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

[Mark Stapleton]

I agree with Ashton's logic, but not necessarily the conclusions drawn therefrom.

I cannot accept a planned scenario which in advance included Burkley and Perry

and Bowron as co-conspirators.

I suggest a yet unknown theory may be available to account for the activities

of Bowron, Burkley and Perry.

I agree that some of them may be lying...but lying is not always synonymous with

guilt. There may be OTHER reasons for their lies.

I think Ashton is onto something, but is latching onto an obvious conclusion without

considering other unknown possibilities.

Jack

That's my take on it too, Jack.

Ashton is onto something, but witnesses can always be pressured into testifying the way others want to see it--and this case is full of that. When a fallacy or a deliberately contrived sequence of events is entered into the official record, the truth of the matter becomes much harder to ascertain.

I'm having trouble believing Admiral Burkley could be genuinely implicated in the coverup, but he, among many others, may have been suborned.

Edited October 30, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Tim Gratz]

Is it not curious that Burkley, the ONLY physician present both at Parkland and Bethesda, was never called to testify before EITHER the WC or the HSCA?

[Ashton Gray]

I agree with Ashton's logic, but not necessarily the conclusions drawn therefrom.

It would be an enormous help to me if you would quote the specific purported conclusions of mine with which you disagree. Assuming, arguendo, that I have drawn any such conclusion, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the particulars and my rationale for any such conclusion rather than leaving a grand cloud of generality floating in the forum. I feel there's far too much smoke already.

I cannot accept a planned scenario which in advance included Burkley and Perry and Bowron as co-conspirators.

First, I really don't ask anyone to accept anything. On the contrary, I urge others to question and inspect everything. That has its own application to this very issue—which I'll get to in a moment

Second, I have made every good faith effort to confine my presentation as much as possible to a dispassionate recitation of facts of records and visual evidence—spiced only with my own stylistic jabs and pokes of fun at hyperinflated seriousness. (I realize that my sometimes ascerbic humor alienates some people, but there's no malice in it; it's nothing more than a rhetorical device to hold interest and get people to look at the facts.)

Third, pursuant to "second" above, I have willfully refrained from putting forth any "planned scenarios"—hypotheses or theories—that would embrace the facts I'm presenting. If you will reread this thread carefully, I believe you will find that to be the actual case.

I just responded to a similar comment by Paul Rigby in a thread he started, Why transcript 1327C is a fraud. He, too, suggested that I had asserted that these medical personnel at issue were co-conspirators, and he, too, did not quote me as having said any such thing anywhere.

The phenomenon seems to have this anatomy:

1. I post relevant evidence and facts of record.
   
2. Readers follow these facts and see that they are well researched and accurate.
   
3. In following the facts I post, readers arrive at their own conclusions from the facts.
   
4. Readers then incorrectly attribute their own conclusions from the facts to me.
   

Whether any given reader's conclusions from the facts align with any conclusion I might privately have arrived at or not is beside the point. The point is that it is the facts that are creating a trail that leads readers to a conclusion of their own creation. It isn't me.

Which brings me to your next comment:

I suggest a yet unknown theory may be available to account for the activities of Bowron, Burkley and Perry.

You would have my rapt attention if you—or anyone—would posit such a theory that does embrace all the facts and yet leaves all the medical personnel who were at Parkland that fateful afternoon free of any and all suspicion of complicity.

The problem that I predict you will find is exactly the problem that you already have encountered—and mistakenly attributed to me: the facts have led you logically to a conclusion that emotionally you don't want to accept.

Your rejection of such a conclusion is made easier if you deny your own responsibility for having created that conclusion yourself and incorrectly attribute the conclusion to me.

I realize I am stepping well outside my own boundaries of presentation of facts of records here, but I think it's very important, at this point, to explore at least briefly a factor of black psy ops that I believe is forcefully at work in this entire issue.

It is the principle of the "ally."

Most simply put, there is no more powerful emotional force that can be brought into play than reliance upon and trust in allies.

In the group trauma of the murder of John F. Kennedy, at all relevant times the medical personnel at Parkland hospital have been presented as having been dedicated allies working selflessly to attempt to save the life of John F. Kennedy.

They are the heroes of the drama. They are the White Hats. They are the Good Guys. They are beyond suspicion.

I have jokingly referred to belief in a frontal shot as being tantamount to a religion and based on faith. While there is no question that I have taken that analogy to hyperbolic extremes, at the core of it is a powerful truth, and it is precisely this unshakable faith in the medical personnel as allies.

This is no treatise on how "the ally computation" figures into black psy ops on a societal level—and it is a rich subject indeed—but unless and until one can separate oneself from just such an unquestioning faith in and reliance upon persons conceived to be allies as being entirely beyond suspicion, one has prejudiced and crippled the freedom of his own logical analysis in favor of powerful emotions.

It is why mothers never can bring themselves to believe their offspring capable of having done harm, no matter how many bodies are brought out from under the house.

I agree that some of them may be lying...but lying is not always synonymous with guilt. There may be OTHER reasons for their lies.

I'm afraid your statement makes the case for the "ally computation" more powerfully than I ever could do myself.

Ashton

[Jack White]

Excuse my feeble powers of comprehension. I have followed your study of

the neck wound with interest and inferred that you suggested complicity of

Burkley, Bowron or Perry in creation of a false wound of entry in the lower

anterior neck, under the collar. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you wrote.

Burkley is certainly a suspect because of his other actvities (Bethesda, etc).

But I have yet to be shown how he had the opportunity AT Parkland to

create such a wound. Perry and Bowron likewise seem unlikely candidates

for creating a piercing wound of the larynx. Burkley could be part of the

plot, but I cannot conceive Perry and Bowron being conspirators. If there

was a wound CREATED, I cannot conceive who ordered it or what the

reason would have been. I agree with you that a bullet did not transit

the necktie in either direction, so a bullet wound in the throat is implausible.

I support your search for the cause of the wound, if it existed.

As you correctly point out, the testimony of these three leaves us with

unclear descriptions of this wound. To leave no doubt among your

readers, please state your conclusions as follows, yes or no.

1. Burkley may have created the throat wound...yes or no?

2. Perry may have created the throat wound...yes or no?

3. Bowron may have created the throat wound...yes or no?

4. One or all of these three may have lied about it...yes or no?

5. Some other party may have created the throat wound...yes or no?

6. The throat wound occurred after Elm Street but before full examination of

the body at Parkland...yes or no? Or when?

I am just trying to understand your position. I thought I understood, but

apparently not. Please clarify.

Thanks.

Jack

[Ashton Gray]

I have followed your study of the neck wound with interest and inferred that you suggested complicity of Burkley, Bowron or Perry in creation of a false wound of entry in the lower anterior neck, under the collar. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you wrote.

Jack, the point and distinction I was making earlier is that what you have inferred was inferred from the facts I've presented and not from any statement or assertion from me of "complicity of Burkley, Bowron or Perry." That I am the one who presented the facts does not equate to my stating such an assertion or conclusion. I haven't.

I don't want to beat this distinction to death, but when people reach a conclusion from the facts concerning possible "complicity of Burkley, Bowron or Perry," I think it is important for them to understand that I have not made any such assertion. I've merely laid out relevant incontrovertible facts about the statements and actions of Burkley, Bowron, and Perry, amongst others.

What I have said unequivocally—it's even in the title of this thread—and have demonstrated with visual evidence is that no bullet (or any projectile) possibly could have made such a wound in Kennedy's throat.

Pursuant to that rather obvious observation and conclusion, I further have stated that the only possibility left is that the throat wound was inflicted somewhere between Dealey Plaza and the time that Dr. Malcolm O. Perry entered Trauma Room One at Parkland hospital and destroyed the wound by slicing through it.

I consider it highly unlikely that the throat wound was inflicted in the limo en route to Parkland hospital, and unless and until some evidence emerges to support such an unlikely event, I consider it eliminated.

That leaves only a relatively small window of opportunity for the inflicting of such a wound: between the time Kennedy was removed from the limousine and the time that Perry made the tracheostomy incision.

Burkley is certainly a suspect because of his other actvities (Bethesda, etc). But I have yet to be shown how he had the opportunity AT Parkland to create such a wound.

I quite agree that Burkley is suspect, which I have stated in agreement with Paul Rigby on this point just within the last 24 hours.

I already have discussed the question of opportunity for Burkley in this and other threads, but I'll summate it briefly here:

1. Dr. James Carrico, the first Parkland doctor to attend Kennedy, testified: "Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he [the President] got to the hospital."
   
2. Burkley himself said: "I was there probably within three to five minutes of the time the President arrived. I went immediately in to see the President, and went to the table on which he was being treated... ." Burkley further says that he "checked the President's physical condition."
   
3. Burkley was in Trauma Room One when Perry arrived and is the person who gave the doctors the adrenaline steroids—Sol U Cortef according to Burkley, also called Solu Cortef—to administer intravenously.
   

There is no question in my mind that Burkley had opportunity, and there is nothing in the record that precludes such opportunity. It reasonably could be postulated—though it is not in the record—that as personal physician to the President of the United States, Burkley was afforded a certain amount of deference by the nurses and Dr. Carrico when he "checked the President's condition," and that as a result he might have enjoyed unique opportunity. Of course this is something that I cannot prove, but I feel it's worthy of consideration and I can say unequivocally that it is not excluded by the evidence and testimony of record.

Perry and Bowron likewise seem unlikely candidates for creating a piercing wound of the larynx.

Perry is very unlikely for having created the piercing wound and the evidence strongly suggests that he can be eliminated as having created the wound. At the same time there is no question whatsoever that he is the one who destroyed all evidenciary value of the wound and thereby precluded any chance of anyone ever determining how it had been created.

Bowron had opportunity for creating the wound.

Burkley could be part of the plot, but I cannot conceive Perry and Bowron being conspirators.

Okay.

If there was a wound CREATED, I cannot conceive who ordered it or what the reason would have been.

I'll say again that the President of the United States was not dead when he arrived at Parkland hospital. However grave his condition might have been, he was not dead. If there were a conspiracy involved to murder John F. Kennedy, it seems rather obvious that the architects of the conspiracy would have "ordered it" as the contingency plan for Kennedy arriving at Parkland still alive.

In fact, I believe that this is a very good time to introduce the following rather chilling statement from Malcolm O. Perry himself concerning Kennedy's agonal breathing, with a bit of context leading up to it, my bold emphasis added:

DR. PETERS:

I have asked many people over the years, "Did you really see the President take a breath," and Dr. Baxter— or Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Carrico both said they thought they saw an agonal respiration.

DR. PERRY:

So did I.

DR. McCLELLAND:

I did, too.

DR. BAXTER:

I think we all did.

DR. McCLELLAND:

Yeah. When I came in the room the very first thing—

DR. PETERS:

Well, that's—

DR. McCLELLAND:

—that hit me was—

DR. PERRY:

Had he not—

DR. McCLELLAND:

—he did that.

DR. PERRY:

In the absence of a pulse and the absence of detectable pressures and everything,

had he not had that, I would not have done the trach.

I believe the reason Perry "would not have done the trach" is that had there been no such agonal respiration, there would have been no throat wound for Perry to eradicate the evidence of.

Now in order to avoid the forum's tyrannical "Quotations Nanny," I'll have to continue this reply in another message immediately to follow.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

Continuing my reply to Jack White from the message immediately above:

To leave no doubt among your readers, please state your conclusions as follows, yes or no.

1. Burkley may have created the throat wound...yes or no?

Yes. Burkley had opportunity, as I documented in my previous message.

2. Perry may have created the throat wound...yes or no?

No. Others saw the wound before Perry arrived in Trauma Room One.

3. Bowron may have created the throat wound...yes or no?

Yes. Bowron was involved in the removal of the clothing and had opportunity.

4. One or all of these three may have lied about it...yes or no?

5. Some other party may have created the throat wound...yes or no?

Yes to both.

In response to 4., it is inarguable that Bowron lied about the throat wound. I'll also say here that a material lie, such as Bowron is proven to have told, is not the only form of obfuscation. Omitting vital information or vital facts is one of the most common and insidious methods of obfuscation. Obviously, if someone who was in Trauma Room One created the throat wound, whoever it was has omitted that fact from the record. Less obviously, the presence of Burkley at relevant times has been so omitted or downplayed by all personnel who testified that it implies strongly an intentional suppression of the fact and circumstances of Burkley's presense.

In response to 5., others who may have had opportunity include several of the SS agents, an orderly named "Joe" who helped Bowron roll Kennedy into the emergency room area, Dr. Carrico, and Nurse Henchliffe. That list is inclusive, not necessarily exclusive.

6. The throat wound occurred after Elm Street but before full examination of

the body at Parkland...yes or no? Or when?

I actually already answered this in my previous message, but to state it again, I believe it most likely by far that the puncture wound in Kennedy's throat was administered after he was removed from the limousine, either while being rolled toward Trauma Room One or once he was inside Trauma Room One, before or as the tie and shirt were being removed.

I am just trying to understand your position.

I hope this helps.

Ashton

[Jack White]

Excellent. Thanks. Very clearly stated. No room for improper inference.

I agree with many of your points.

Still a mystery on which I wish not to speculate IS WHO ADMINISTERED

THE WOUND, which I have never thought could be a bullet hole. But your

posting clearly indicates an area which ought to be studied.

One additional comment...Burkley was the "official" govt physician

assigned to the president as customary. JFK considered his PERSONAL

PHYSICIAN to be Dr. Janet Travell.

Jack

[Tim Gratz]

This is a very interesting and intriguing thread, to be sure.

I have a fundamental question and I apologize if it has already been answered since I admit I have not studied all of the posts.

JFK's head wound was obviously fatal. No way he could have survived even in a vegatative state.

So what was the purpose of the wound to the throat if Mr. Gray's scenario is correct?

Edited October 31, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Charles Drago]

Since I first raised the issue with Ashton, I think my response here is appropriate.

The power, symbolic and otherwise, of JFK alive -- even in a vegetative state -- likely would have led at least to the unraveling of the conspiracy, and perhaps to the destruction of the highest-level conspirators.

Further, we cannot assume that a Parkland hitter of the "first responder" variety had the ability to differentiate between survivable and non-survivable wounds. Don't forget that there are many conflicting descriptions of the head trauma, the severity of which became more obvious only with the passage of time.

What was it that Mrs. Kennedy said? "From the front [top?], you know, there was nothing." And some ER physicians did not detect the posterior head wound of exit until JFK's head was lifted/manipulated.

In other words, take no chances.

Charles

[Ashton Gray]

Since I first raised the issue with Ashton, I think my response here is appropriate.

The power, symbolic and otherwise, of JFK alive -- even in a vegetative state -- likely would have led at least to the unraveling of the conspiracy, and perhaps to the destruction of the highest-level conspirators.

Further, we cannot assume that a Parkland hitter of the "first responder" variety had the ability to differentiate between survivable and non-survivable wounds. Don't forget that there are many conflicting descriptions of the head trauma, the severity of which became more obvious only with the passage of time.

I also earlier posted about the strange case of Phineas P. Gage, who, in a moment of distraction (women, gnats, who knows?) while "working on the railroad all the live-long day," managed to get a prodigious iron tamping bar blown through his head, viz:

The diagram demonstrates the path and size of the missile, not that it lodged in his head, because it did not (it landed nearly thirty yards away), but the point is that Phineas lived (in a manner of speaking), even went back to work for a while before becoming a sideshow attraction. The fact that Phineas lived gave the world the great gift of psychiatry's favorite form of butchery for decades, the lobotomy.

With such precedent, I don't believe that uncertainty about Kennedy's chances for survival in the very early few minutes at Parkland would have been limited to some medically-uninformed person at all.

This, in fact, brings to the surface yet another unattractive but crucial factor in consideration of all the foregoing in this thread, something perhaps best introduced in the words of the very man who destroyed all evidenciary value of the throat wound and obliterated any chance of anyone ever finding out how the throat wound had been inflicted—Dr. Malcolm O. Perry (bold emphasis added):

MR. SPECTER:

Why did you

elect

to make the tracheotomy incision

through the wound

in the neck, Dr. Perry?

DR. PERRY:

The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly, is

customarily the spot

one would

electively perform

the tracheotomy. This is

one of the

safest and

easiest spots to reach the trachea

.

Now, considering for the moment, just arguendo, the Front Shot Faithful dogma that this wound was a bullet wound (which it could not possibly have been), I have no idea how any mere mortal even would approach the challenge of computing the odds of such a small round wound to the throat just happening to be right-smack-dab at "one of the...easiest spots to reach the trachea" and right-smack-dab at the location that Perry says is "customarily the spot one would electively perform" a tracheostomy (but stay tuned). I dare venture that it's not even possible to compute such odds; I doubt that medical literature holds enough records to make any such computation possible.

It's safe to say, though, that it's got to be one of the eeriest "coincidences" in the entirety of the Kennedy assassination—even for the most die-hard fanatic of the Front Shot Faithful cult.

If, though, the throat wound was, in fact, inflicted at Parkland hospital with a piercing device (and, really, it could not be otherwise), then this absolutely astounding "coincidence" is no "coincidence" at all: the placement of the wound was precisely planned so that a tracheostomy could eradicate evidence of it having been inflicted by hand. The very fact of its propitious location then militates ponderously toward a conclusion that the hand that wielded such a device was very thoroughly familiar with tracheostomy procedure, and stabbed the device precisely where a tracheostomy could justifiably be placed to eradicate the evidence.

This brings us immediately back to the statement by Perry that the location of the punture wound was "customarily the spot one would electively perform" a tracheostomy. The operative word is "electively."

There are many papers, articles, and dissertations on the particulars of tracheostomy. I don't aim to attempt to synthesize them all, and don't claim to be qualified, but one that I find a useful summary of those that I have read is "Traheostomy: Introduction," by Ara A. Chalian, M.D. In pertinent part, that article says (my bold emphasis):

The cutaneous incision may be made either vertically or horizontally

. ...The

level and location of the incision may vary

, depending on individual surgeons' preferences. In general, a good placement is 1 cm below the cricoid or halfway between the cricoid and the sternal notch .

The size of the incision is also, to an extent, a matter of individual preference.

...I strive to use the smallest possible safe incision.

For transverse incisions, 2 to 2.5 cm is often adequate. In an emergency setting, a longer incision—often vertical

—may facilitate exposure and help the surgeon avoid...anterior jugular veins.

In the case of Perry's carving on Kennedy's throat, we find that Perry elected to make a transverse (horizontal, across the throat) incision rather than a vertical (along the midline of the trachea) incision. At this point, and in light of the foregoing, let's revisit Perry's artistry:

My, my. (Of course there's nothing in the record to suggest that Perry actually used a chain saw to make the incision—but it seems he might have.)

Leaving alone for now questions of the elective size and elective location of what could be called "Perry Canyon," I want to focus on the "vertical vs. transverse" incision decision that Perry made.

As Dr. Chalian points out (and other literature suggests), the vertical incision is common, and even can be safer "in an emergency setting" than a transverse incision, to avoid, e.g., risk of cutting jugular veins (as well as other considerations that I won't take up here). So why did Perry elect to make the incision transverse—across the throat—when the incision electively could have been made vertically, along the midline of the trachea, and might well have been safer if it were vertical?

The record is silent on the question.

Assume for a moment, though, arguendo, that Perry's intention in performing the tracheostomy did, indeed, include willful and witting intent to destroy evidence of the throat wound, and read the following descriptions of the throat wound by Dr. Carrico and by Perry himself:

DR. CARRICO:

This was probably a 4-7 mm. wound,

almost

in the midline, maybe

a little to the right of the midline

, and below the thyroid cartilage.

DR. PERRY:

Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made...

the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left

... . I noticed a small ragged

laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side

.

Clearly, the puncture wound was not on the midline of the trachea: it was slightly to the right side of the midline of the throat. As a result, the trachea had a slight laceration on that side and also had been pushed slightly to the left. Therefore, if, indeed, it were part of Perry's willful and witting intent to destroy evidence of the wound, then Perry had no choice but to make a transverse incision, because a vertical incision up the midline of the trachea would not have obliterated the wound.

In other words, take no chances.

Charles

I could not possibly have put it better.

Ashton

Edited November 1, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Tim Gratz]

It seems to me that if the idea was really to administer a "fatal blow" to JFK there would have been a way to stick him (perhaps in the mouth) without leaving evidence of such a puncture for Dr. Perry to see and state it looked to him like the ENTRY of a bullet wound--thus giving lots of ammunition to those proposing JFK was shot from the front.

Obviously if the issue was administering some type of poison to JFK there was no way for the plotters to ensure there would be no toxicology study performed. And if the poison could somehow escape detection, then why not insert it in his mouth? Or presumably even directly into his exposed brain, or what was left of it.

Moreover, the person piercing JFK would presumably have had to first loosen his tie, then tighten it again. And this was done with at least several people around his body?

Was his head wound obviously fatal? Gee, I have but one response to an argument that it was not: Z313.

In addition, the proposition that it was more likely that the conspirators would have been caught if JFK was left in a vegetative state rather than being dead seems to me counter-intuitive. VB points out (well he is right about a few things) that it was Jackie who decided where the autopsy would be conducted. Until she made that decision, the conspirators could not know who would be performing the autopsy and how thorough a job they would do. Had there been an adequate autopsy, it might have determined the existence of a conspiracy. But generally autopsies are not performed on persons who are living in a vegetative state.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

I already have discussed the question of opportunity for Burkley in this and other threads, but I'll summate it briefly here:

1. Dr. James Carrico, the first Parkland doctor to attend Kennedy, testified: "Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he [the President] got to the hospital."
   
2. Burkley himself said: "I was there probably within three to five minutes of the time the President arrived. I went immediately in to see the President, and went to the table on which he was being treated... ." Burkley further says that he "checked the President's physical condition."
   
3. Burkley was in Trauma Room One when Perry arrived and is the person who gave the doctors the adrenaline steroids—Sol U Cortef according to Burkley, also called Solu Cortef—to administer intravenously.
   

There is no question in my mind that Burkley had opportunity, and there is nothing in the record that precludes such opportunity. It reasonably could be postulated—though it is not in the record—that as personal physician to the President of the United States, Burkley was afforded a certain amount of deference by the nurses and Dr. Carrico when he "checked the President's condition," and that as a result he might have enjoyed unique opportunity. Of course this is something that I cannot prove, but I feel it's worthy of consideration and I can say unequivocally that it is not excluded by the evidence and testimony of record.

Let's be clear about this. I don't care if Ashton thinks Burkley did it or not. Burkley's behavior was mighty strange. But Burkley was not at the hospital when Kennedy arrived. Here is the transcript of Carrico's statement about Burkley's arrival. The "he" is clearly Burkley not Kennedy. Ashton has inserted "(the President)" in order to support his argument that Burkley was involved, which he claims is based on facts. Well, the fact is that Carrico is stating that Burkley got there as soon as he could, which implies he was not there at the beginning of Kennedy's treatment. If he was trying to say Burkley had been there all along he would have said "was there when Kennedy got to the hospital" or "within moments of Kennedy getting to the hospital." I know we've been over this but we'll never win debates with the likes of Bugliosi by misquoting testimony.

Mr. SPECTER - You have described a number of doctors in the course of your testimony up to this point. Would you state what other doctors were present during the time the President was treated, to the best of your recollection?

Dr. CARRICO - Well, I have already mentioned Dr. Don Curtis, the surgery resident; Martin White, an intern; Dr. Perry was there, Dr. Baxter, Dr. McClelland, a member of the surgery staff; Dr. Ronald Jones, chief surgery resident; Dr. Jenkins, chief of anesthesia; several other physicians whose names I can't remember at the present. Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital.

[Tim Gratz]

I am sure Pat can tell me where this came from but as I recall Dr Burkley said he held on to JFK's brain because had he been called to testify at the WC he was going to suggest that additional tests could be done on the brain. This does not sound like a conspirator to me. And of course we know that his attorney wrote to Sprague in the early days of the HSCA stating that Burkley had evidence of a conspiracy and was willing to discuss it. Again, not a likley thing for Dr Burkley to do if he was part of the conspiracy.

[Mark Stapleton]

Manchester writes (p.267) "The throat wound--which was then assumed to be an entry wound, because there was no time to turn him over--was small, and it exuded blood but slowly."

So, in order to narrow down the time at which the throat wound was sustained (assuming Ashton is right about the piercing needle/dart), then it is necessary to determine whether the shirt collar and tie were bloodstained (stains on other parts of JFK's shirt notwithstanding). I point out here that I don't know, but I would assume/hope Ashton, Pat or other experts would know.

In the absence of bloodstains on the relevant parts of the collar and tie, it could be reasonably assumed that the throat wound was sustained after JFK's clothes had been removed-- "it exuded blood but slowly". Looking again at the photo of JFK which Ashton provided in post #100 and in particular its location vis-a-vis the collar and tie (despite the fact that it shows the wound after Dr. Perry's incisions), it seems most likely to me that blood from the wound would have stained those items of clothing.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Bernice Moore]

Manchester writes (p.267) "The throat wound--which was then assumed to be an entry wound, because there was no time to turn him over--was small, and it exuded blood but slowly."

So, in order to narrow down the time at which the throat wound was sustained (assuming Ashton is right about the piercing needle/dart), then it is necessary to determine whether the shirt collar and tie were bloodstained (stains on other parts of JFK's shirt notwithstanding). I point out here that I don't know, but I would assume/hope Ashton, Pat or other experts would know.

In the absence of bloodstains on the relevant parts of the collar and tie, it could be reasonably assumed that the throat wound was sustained after JFK's clothes had been removed-- "it exuded blood but slowly". Looking again at the photo of JFK which Ashton provided in post #100 and in particular its location vis-a-vis the collar and tie (despite the fact that it shows the wound after Dr. Perry's incisions), it seems most likely to me that blood from the wound would have stained those items of clothing.

*********************

Mark:.....

Here are some photos for you....

Also Dr.Burkley arrived five minutes after the President ..in his own words....and no he never mentions a frontal or

neck wound...

It had to disappear....from what I have read...it had to be a particle from the rear, not a frontal shot...

that would have meant a conspiracy......of course.......He wrote this up on the 23rd....

B.....

Edited November 1, 2007 by Bernice Moore