The Trach Incision -

[Micah Mileto]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I vaguely recall someone on the forum saying that the tracheotomy incision was vertical. I replied by pointing out that the stare-of-death autopsy photo clearly shows the incision to be horizontal. IIRC the person did not defend what he'd said. If he read that somewhere, I wish he had defended it by referencing the source of that information. I'd like to see it.

For a long time many have said that the incision we see in the stare-of-death photo is significantly wider than the reported 2 to 3 cm. And only now it is being discovered that this was based on a fundamental misunderstanding the whole time?  I find that unsettling.

Hank Sienzant is the one that argued on another forum that the throat alteration theory was based on a simple misinterpretation of words (if we're going to rule out Crenshaw's account). I have no refutation. That may indeed be the case.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Micah Mileto

[Robert Prudhomme]

I agree there was a misinterpretation of the dimensions of the actual incision in the trachea with the dimensions of the incision made in the skin of JFK's throat. However, while I agree a 2-3 cm. incision in the skin of JFK's throat would be completely inadequate for inserting a 2 cm. diameter tube into JFK's trachea, as well as inspecting for underlying damage outside of the trachea, the gaping wound seen in the autopsy photo would also seem a bit absurd, just on the other end of the scale. An incision in the throat measuring somewhere between these two extremes would seem more reasonable. I do not believe we can rule out alteration quite yet.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

I agree there was a misinterpretation of the dimensions of the actual incision in the trachea with the dimensions of the incision made in the skin of JFK's throat. However, while I agree a 2-3 cm. incision in the skin of JFK's throat would be completely inadequate for inserting a 2 cm. diameter tube into JFK's trachea, as well as inspecting for underlying damage outside of the trachea, the gaping wound seen in the autopsy photo would also seem a bit absurd, just on the other end of the scale. An incision in the throat measuring somewhere between these two extremes would seem more reasonable. I do not believe we can rule out alteration quite yet.

I agree.

Beside the long length of the throat incision in Bethesda is the fact that it was opened. One of the Parkland docs said that the incision closed up nicely after the tube was removed. Though I suppose it could have opened up spontaneously on the trip to D.C.

In addition, at least one Bethesda witness claimed that the incision had been stitched up, presumably in Parkland.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I think it would depend on the position of JFK's head when the trach tube was removed. During the tracheotomy procedure, a rolled up towel is placed under the back of the neck in order to make the trachea stick out more than usual. When the trach tube was removed, this towel might have been removed, and his head tilted more toward his chest. This would naturally cause the wound to close up.

In the autopsy photo in which we see the gaping tracheostomy incision in JFK's neck, his head is tilted quite far back, stretching the throat incision and causing it to open.

There were definitely some very strange reports from Bethesda eyewitnesses. Do you recall which witness stated he saw the throat incision sutured shut?

[Sandy Larsen]

54 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

There were definitely some very strange reports from Bethesda eyewitnesses. Do you recall which witness stated he saw the throat incision sutured shut?

I couldn't recall, but did a quick search and found this HSCA testimony given by Dr. Ebersole:

"Upon removing the body from the coffin, the anterior aspect, the only things noticeable were a small irregular ecumonic area above the super ecolobular ridge and a neatly sutured transverse surgical wound across the low neck. As we turned the body on the autopsy table there was a textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline three or four centimeters to the right of the midline just perhaps inside the medial board to the upper scapula."

 

 

[Robert Prudhomme]

I have always wondered what an "ecumonic" area is, or just where on the human body the "super ecolobular ridge" is located.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

I have always wondered what an "ecumonic" area is, or just where on the human body the "super ecolobular ridge" is located.

Those appear to be nonsense words.

A long, long time ago I read a copy of a letter that had been dictated to a secretary in our office. There was a sentence I couldn't understand because of a word I was unaware of. It said that an engineering effort of 200 manures would be required to complete a task. I asked the secretary what it meant and she replied that she didn't know... she had just written what the guy said. I commented that to me it sounded like it would require a large pile of animal dung to complete the task. She laughed. But we figured the word -- with its "s" suffix -- must have had some other, technical meaning.

So I took it the letter to the person who had dictated it. As he read the letter his face turned red, tears came to his eyes, and what began as a hearty chuckle ended up as a moan. You see, what he had said was the it would require 200 man-hours of effort to complete the task. Not manures... man-hours. And the letter had already been mailed. 

The moral of the story is that technical words (and other unknown words) are sometimes mis-transcribed.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

It's possible that is what occurred with Dr. Ebersole. I like to think he believed the HSCA proceedings were a joke put over on the Americn public by a bunch of clowns, and this was his way of thumbing his nose at everyone. Ecumonic is not even a real word, and there is nothing in the body that even sounds like "super ecolobular ridge", unless Ebersole actually said "supraorbital ridge".

Now, if Ebersole meant the "supraorbital ridge", and was referring to the right supraorbital ridge, or just above it as I recall, we are onto something. Do you recall that, in some of the autopsy photos, there is a black "reference triangle" just above JFK's right supraorbital ridge? Is it just a coincidence that this triangle should be in the very spot Dr. Ebersole observed a "small irregular ecumonic area", whatever that is? If Ebersole's original testimony was misinterpreted while being recorded by the HSCA, I for one would very much like to know what he actually said to the HSCA, and if the actual words he used equated to "entrance wound made by bullet".

Edited December 4, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Of course, its entirely possible that Ebersole's words were purposely transcribed as gibberish by the HSCA, in order to conceal something about the true nature of JFK's wounds.

Here is another gem from Ebersole's HSCA testimony:

" The only function that I had was later in the evening, early in the morning, perhaps about twelve thirty a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I X rayed these. These were the last X rays I took. The X rays were taken by the Secret Service that evening; I did not see them again. "

Being the Assistant Chief of Radiology at Bethesda Naval Hospital, would Dr. Ebersole be qualified to identify a piece of skull bone as being occipital? And being that the occipital bone is entirely in the back of the head, and the autopsy photos show the back of JFK's head to be quite intact, how did a large fragment of JFK's occipital bone happen to arrive at Bethesda at a separate time than JFK's corpse?

PS

It is entirely possible that someone else just happened to lose a piece of occipital bone on that part of Elm St. at the same time JFK was shot, and the large fragment of occipital bone delivered from Dallas to Bethesda that night belonged to this other person. It is also entirely possible pigs might fly some day.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Sandy

Do you recall if any other witness at Bethesda, apart from Ebersole, reported seeing the throat incision sutured together when JFK was removed from the coffin?

 

[Robert Prudhomme]

If the Harper fragment was found in Dealey Plaza 24 hours after the assassination, it cannot be the large fragment of occipital bone Ebersole claimed was received from Dallas at Bethesda, just after midnight, even if one allows for the time difference between Dallas and Bethesda.

What became of this large fragment of occipital bone? Could it be part of the back of JFK's head Clint Hill saw lying on the back seat of the limo?

[Robert Prudhomme]

"...... a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I X rayed these. "

Ebersole, like so many witnesses in this case, seemed to have a poor command of the English language. Shouldn't he be saying "X-rayed it" instead of "X-rayed these", if he was referring to only one fragment of occipital bone to be x-rayed? Has something been removed from his testimony that refers to more than one fragment?

[Sandy Larsen]

Robert,

I'm aware only of Ebersole's claim that the throat incision was sutured. This seems like something Lifton would have written about in a later edition of Best Evidence. Unfortunately it looks like there isn't an edition that can be searched online.

Lifton would have also written about the Harper fragment. Something I've read is a conjecture that the Harper fragment arrived at Bethesda the night of the autopsy, but was taken back to Dallas so that it could be found in Dealey Plaza at a location AHEAD of where the limo was at the time of the head shot. So that it would suggest a shot from the back.

Surprisingly there is no mention of the Harper fragment in the Warren Report. And in addition the FBI lost the fragment. All that remains are photos taken before the fragment was handed over to the FBI. The 26 volumes of WC evidence does include a couple of FBI reports regarding the fragment. (Source)

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/4/2016 at 7:36 PM, Robert Prudhomme said:

"...... a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I X rayed these. "

Ebersole, like so many witnesses in this case, seemed to have a poor command of the English language. Shouldn't he be saying "X-rayed it" instead of "X-rayed these", if he was referring to only one fragment of occipital bone to be x-rayed? Has something been removed from his testimony that refers to more than one fragment?

 

There were reportedly three non-occipital skull fragments that arrived the night of the autopsy. Dr. Fink [see correction below] said that the Harper fragment also arrived. He may have been asked to x-ray all the fragments, which would be a total of four. So perhaps when he answered the question about the Harper fragment, he used the plural "these" because he had in mind that he x-rayed multiple fragments.

(BTW I doubt Ebersole himself did any x-raying. He likely just supervised the x-raying.)

 

CORRECTION: The person who said the Harper fragment arrived the night of the autopsy was Ebersole, not Finck. That is what I meant to write.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

Finck said the Harper fragment arrived the night of the autopsy?!?! Holy crap, Sandy, you have to tell me where I can find that statement from him.

It supposedly was not even discovered until the next day, and would not have left Dallas until almost the next evening; almost 24 hours after the autopsy. Could the "large fragment of the occipital bone" that Ebersole x-rayed have actually have been the Harper fragment?

Edited December 6, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme