wound

to the throat as "an entrance wound", as "a wound of entrance", and said