David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

[Micah Mileto]

delete

Edited July 31, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

14 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Micah:

I'm restricting this post to the question you have asked, and am deliberately numbering the paragraphs which follow to facilitate study and commentary on what I have to say:

1. At some point during the life of the HSCA (as I recall), Robert Groden, along with a Baltimore reporter (name I don't recall just now) took the autopsy photos and showed them to Dr. Perry, who (at that time)  was  practicing medicine in New York City. Perry looked at the "stare of death" photo, shook his head from side to side, and said words to the effect that that's not the way he left the wound. Specifically, he said to Groden (as related to me and Pat Valentino in a June/July filmed interview at Groden's home in New Jersey): "I left the wound inviolate."

2 Groden went on to say that the quote stood out (for him) because, although he knew what the word ("inviolate") meant, he had never heard it used in conversation before.

3. Everything I have described above was recorded on film, when Pat Valentino and I visited with Groden at his home in (as I recall) Hopelawn, New Jersey, in June (or July) 1989.

NOW COMES "Inviolate" - - Part 2

4A. While at Groden's home, he took out his super-clear copy (obtained from some source, which he would not reveal) of the CBS interview of Dr. Perry (probably in late 1966) excerpts of which were aired in the famous (or "infamous") June 1967 CBS Special (narrated by Walter Cronkite) which defended the Warren Report.

4B: Transcripts of that show (as I recall) were published in a book by Steve White, then affiliated with CBS News, "Should we Now Believe the Warren Report?" --published by Macmillan in 1968.

See, for example, the listing at Amazon, where a used copy can be purchased for $4.50.  Here's the link:

https://www.amazon.com/Should-Now-Believe-Warren-Report/dp/B000FMILUY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519703878&sr=1-1&keywords="Should+we+now+believe+the+Warren+Report%3F"

 

4C:  Here's why White's book was (and still is) important: it contained what purported to be very official transcripts from the CBS broadcasts.  The transcript read (from memory) that Perry explained the confusion (about whether the throat wound was entry or exit) by stating that his trach incision through the bullet wound had "rendered it invalid." (These words are the key: "rendered it invalid".)

4D: At Robert Groden's home, he put a video copy into a playback machine, and we watched.  Pat V and I were watching, and expected the video to confirm what I knew (or believed I knew) from the White transcript. But instead, as the video played, and came to that point, Perry didn't say that at all. Instead, he said (and this was on the audio track): that he left the wound inviolate.

4E: Pat and I were both astounded, and rose up off our chairs, loudly exclaiming: "What?!!!".  Groden wanted to know what the heck we were so excited about, and we asked him to back up the tape, and play it again, and again, and again. . . there was no doubt about it: Perry said, on the tape, that he left the wound "inviolate"!  However. .  (see next point)

5. In the Steve White book (again, "as I recall") it read: "I rendered the wound invalid". . whereas in official CBS transcripts I had ordered, years before, from CBS in New York,  those transcripts said something different. They transcript actually used the word "inviolate".,

6. Groden, meanwhile, wanted to know what the heck was going on, and why we were both so excited. We promised to tell him, but first wanted to interview him, on camera, before we "closed the loop" and explained our reaction. We wanted a faithful filmed record of his understanding of the matter, not influenced by any theory or hypothesis that we had.

7. So now, we set up the camera, and the lights, and the audio, etc., and had a multi-hour filmed interview with Robert Groden, in which Groden explained, in detail, his visit to Dr. Perry in New York City, and what had happened when he was shown the face-up ("stare of death") autopsy photo: how Perry shook his head from side to side and said, "I left the wound inviolate."

8. After we had this point thoroughly nailed down, and discussed every which way, we then honored our agreement, and proceeded to tell Groden (on camera) just what it was we were so excited about.

9. As I have described (above), all of this is on film.

10. I think it was within two days of that filmed shoot, that we visited with Dr. Dave Stewart, and had an important multi-hour interview with him. That interview was very important because, although Steward was not in ER-1, he had a good relationship with Perry, and so could comment on what Perry's state of mind was, and (perhaps, because I don't have a transcript in front of me just now) exactly what Perry said. But see point 11.

11A. In 1967 (as I recall), Stewart had told one of the major Tennessee newspapers that Perry had said it was not  necessary to make an incision (at all); he simply pushed the trach tube into the little bullet hole that was already there (i.e., what I, and many others, believe to have been a bullet entry wound).

11B: Update. I recently found an obscure late 1960s record in which Dr. McClelland said the same thing (!).

11C: When this matter was discussed in detail on a special private email thread run by JFK researcher Paul Hoch, the late Gary Mack contributed to the discussion. Mack wrote that he had checked the relevant CBS tapes and that yes, Dr. Perry stated that he had left the wound “inviolate.”  As I recall, JFK researcher Todd Vaughan agreed.

12. Of course, this adds a whole other dimension to the controversy: if Perry didn't have to make an incision, no wonder he was shocked when he saw the  stare-of-death photo, with its wide gash; but, more importantly, Perry twice testified under oath (once in his WC deposition, in Dallas, and then when he went before the Commission in Washington) that he had made a horizontal incision in the throat when he performed the tracheotomy. (And remember: when I called Perry on 10/27, and inquired about the incision length, he initially me it was "2-3 cm" (as I reported in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence.   If Perry didn't have to make an incision, then he perjured himself when he testified otherwise.

13. The Warren Commission (and the Secret Service and/or the FBI) was derelict in not finding this  1966 (or 1967) front page story in the Tennessee newspaper that quoted Stewart as stating that Perry told him he did not have to make an incision. That's something that should have been unearthed in the FBI investigation. (For those who may be unaware: the FBI read all the major newspapers, and stories like that were duly noted, and filed, with a routing slip that often indicated their distribution to FBI Director Hoover and all the other Assistant Directors).

14. I have never checked the original FBI records to see whether it was clipped and filed. (It ought to have been, but I can't say that it was, or wasn't).

FURTHER COMMENT:

To those who wonder why Final Charade has taken so long to complete, the above story--about something that seems "so simple" is a good example.  The issue at first may appear to be nothing but the pursuit of a simple, and perhaps inconsequential "factoid," but in fact its dead serious. At issue is not just whether the throat wound was altered (considerably enlarged, in a brutal fashion, so that, as the Bethesda autopsy states, it had "widely gaping irregular edges"); but, in addition, it has serious implications as to whether Dr. Malcolm Perry committed perjury when he testified that he made an incision in order to perform the tracheotomy. In other words, we "know" a trach tube was inserted into that opening at the front of President Kennedy's neck - -the question is, was it necessary to make an incision (as Perry testified) or was it possible that he simply was able to insert the tube through the pre-existing bullet hole which, fortuitously, was situated at just the right spot to insert a trach tube and reach the windpipe (the trachea)?   Finally, if Perry said "I left the wound inviolate," and if that is what appears in the official CBS transcripts of the June 1967 TV broadcast, then how is one to explain the CBS transcript that was published in Stephen White's book (in an Appendix at the back) and which has Perry saying "I rendered the wound invalid"?  Finally, and this is purely my personal opinion: as Pat Valentino and I watched Groden's excellent copy of the Perry interview (as broadcast in June 1967),. it seemed clear to me (and I think Pat V. would agree) that someone had monkeyed with the audio, in an attempt to clumsily conceal Perry's articulation of the word "inviolate" and (possibly) create enough confusion so that his statement could be heard as "I rendered it invalid."

This post (that I have written here) is much more detailed than anything I expected to write, in answering Micah Mileto's question, and my intention is to save it, for use in drafting a few pages in Final Charade. But this issue offers a good example of why research in the JFK case has often been compared to dealing with a bunch of "rabbit holes."

For those who take the medical evidence seriously, this particular "rabbit hole" is obviously quite important; and if (for any reason) Perry deliberately lied (i.e., was "prevailed upon" not to tell the truth, because I don't think he would do that of his own volition) and if the transcript in White's book represented deliberate misinformation (or "disinformation") then all of this constitutes an important game changer.

Feedback welcome.

DSL

2/26/2018 - 8:35 PST

Orange County, California

 

Wow, thanks for responding. Huge information dump I didn't know about.

1. Are you suggesting the tracheotomy incision was 2-3 cm and below the throat wound, or that a tube was simply inserted into the throat wound? It sounds like the "inserted into the bullet hole" might be a way of simplifying a long story for encounters with acquaintances and journalists.

 

2. Are the Tennessee newspapers online or in Best Evidence? I have the signet edition. Any direct quotes from the newspaper so I can search for it online?

3. Is there any effort to show bring these films to a blu-ray or some kind of way to preserve it in high quality for public consumption? Sounds like there are quite a few pieces of medical evidence that the public can't find in any book. Thanks for sharing here what you can in text.

 

4. Do you think the autopsy pathologists lied about being ignorant of the original throat wound? in BE, George Barnum's 11/29/1963 written account seems like it pretty much seals the deal on the autopsy pathologists knowing. Boswell can't keep his story straight, Perry always said Humes called him on Friday night, Manchester's book says he talked to Perry at midnight. Autopsy participants who made statements indicating the autopsy doctors were aware of Kennedy's throat wound include John Stringer, Richard Lipsey, James Jenkins, John Ebersole, Robert Karnei, and Robert Knudsen.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[David Lifton]

4 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Wow, thanks for responding. Huge information dump I didn't know about.

Thanks for recognizing the work that went into writing this rather extensive post (from memory).  It ain't easy.

1. Are you suggesting the tracheotomy incision was 2-3 cm and below the throat wound, or that a tube was simply inserted into the throat wound? It sounds like the "inserted into the bullet hole" might be a way of simplifying a long story for encounters with acquaintances and journalists.

There's additional background one needs to know to respond to your question.  Let me attempt, somewhat hurriedly, to provide it. 

a) Some years after the publication of Best Evidence (and I believe what I am about to describe took place after the 1988 Carrol & Graf edition, the first ever publication of the JFK autopsy photos), I received a letter from a nurse (someone named "Dobson," as I recall) who apparently had read B.E. and was following the controversy concerning the JFK assassination. She said (again, quoting from memory): "Mr. Lifton. . .: Are you aware that Dr. Perry originally stated that he made the horizontal incision below --I stress "below"--the bullet wound?"  She then cited, as her source, the famous article that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post dated (approx,, from memory) December 10th 1963, titled "Death in E.R. One" , by writer Jimmy Breslin. She quoted from the article, I had that article in my files, and, sure enough, there it was, right there in the text: Breslin was reporting that Perry had told him that the incision he made was "below" the bullet wound.   Of course, I found this very significant, but there was still more to come.

(b) When did Breslin conduct this interview with Perry? Was it a week or two later, in December (and "just in time" for the Saturday Evening Post;s editorial deadline for that midi-December issue) or earlier?  I don't have to emphasize  the importance of the original interview date. As every law student is taught (and every historian knows) the "earliest" recorded recollection is the "better" evidence.  But the exact date of interview was not at all clear. Certainly, it was not indicated in the text of that December 1963  Saturday Evening Post article.   Now. . "flash forward" several years. . . 

(c ) At some point in time, and I don't remember exactly when this (what follows) occurred, I was consulting my voluminous files on all the original media coverage, and found--to my considerable surprise-- that the Breslin article, with the identical text, was originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of Sunday, November 24, 1963. Further, the original publication of that article made clear that Breslin had interviewed Dr. Perry on November 23rd, 1963 (and possibly on 11/22; but let's just say, "by November 23rd, without a doubt" (my quotes).  So Breslin's article in the mid- December Saturday Evening Post was simply a reprint what had been published on November 24, 1963, and represented what Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin on Saturday, November 23, 1963. 

(d) At that point, I believed, based on what Breslin had published on 11/24 (which is what Perry had told him on 11/23) that Perry had made his incision "below" the original bullet wound.  But. . there is still more. . 

(e) Checking the exact wording of medical reports of the two key doctors (Dr. Carrico, who first treated President Kennedy, and inserted the endotracheal tube), here's what we find:  From Dr. Carrico 11/22/63 report:  "a tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry (WCE 392 [17 WCH 5]); and from Dr. Perry's 11/22/63 report: "a tracheostomy was effected. . . the tube was put in place" etc. (WCE 292 [17 WCH 7]).  

(f) One doesn't have to be a linguistics expert to understand that (a) neither doctor made any mention of making an incision and that (b) the passive voice was used, which avoided the issue entirely (i.e., "the tube was put in place", etc.).

(g) "All of the above" is by way of background--and the point is (that is "my point is") that for quit a few years, I believed that Perry had made his incision "below" the bullet wound (as he [Perry] had apparently told Breslin he had, on 11/23/63, and which Breslin had then written in his article as published on 11/24/63 in the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

Are you following me?. . . OK. . now, let's move on. . 

(h) At that point, the issue was: Why did Perry not tell the Warren Commission that he made his incision below the bullet wound, and not "through" the wound?

In other words, the issue--at that point in time--was (if what Perry originally told Breslin was the truth): Why was Dr. Perry complicit in an attempt to hide from history (and specifically, from the Warren Commission) the fact that he had not made his incision "through" the wound?  (Remember: Perry did not have access to the Bethesda autopsy photos, so he did not know how that wound looked, by the time it reached Bethesda that night. He did not have that info until Robert Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph, when he (and a Baltimore reporter) visited Perry at his office sometime in 1978/79, when the HSCA was still in session, and Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph which, apparently, he had permission to possess. . although i'm not sure on this last point).

(i) In December 1982, when I first came into possession of a set of the (Fox) black-and-white autopsy photos (See Epilogue to B.E., 1988 edition, published again in 1993, Signet), it became obvious how serious this matter was, because the effect of Perry's perjury (the proper legal name for what he did) became apparent: there was, by the time these autopsy photos were taken at Bethesda, a wide and obvious horizontal gash in President Kennedy's throat, and obviously that was not the "teach incision" made by Dr. Perry, if (a) he had made "his" incision below the original bullet wounds and (b) if he had made no incision at all.

Which brings me to the next point. . . 

(j) At some point, I became aware of Dr. Dave Stewart's statements, in a 1966 (or perhaps 1967) interview --date uncertain--and which was a front page story in the Nashville (Tenn.) Banner (again, from memory).  At that point, I tried to evaluate what he had said, but, confusing the situation, was the transcript of Dr. Perry's CBS interview (broadcast in June 1967), which--according to the transcript in White's book,--stated that he had "rendered the wound invalid." That incorrect transcript--which I did not know was incorrect (i.e., had  been deliberately falsified)--something I did not know until the visit to Gordon's home in June/July 1989--served to confuse me and thwart any attempt at proper analysis.  And here's how the "turning point" (or "tipping point", to use more current vernacular) occurred.

(k) In 1982, I did a serious, in depth, telephone interview with Dr. Stewart.  He stated--indeed, emphasized--that Dr. Perry stated that he (Perry) had said to him (Dr. Stewart) that he had left the wound "inviolate."  I listened, made notes, probably made a recording, and wrote up a detailed memo.   Based on the false transcript at the back of the Stephen White book (mentioned in my previous writing on this thread), I (incorrectly) concluded that Dr. Stewart was simply mistaken. Perry had said (I thought) that he rendered the wound "invalid." He had never said "inviolate."   All of what I have just described was in my 1982 multi--page memo.

(l) I made a copy of that memo and provided it to Pat Valentino.  More important, when I moved from New Jersey (where I lived for a few years, after B.E. was published) back to Los Angeles, Pat V. flew east to help me move.  There were tons of files, many filing cabinets and shelving, and Pat was invaluable in helping me dissemble everything, pack it up, and put it into a large truck we had rented for the cross country trip.  As he worked in my New Jersey apartment, with its beautiful view over the Hudson River, he wore a headset with a connecting wire to a small cassette recorder he wore on his belt and listened to the tapes of various recordings I had made over the years, and which were stacked on shelves.  Often, he would stop moving the dolly, take off the headset, and exclaim, "David: Did you know what Malcolm Kilduff told you?" (And I would usually say, "No, I don't remember. . what did he say?" etc., because Pat is blessed with an eidetic memory; I, unfortunately, am not)  Well, one of the tapes he listened to was my conversation (circa 1982) with Dr. Dave Stewart.  Pat was really impressed with Dr. Stewart's audio demeanor.  "David,  this man is telling you the truth! This is important!"  And I, having already reviewed the situation more than once, responded by saying, "Pat, he's wrong. He's just confused. He's got the word "inviolate" confused with "invalid." Perry said "I rendered the wound invalid. He did not say "inviolate".  Now how do you know that? was Pat's response. And my response to Pat was: "Just read the transcript of the CBS show. Its right there, in the transcript. Perry said "I rendered it invalid." He did not say that he left the wound "inviolate."  Of course, I was relying on the incorrect transcript (read: deliberately falsified transcript, falsified by someone connected with the White book) at the back of White's back.  But there the matter rested, for years.  Pat believed what Dr. Stewart had told me over the phone; I did not.  But. . 

(m) But Pat was so insistent on the point, that --around 1988/89, when I raised the money to go round the country for a series of filmed interviews, that we should include Dr. Stewart on our itinerary, and so we did.  Meanwhile, and just days before, that itinerary included a detailed interview/meeting with Groden, at his home in Hopelawn, New Jersey.   One purpose of the meeting with Groden was to get the best copies we could of the Zapruder film, and other films, for which Groden was paid $5,000, and signed a contract. (Gordon later denied much of this, but he signed the contract, he was paid, and in subsequent interviews, simply lied about it. See my essay, "Pig on a Leash," published in the Fetzer anthology, Hoax, for the details). And I certainly do not wish to be diverted here, into a discussion of Robert Groden, or his ethics, character, and general behavior.  Simply put, he's an obsessive collector, much more so than a researcher, and a hoarder. But. . putting all that aside, and that may hold the key to the  missing original Nix film, and the missing original Muchmore film) that provides the context of how it was that, lubricated by the payment (of the first $2500) and suffused with a general feeling of goodwill, Groden played (for us) his crystal clear copy of the CBS interview of Perry, made in 1966/67, and broadcast in June 1967) and there it was, right there on the tape, Perry stating that "I left the wound inviolate."   Again: "inviolate" . . .crystal clear, on the tape.

(n)  Our very next stop after spending two days with Groden (again, this was June/July 1989)  was to meet with Dr. Stewart (at his residence in the SE United States). We spent hours with him, and conducted an excellent filmed interview. Going over the whole story - - A to Z--asking every single question we could, getting it all down on film.  Its an important story, historically, because Dr. Stewart should have been (and could have been) an important witness before the Warren Commission. But that never happened because the Warren Commission was completely focused on the sophomoric "Oswald-did-it" story and never approached the case from the standpoint that there might be fraud in the evidence.  Had they done so, had they heard Dr. Stewart's story, there would have been additional testimony sought from Dr. Perry and it would have been very clear that one of them was not telling the truth. Stewart would have testified that Perry said that he left the wound "inviolate"; and Perry would have been asked to explain why he testified that he made a horizontal incision through the wound.

(O)  So that's the background about how all this was discovered, and the legal and historical implications.  Suddenly, the tables were turned, and it became clear that:

  (1) it was Dr. Stewart who was telling the truth about what Perry had said,. .

  (2)  That Dr. Perry himself actually used the word inviolate in his 1967 CBS interview (possibly done in 1966, but broadcast in June 1967); and. . 

  (3)  That the CBS transcript located at the back (in an Appendix) to the Steve White book ("Should we Now Believe the Warren Report"-1968)  was incorrect (IMHO: deliberately falsified, by someone connected with the White book, to prevent White from learning the truth about what Perry had actually said, and pursuing the matter). Because note. . 

  (4) If Perry said "inviolate" (which he did, because--as Dr. Stewart noted to us, on camera--its  right there in his CBS interview, as broadcast nationally in June 1967), then that provides a "direct path" to the thesis of body alteration.  Why? Because no longer are we dealing with "surgery of the head area" but an entirely different "highway to the truth", one that involves the front throat wound, and is based upon  a comparison of "what Perry said" with "what the autopsy photographs" (and specifically, the stare-of-death photo) shows.

Now back to your original question, which was, QUOTE: Are you suggesting the tracheotomy incision was 2-3 cm and below the throat wound, or that a tube was simply inserted into the throat wound? UNQUOTE  

My answer: My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision.  He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade).  And then the following events occurred:

(a) When interviewed by Breslin the next day (sat., 11/23/63) Perry said that he made an incision 'below" the bullet wound (apparently not wanting to get involved with anything having to do with that wound). 

(b) On March 25, 1964, by the time he was deposed by Warren Commission counsel Specter, he had (apparently) been importuned  to go along with the story that he had made a horizontal incision through the wound. On that date, he simply stated that he had "initiated the procedure" (6 WCH 9);

(c) Five days later, on March 30th, 1964, Perry testified in Washington before Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles, Ford, Boggs, etc. 

On that occasion, he said: "I began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck." (3 WCH 369)

If i'm correct, Dr. Perry was completely compromised--morally, and legally--by these decisions to testify in this manner,  but I do not believe he would have made these decisions without the sanction of 'higher authority."  That is another subject, and one which I will address in Final Charade.

In plain English, and now focusing on the throat wound: in the 1963/64 time frame, someone was behind an effort to hide the fact that the President's body was altered. As a consequence: the very serious and obvious conflict between what the face-up autopsy photo shows (the wide gash, etc.), and what Perry (originally) said that he did (never made an incision, etc) was completely hidden from view. The double whammy: Perry testified falsely; and the autopsy photographs were unavailable for (at least) five years; and remember: they were not published (by me) until 1988.

Addressing your question number 2: 

Are the Tennessee newspapers online or in Best Evidence? I have the signet edition. Any direct quotes from the newspaper so I can search for it online

RESPONSE: None of what i have written here (in this post) is in Best Evidence. Remember: B.E. was published in january 1981. As noted in these posts, all of these events (with one exception) commenced around 1982.  The exception: I was probably aware of the original Tennessee newspaper story when I wrote B.E. (1976-80) but simply didn't know what to make of it. Because Dr. Stewart was not actually in ER-1 (and because he was never interviewed by the WC), I never attempted to contact him. His true importance didn't emerge until the letter I received (circa 1982, as I recall) from Nurse Dobson, calling my attention to what Breslin had written in the (mid-December 1963) Saturday Evening Post.  Yes, it would be useful to obtain the original Tennessee newspaper  story. Certainly, it is in my original "JFK Medical Files," but those are now located, with over 40 filing cabinets, in a storage area, for which I pay a pricey bill each month.  I'm seriously considering setting up a crowd-funding project to get all this material properly indexed (and scanned, where appropriate). Meanwhile. . a suggestion: use Interlibrary Loan, at a major library; or. . the digital capabilities of one of those major newspaper sites. If you (or anyone) retrieves the story, please email me at dsl74@Cornell.edu., because I would be interested in a digital copy of that story. 

One other matter (and in the spirit of a Post Script): Obviously, Dr. Dave Stewart is one of the unsung heroes of this whole matter of the throat wound, and he will be receiving full and proper credit in Final Charade. Furthermore, its my intention that the appropriate excerpts of the June/July 1989 interview with Robert Groden and, most importantly, of Dave Stewart, will be made available either on the Internet or via DVD.

Addressing question #3:  i don't understand what "blue ray" films you are referring to. Please clarify.

Re your question #4:

QUOTE:

4. Do you think the autopsy pathologists lied about being ignorant of the original throat wound? in BE, George Barnum's 11/29/1963 written account seems like it pretty much seals the deal on the autopsy pathologists knowing. Boswell can't keep his story straight, Perry always said Humes called him on Friday night, Manchester's book says he talked to Perry at midnight. Autopsy participants who made statements indicating the autopsy doctors were aware of Kennedy's throat wound include John Stringer, Richard Lipsey, James Jenkins, John Ebersole, Robert Karnei, and Robert Knudsen. UNQUOTE

RESPONSE: I have completely re-evaluated my position (re the autopsy doctors) from what it was at the time I wrote Best Evidence. I will have much more to say about this, but it is beyond the scope of this thread.  The issue goes way beyond whether Humes was "aware of Kennedy's throat wound". The issue is "much worse" than that; and much more fundamental: whether Humes and Boswell knew that the president's body had been intercepted and altered prior to its arrival at the Bethesda morgue.  And: if they knew. . .what were they told?  How was the situation explained to them? etc. And, finally, how were the autopsy photographs created? Did these two individuals supervise the taking of photographs that were based on a reconstruction?  Again. . what were they told? How was such activity explained (i.e., justified) to them?

Stay tuned.

DSL

2/27/2018 - 3 P.M.

Orange County, California

 

Quote

 

 

2. Are the Tennessee newspapers online or in Best Evidence? I have the signet edition. Any direct quotes from the newspaper so I can search for it online?

3. Is there any effort to show bring these films to a blu-ray or some kind of way to preserve it in high quality for public consumption? Sounds like there are quite a few pieces of medical evidence that the public can't find in any book. Thanks for sharing here what you can in text.

 

4. Do you think the autopsy pathologists lied about being ignorant of the original throat wound? in BE, George Barnum's 11/29/1963 written account seems like it pretty much seals the deal on the autopsy pathologists knowing. Boswell can't keep his story straight, Perry always said Humes called him on Friday night, Manchester's book says he talked to Perry at midnight. Autopsy participants who made statements indicating the autopsy doctors were aware of Kennedy's throat wound include John Stringer, Richard Lipsey, James Jenkins, John Ebersole, Robert Karnei, and Robert Knudsen.

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by David Lifton

[Michael Walton]

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

My answer: My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision.  He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade).  And then the following events occurred:

This story is starting to sound similar to the Hardly Lee story "he said this but someone else said he said something else...but maybe..."

Here is Perry's 3/64 testimony:

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe it in detail, the procedures which were followed in the efforts to save the President's life? 
Dr. PERRY - All right. Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea.
I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea. At this point, I recall, Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter into a vein in the-left arm because he handed me a necessary instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure. 
The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.
Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage. At the time I did not know who did this, but I have been informed that Dr. Baxter and Dr. Paul Peters inserted the chest tube and connected it to underwater drainage.

I don't know how much clearer this is that he cut THROUGH the wound and thus, no body altering, David. I simply cannot believe that Perry would be "compromised." I do believe that some of the weaker witnesses were coached here and there, and others with some strong witness statements totally ignored. But not Perry.

So this is a ridiculous premise that you think Perry did not make this incision. And as for the rest of your body alteration "theory," what with the thrumming helicopter sneaking the body away from a back entrance on Air Force One as it pulled in from Dallas, to be taken away for doctors with scalpels at the ready to alter it, this is also right up there with the silly Hardly Lee story. 

IMO - it's time to give this body alteration fairy tale a rest. It fooled many people (including my sister-in-law and me when I was 18 years old 30 years ago) but no more.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Michael Walton

[Thomas Graves]

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

There's additional background one needs to know to respond to your question.  Let me attempt, somewhat hurriedly, to provide it. 

a) Some years after the publication of Best Evidence (and I believe what I am about to describe took place after the 1988 Carrol & Graf edition, the first ever publication of the JFK autopsy photos), I received a letter from a nurse (someone named "Dobson," as I recall) who apparently had read B.E. and was following the controversy concerning the JFK assassination. She said (again, quoting from memory): "Mr. Lifton. . .: Are you aware that Dr. Perry originally stated that he made the horizontal incision below --I stress "below"--the bullet wound?"  She then cited, as her source, the famous article that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post dated (approx,, from memory) December 10th 1963, titled "Death in E.R. One" , by writer Jimmy Breslin. She quoted from the article, I had that article in my files, and, sure enough, there it was, right there in the text: Breslin was reporting that Perry had told him that the incision he made was "below" the bullet wound.   Of course, I found this very significant, but there was still more to come.

(b) When did Breslin conduct this interview with Perry? Was it a week or two later, in December (and "just in time" for the Saturday Evening Post;s editorial deadline for that midi-December issue) or earlier?  I don't have to emphasize  the importance of the original interview date. As every law student is taught (and every historian knows) the "earliest" recorded recollection is the "better" evidence.  But the exact date of interview was not at all clear. Certainly, it was not indicated in the text of that December 1963  Saturday Evening Post article.   Now. . "flash forward" several years. . . 

(c ) At some point in time, and I don't remember exactly when this (what follows) occurred, I was consulting my voluminous files on all the original media coverage, and found--to my considerable surprise-- that the Breslin article, with the identical text, was originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of Sunday, November 24, 1963. Further, the original publication of that article made clear that Breslin had interviewed Dr. Perry on November 23rd, 1963 (and possibly on 11/22; but let's just say, "by November 23rd, without a doubt" (my quotes).  So Breslin's article in the mid- December Saturday Evening Post was simply a reprint what had been published on November 24, 1963, and represented what Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin on Saturday, November 23, 1963. 

(d) At that point, I believed, based on what Breslin had published on 11/24 (which is what Perry had told him on 11/23) that Perry had made his incision "below" the original bullet wound.  But. . there is still more. . 

(e) Checking the exact wording of medical reports of the two key doctors (Dr. Carrico, who first treated President Kennedy, and inserted the endotracheal tube), here's what we find:  From Dr. Carrico 11/22/63 report:  "a tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry (WCE 392 [17 WCH 5]); and from Dr. Perry's 11/22/63 report: "a tracheostomy was effected. . . the tube was put in place" etc. (WCE 292 [17 WCH 7]).  

(f) One doesn't have to be a linguistics expert to understand that (a) neither doctor made any mention of making an incision and that (b) the passive voice was used, which avoided the issue entirely (i.e., "the tube was put in place", etc.).

(g) "All of the above" is by way of background--and the point is (that is "my point is") that for quit a few years, I believed that Perry had made his incision "below" the bullet wound (as he [Perry] had apparently told Breslin he had, on 11/23/63, and which Breslin had then written in his article as published on 11/24/63 in the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

Are you following me?. . . OK. . now, let's move on. . 

(h) At that point, the issue was: Why did Perry not tell the Warren Commission that he made his incision below the bullet wound, and not "through" the wound?

In other words, the issue--at that point in time--was (if what Perry originally told Breslin was the truth): Why was Dr. Perry complicit in an attempt to hide from history (and specifically, from the Warren Commission) the fact that he had not made his incision "through" the wound?  (Remember: Perry did not have access to the Bethesda autopsy photos, so he did not know how that wound looked, by the time it reached Bethesda that night. He did not have that info until Robert Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph, when he (and a Baltimore reporter) visited Perry at his office sometime in 1978/79, when the HSCA was still in session, and Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph which, apparently, he had permission to possess. . although i'm not sure on this last point).

(i) In December 1982, when I first came into possession of a set of the (Fox) black-and-white autopsy photos (See Epilogue to B.E., 1988 edition, published again in 1993, Signet), it became obvious how serious this matter was, because the effect of Perry's perjury (the proper legal name for what he did) became apparent: there was, by the time these autopsy photos were taken at Bethesda, a wide and obvious horizontal gash in President Kennedy's throat, and obviously that was not the "teach incision" made by Dr. Perry, if (a) he had made "his" incision below the original bullet wounds and (b) if he had made no incision at all.

Which brings me to the next point. . . 

(j) At some point, I became aware of Dr. Dave Stewart's statements, in a 1966 (or perhaps 1967) interview --date uncertain--and which was a front page story in the Nashville (Tenn.) Banner (again, from memory).  At that point, I tried to evaluate what he had said, but, confusing the situation, was the transcript of Dr. Perry's CBS interview (broadcast in June 1967), which--according to the transcript in White's book,--stated that he had "rendered the wound invalid." That incorrect transcript--which I did not know was incorrect (i.e., had  been deliberately falsified)--something I did not know until the visit to Gordon's home in June/July 1989--served to confuse me and thwart any attempt at proper analysis.  And here's how the "turning point" (or "tipping point", to use more current vernacular) occurred.

(k) In 1982, I did a serious, in depth, telephone interview with Dr. Stewart.  He stated--indeed, emphasized--that Dr. Perry stated that he (Perry) had said to him (Dr. Stewart) that he had left the wound "inviolate."  I listened, made notes, probably made a recording, and wrote up a detailed memo.   Based on the false transcript at the back of the Stephen White book (mentioned in my previous writing on this thread), I (incorrectly) concluded that Dr. Stewart was simply mistaken. Perry had said (I thought) that he rendered the wound "invalid." He had never said "inviolate."   All of what I have just described was in my 1982 multi--page memo.

(l) I made a copy of that memo and provided it to Pat Valentino.  More important, when I moved from New Jersey (where I lived for a few years, after B.E. was published) back to Los Angeles, Pat V. flew east to help me move.  There were tons of files, many filing cabinets and shelving, and Pat was invaluable in helping me dissemble everything, pack it up, and put it into a large truck we had rented for the cross country trip.  As he worked in my New Jersey apartment, with its beautiful view over the Hudson River, he wore a headset with a connecting wire to a small cassette recorder he wore on his belt and listened to the tapes of various recordings I had made over the years, and which were stacked on shelves.  Often, he would stop moving the dolly, take off the headset, and exclaim, "David: Did you know what Malcolm Kilduff told you?" (And I would usually say, "No, I don't remember. . what did he say?" etc., because Pat is blessed with an eidetic memory; I, unfortunately, am not)  Well, one of the tapes he listened to was my conversation (circa 1982) with Dr. Dave Stewart.  Pat was really impressed with Dr. Stewart's audio demeanor.  "David,  this man is telling you the truth! This is important!"  And I, having already reviewed the situation more than once, responded by saying, "Pat, he's wrong. He's just confused. He's got the word "inviolate" confused with "invalid." Perry said "I rendered the wound invalid. He did not say "inviolate".  Now how do you know that? was Pat's response. And my response to Pat was: "Just read the transcript of the CBS show. Its right there, in the transcript. Perry said "I rendered it invalid." He did not say that he left the wound "inviolate."  Of course, I was relying on the incorrect transcript (read: deliberately falsified transcript, falsified by someone connected with the White book) at the back of White's back.  But there the matter rested, for years.  Pat believed what Dr. Stewart had told me over the phone; I did not.  But. . 

(m) But Pat was so insistent on the point, that --around 1988/89, when I raised the money to go round the country for a series of filmed interviews, that we should include Dr. Stewart on our itinerary, and so we did.  Meanwhile, and just days before, that itinerary included a detailed interview/meeting with Groden, at his home in Hopelawn, New Jersey.   One purpose of the meeting with Groden was to get the best copies we could of the Zapruder film, and other films, for which Groden was paid $5,000, and signed a contract. (Gordon later denied much of this, but he signed the contract, he was paid, and in subsequent interviews, simply lied about it. See my essay, "Pig on a Leash," published in the Fetzer anthology, Hoax, for the details). And I certainly do not wish to be diverted here, into a discussion of Robert Groden, or his ethics, character, and general behavior.  Simply put, he's an obsessive collector, much more so than a researcher, and a hoarder. But. . putting all that aside, and that may hold the key to the  missing original Nix film, and the missing original Muchmore film) that provides the context of how it was that, lubricated by the payment (of the first $2500) and suffused with a general feeling of goodwill, Groden played (for us) his crystal clear copy of the CBS interview of Perry, made in 1966/67, and broadcast in June 1967) and there it was, right there on the tape, Perry stating that "I left the wound inviolate."   Again: "inviolate" . . .crystal clear, on the tape.

(n)  Our very next stop after spending two days with Groden (again, this was June/July 1989)  was to meet with Dr. Stewart (at his residence in the SE United States). We spent hours with him, and conducted an excellent filmed interview. Going over the whole story - - A to Z--asking every single question we could, getting it all down on film.  Its an important story, historically, because Dr. Stewart should have been (and could have been) an important witness before the Warren Commission. But that never happened because the Warren Commission was completely focused on the sophomoric "Oswald-did-it" story and never approached the case from the standpoint that there might be fraud in the evidence.  Had they done so, had they heard Dr. Stewart's story, there would have been additional testimony sought from Dr. Perry and it would have been very clear that one of them was not telling the truth. Stewart would have testified that Perry said that he left the wound "inviolate"; and Perry would have been asked to explain why he testified that he made a horizontal incision through the wound.

(O)  So that's the background about how all this was discovered, and the legal and historical implications.  Suddenly, the tables were turned, and it became clear that:

  (1) it was Dr. Stewart who was telling the truth about what Perry had said,. .

  (2)  That Dr. Perry himself actually used the word inviolate in his 1967 CBS interview (possibly done in 1966, but broadcast in June 1967); and. . 

  (3)  That the CBS transcript located at the back (in an Appendix) to the Steve White book ("Should we Now Believe the Warren Report"-1968)  was incorrect (IMHO: deliberately falsified, by someone connected with the White book, to prevent White from learning the truth about what Perry had actually said, and pursuing the matter). Because note. . 

  (4) If Perry said "inviolate" (which he did, because--as Dr. Stewart noted to us, on camera--its  right there in his CBS interview, as broadcast nationally in June 1967), then that provides a "direct path" to the thesis of body alteration.  Why? Because no longer are we dealing with "surgery of the head area" but an entirely different "highway to the truth", one that involves the front throat wound, and is based upon  a comparison of "what Perry said" with "what the autopsy photographs" (and specifically, the stare-of-death photo) shows.

Now back to your original question, which was, QUOTE: Are you suggesting the tracheotomy incision was 2-3 cm and below the throat wound, or that a tube was simply inserted into the throat wound? UNQUOTE  

My answer: My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision.  He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade).  And then the following events occurred:

(a) When interviewed by Breslin the next day (sat., 11/23/63) Perry said that he made an incision 'below" the bullet wound (apparently not wanting to get involved with anything having to do with that wound). 

(b) On March 25, 1964, by the time he was deposed by Warren Commission counsel Specter, he had (apparently) been importuned  to go along with the story that he had made a horizontal incision through the wound. On that date, he simply stated that he had "initiated the procedure" (6 WCH 9);

(c) Five days later, on March 30th, 1964, Perry testified in Washington before Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles, Ford, Boggs, etc. 

On that occasion, he said: "I began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck." (3 WCH 369)

If i'm correct, Dr. Perry was completely compromised--morally, and legally--by these decisions to testify in this manner,  but I do not believe he would have made these decisions without the sanction of 'higher authority."  That is another subject, and one which I will address in Final Charade.

In plain English, and now focusing on the throat wound: in the 1963/64 time frame, someone was behind an effort to hide the fact that the President's body was altered. As a consequence: the very serious and obvious conflict between what the face-up autopsy photo shows (the wide gash, etc.), and what Perry (originally) said that he did (never made an incision, etc) was completely hidden from view. The double whammy: Perry testified falsely; and the autopsy photographs were unavailable for (at least) five years; and remember: they were not published (by me) until 1988.

Addressing your question number 2: 

Are the Tennessee newspapers online or in Best Evidence? I have the signet edition. Any direct quotes from the newspaper so I can search for it online

RESPONSE: None of what i have written here (in this post) is in Best Evidence. Remember: B.E. was published in january 1981. As noted in these posts, all of these events (with one exception) commenced around 1982.  The exception: I was probably aware of the original Tennessee newspaper story when I wrote B.E. (1976-80) but simply didn't know what to make of it. Because Dr. Stewart was not actually in ER-1 (and because he was never interviewed by the WC), I never attempted to contact him. His true importance didn't emerge until the letter I received (circa 1982, as I recall) from Nurse Dobson, calling my attention to what Breslin had written in the (mid-December 1963) Saturday Evening Post.  Yes, it would be useful to obtain the original Tennessee newspaper  story. Certainly, it is in my original "JFK Medical Files," but those are now located, with over 40 filing cabinets, in a storage area, for which I pay a pricey bill each month.  I'm seriously considering setting up a crowd-funding project to get all this material properly indexed (and scanned, where appropriate). Meanwhile. . a suggestion: use Interlibrary Loan, at a major library; or. . the digital capabilities of one of those major newspaper sites. If you (or anyone) retrieves the story, please email me at dsl74@Cornell.edu., because I would be interested in a digital copy of that story. 

One other matter (and in the spirit of a Post Script): Obviously, Dr. Dave Stewart is one of the unsung heroes of this whole matter of the throat wound, and he will be receiving full and proper credit in Final Charade. Furthermore, its my intention that the appropriate excerpts of the June/July 1989 interview with Robert Groden and, most importantly, of Dave Stewart, will be made available either on the Internet or via DVD.

Addressing question #3:  i don't understand what "blue ray" films you are referring to. Please clarify.

Re your question #4:

QUOTE:

4. Do you think the autopsy pathologists lied about being ignorant of the original throat wound? in BE, George Barnum's 11/29/1963 written account seems like it pretty much seals the deal on the autopsy pathologists knowing. Boswell can't keep his story straight, Perry always said Humes called him on Friday night, Manchester's book says he talked to Perry at midnight. Autopsy participants who made statements indicating the autopsy doctors were aware of Kennedy's throat wound include John Stringer, Richard Lipsey, James Jenkins, John Ebersole, Robert Karnei, and Robert Knudsen. UNQUOTE

RESPONSE: I have completely re-evaluated my position (re the autopsy doctors) from what it was at the time I wrote Best Evidence. I will have much more to say about this, but it is beyond the scope of this thread.  The issue goes way beyond whether Humes was "aware of Kennedy's throat wound". The issue is "much worse" than that; and much more fundamental: whether Humes and Boswell knew that the president's body had been intercepted and altered prior to its arrival at the Bethesda morgue.  And: if they knew. . .what were they told?  How was the situation explained to them? etc. And, finally, how were the autopsy photographs created? Did these two individuals supervise the taking of photographs that were based on a reconstruction?  Again. . what were they told? How was such activity explained (i.e., justified) to them?

Stay tuned.

DSL

2/27/2018 - 3 P.M.

Orange County, California

 

 

 

With all due respect, what's the bottom line of all of this?

--  Tommy 

[David Lifton]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

This story is starting to sound similar to the Hardly Lee story "he said this but someone else said he said something else...but maybe..."

Here is Perry's 3/64 testimony:

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe it in detail, the procedures which were followed in the efforts to save the President's life? 
Dr. PERRY - All right. Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea.
I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea. At this point, I recall, Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter into a vein in the-left arm because he handed me a necessary instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure. 
The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.
Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage. At the time I did not know who did this, but I have been informed that Dr. Baxter and Dr. Paul Peters inserted the chest tube and connected it to underwater drainage.

I don't know how much clearer this is that he cut THROUGH the wound and thus, no body altering, David. I simply cannot believe that Perry would be "compromised." I do believe that some of the weaker witnesses were coached here and there, and others with some strong witness statements totally ignored. But not Perry.

So this is a ridiculous premise that you think Perry did not make this incision. And as for the rest of your body alteration "theory," what with the thrumming helicopter sneaking the body away from a back entrance on Air Force One as it pulled in from Dallas, to be taken away for doctors with scalpels at the ready to alter it, this is also right up there with the silly Hardly Lee story. 

IMO - it's time to give this body alteration fairy tale a rest. It fooled many people (including my sister-in-law and me when I was 18 years old 30 years ago) but no more.

Michael,

Thanks for replying to my posts.

I don't think you understand the problem, or you would not be citing Perry's testimony as your "answer."

The issue is not what Dr. Perry testified to the Warren Commission in March 1964. . . The issue is Perry's credibility, and that can only be judged by putting that testimony in the context of, first of all, his prior statements; and secondly, his statements made subsequent to his Warren Commission testimony.

The issue before us: Did he (or did he not) make an incision through the throat wound?

My post(s) have cited four pieces of evidence which establish what Dr. Perry said on four different occasions:

a) What Dr.Perry told Jimmy Breslin on November 23, 1963

b ) What Dr. Perry told Dr. Stewart on November 22, 1963  (or shortly thereafter, because the two knew one another);

c ) What Dr. Perry (himself) stated when interviewed in 1966/67, and was broadcast nationally in June 1967.

d) What Dr. Perry told Robert Groden (and a Baltimore newspaper reporter) when first shown the JFK face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photograph in 1979.

His statements, on these four occasions, can be used to assess his credibility; and, by implication, the truthfulness of his sworn testimony before Chief Justice Warren that he made an incision through the wound. 

Any freshman law school student, in a class on evidence, could perform this analysis, if that person had the record of Perry's statements. Well, now we do have such a record, and so here is what that record says, and what it tells us. .. : 

Re (a): Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin that he made the incision for the tracheotomy tube below the bullet wound; not through it. And Breslin published that information in the story he wrote on November 23, 1963, an account that was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on 11/24/63, and then reprinted in the Saturday Evening Post in mid-December 1963. Again: no "incision" through any bullet wound because, he told Breslin, he put the tube in "below" the bullet wound.

Re (b): Dr. Perry told Stewart that he didn't have to make an incision; he simply was able to push in the tracheotomy tube "through" the pre-existing bullet wound. Dr. Stewart repeated this in a front page story published in Nashville Banner in November 1966 (Date based on recollection); and he described that at considerable length, and in detail, in the filmed interview that I (and Pat Valentino) conducted with him in June/July of 1989.  Furthermore, and as will be shown when I publish Final Charade, Dr. McClelland supported that account. He, too, said no incision was necessary: the tracheotomy tube was simply "pushed through" the pre-existing bullet hole.

Re (c ): Dr. Perry told the CBS Interviewer that he left the wound "inviolate" --as is documented on the videotape of the interview, as broadcast in June 1967

Again: These are Dr. Perry's own words, as recorded on videotape, when interviewed in 1966 or 1967, and broadcast nationally in June 1967. He says that he "left the wound inviolate."  (This statement was verified by the late Gary Mack. To repeat: Perry said that he left the wound "inviolate").

Re (d) : Upon seeing --for the first time--the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photograph at his New York City office in 1979, which shows a large horizontal gash at the front of JFK's throat, Dr. Perry shook his head sadly from side to side and said, "I left the wound inviolate."

So. . : Perry said he left the wound "inviolate" not only  in a June 1967 nationally broadcast interview, but then again, in person, to Groden accompanied by a reporter for a Baltimore newspaper in 1979.

What I have enumerated above are four data points that are essential to understanding the medical evidence in this case;  and, incidentally, in assessing the credibility of Dr. Perry.

If Perry's statements are correct, he never enlarged the wound.  

If Perry's statements are correct, then someone surely did "enlarge" the wound, because, as is shown by the face-up autopsy photograph that I published, for the first time, in the (Oct) 1988 Edition of Best Evidence, (and as discussed in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence, devoted to the change in size of the tracheotomy incision) the wound (at Bethesda) was clearly much larger than the wound as described in Dallas.

You respond to this by saying "So this is a ridiculous premise that you think Perry did not make this incision."

Michael Walton: Its not what I "think"; its what Perry said, on four separate occasions: twice before he testified; and then on two separate occasions afterwards, the second of which, in 1979, when he saw the Bethesda "stare-of-death"  photograph for the first time.

The issue is critical because it goes to the question of whether someone altered the body --i.e., the wounds--prior to autopsy.

ABOUT THE MANNER OF YOUR RESPONSE:

The general tenor of your response--and the "wise guy" attitude you bring to bear on this question--immediately raises the question: What experience do you have in assessing evidence?   Are you a serious analyst? Or a kibitzer shouting wisecracks from the peanut gallery?  You do not post any biographical information, and the Forum record classifies you as a "super member" and states that you have made 1394 posts in the course of about two years. Do the math: that's almost two posts per day for about two years.  You're obviously not a lawyer or a trained historian, but I would like to know what kind of background you bring to this issue, to respond as you do. 

How do you respond to the evidence, Michael Walton?  And what is the basis for your assertions that this is a "ridiculous premise"?  And by the way, try paying attention to vocabulary: I don't have a "premise";  what I do have are inferences I have made and tentative conclusions I have drawn from this rather complex historical record.

Looking forward to your response.  Not some facile statements about whether or not you do (or don't) believe in conspiracy.

That's not the issue.

How about some information about your educational background and training?

DSL

2/27/2018 - 6:30 p.m. PST

Orange County, California

 

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by David Lifton

[Andrej Stancak]

David:

congratulations on your finding of Dr. Perry's original statement "left the wound inviolate" which also has an interesting history, and thanks for sharing it here.

I read your two detailed posts on this matter carefully. It may be difficult to draw a conclusion which would not leave a grain of doubt. All three scenarios appear possible. I would line them up starting with the least probable:

1. The catheter was inserted into the wound directly without any tracheotomy being performed. In my view, a trained emergency surgeon would avoid this and would prefer doing a tracheotomy and tracheostomy as they are trained and always do, starting with an incision.  The reason is that even if there is a hole in the neck which seemingly offers the chance to introduce a tube, the terrain is not known to the surgeon. There may be tissues and blood clots around that neck wound which would then be blown down to the bronchi and could suffocate the patient. It is, therefore, more likely that an emergency tracheostomy was made quickly at a different spot below the neck wound but not too low as there are large jugular veins around the clavicular bones. I would recommend to make a small survey among the emergency surgeons and ask them if they would use a gunshot wound apparently completely perforating the trachea for a tracheostomy.

2. Dr. Perry might have done a horizontal incision through the wound to expose the trachea, and finding the situation favorable, he inserted the tube into the existing perforation. While doing it, he would still see the original entry wound, especially after removing the tube because the edges of the incision wound would retract due to recoil force of the tissues, leaving just a line on the neck (incision) with a rounded hole (gunshot wound). This would explain his statement "...inviolate", as he still could see the original wound as it was before a tracheostomy. The gash wound with deeper tissues exposed which is seen in the autopsy photographs would be then related to an attempt to cover up the rounded hole. 

The statement " From Dr. Carrico 11/22/63 report:  "a tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry (WCE 392 [17 WCH 5]); " suggests that an incision and a section of the trachea were indeed made to accomplish the tracheostomy.

3. Dr. Perry made a tracheostomy starting with an incision which was made just below the gunshot hole in the neck. This is, in my humble opinion, what I would expect Dr. Perry to do. Dr. Perry could do the tracheostomy as he was trained to do and, therefore, he would be able to say "left the wound inviolate" in the strongest possible meaning of this statement. What happened later was that someone took retractors and pushed the edges of the incision apart to connect this incision with the rounded hole above. This would have to be an aggressive approach causing further injury to the tissues (the incision would not form a thin line anymore) which is what we see on the autopsy photograph. 

Sorry for maybe contradicting your preferred explanation, however, I just would like to provide some independent view which may (or may not) help you to refine your explanations. I am not a medical doctor myself, however, I made several tracheostomies in rats during my junior lectureship period when I as was an assistant professor of medical physiology at Charles University Prague. 

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[David Josephs]

6 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The catheter was inserted into the wound directly without any tracheotomy being performed. In my view, a trained emergency surgeon would avoid this and would prefer doing a tracheotomy and tracheostomy as they are trained and always do, starting with an incision. 

Agree 100% Andrej...   A trained ER doctor will not just try and stick a tube into a hole...  (see Trach process images at bottom)

The process, as Lifton should know from his arguments against the brain falling out given what the brain is connected to... too much work to disconnect a brain from a body...

Same with the Trach...   I'm not doubting something was said that made it sound as if a formal trach was not performed...  but does it make any real world sense that a doctor would not take the steps necessary to perform an actual tracheotomy?

If PERRY pushed a trach tube into the wound, how is that "INVIOLATE"?     Whereas Fetzer's take was "still readily visible"  which I have yet to find in any dictionary resource...

inviolate : not violated or profaned; that must be) not harmed or damaged; free from violation, injury, disturbance, etc

free or safe from injury or violation.

"an international memorial which must remain inviolate"

synonyms:

untouchable, inviolable, safe from harm; More untouched, undamaged, unhurt, unharmed, unscathed; unspoiled, unflawed, unsullied, unstained, undefiled, unprofaned, perfect, pristine, pure; intact, unbroken, whole, entire, complete "the insignia of the Red Cross was regarded as virtually inviolate"

 

    

[Sandy Larsen]

I have to agree with Andrej on this.

The wound was too small to have inserted the tracheotomy tube into. And doing so would have been an unprofessional thing to attempt IMO. I recall Perry's testimony that he moved the skin around and looked down into the tracheotomy to assess the damage to the windpipe. My impression is that the tube was in place when he did so.

It makes a lot more sense that Perry made the incision. Either right through the wound, or below it. If he cut right through the wound, maybe he later was embarrassed to admit to disturbing the wound (evidence), and so lied about it to reporters. Or maybe he actually made the incision below the wound, and had to change his testimony so that it matched what is seen in the stare-of-death photo.

One thing to keep in mind... it may not be the case that Perry lied before the WC. It's always possible that his testimony was changed by someone else. There is evidence that this sort of thing was done.

David, I suggest you ignore what Michael Walton says. His MO is to keep everything as simple as possible. And if that means ignoring a whole lot of important evidence, so be it. He has no trouble ignoring evidence. IMO his goal isn't to know what the truth is. It's only to know there was a conspiracy.

 

[Micah Mileto]

18 hours ago, David Lifton said:

There's additional background one needs to know to respond to your question.  Let me attempt, somewhat hurriedly, to provide it. 

a) Some years after the publication of Best Evidence (and I believe what I am about to describe took place after the 1988 Carrol & Graf edition, the first ever publication of the JFK autopsy photos), I received a letter from a nurse (someone named "Dobson," as I recall) who apparently had read B.E. and was following the controversy concerning the JFK assassination. She said (again, quoting from memory): "Mr. Lifton. . .: Are you aware that Dr. Perry originally stated that he made the horizontal incision below --I stress "below"--the bullet wound?"  She then cited, as her source, the famous article that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post dated (approx,, from memory) December 10th 1963, titled "Death in E.R. One" , by writer Jimmy Breslin. She quoted from the article, I had that article in my files, and, sure enough, there it was, right there in the text: Breslin was reporting that Perry had told him that the incision he made was "below" the bullet wound.   Of course, I found this very significant, but there was still more to come.

(b) When did Breslin conduct this interview with Perry? Was it a week or two later, in December (and "just in time" for the Saturday Evening Post;s editorial deadline for that midi-December issue) or earlier?  I don't have to emphasize  the importance of the original interview date. As every law student is taught (and every historian knows) the "earliest" recorded recollection is the "better" evidence.  But the exact date of interview was not at all clear. Certainly, it was not indicated in the text of that December 1963  Saturday Evening Post article.   Now. . "flash forward" several years. . . 

(c ) At some point in time, and I don't remember exactly when this (what follows) occurred, I was consulting my voluminous files on all the original media coverage, and found--to my considerable surprise-- that the Breslin article, with the identical text, was originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of Sunday, November 24, 1963. Further, the original publication of that article made clear that Breslin had interviewed Dr. Perry on November 23rd, 1963 (and possibly on 11/22; but let's just say, "by November 23rd, without a doubt" (my quotes).  So Breslin's article in the mid- December Saturday Evening Post was simply a reprint what had been published on November 24, 1963, and represented what Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin on Saturday, November 23, 1963. 

(d) At that point, I believed, based on what Breslin had published on 11/24 (which is what Perry had told him on 11/23) that Perry had made his incision "below" the original bullet wound.  But. . there is still more. . 

(e) Checking the exact wording of medical reports of the two key doctors (Dr. Carrico, who first treated President Kennedy, and inserted the endotracheal tube), here's what we find:  From Dr. Carrico 11/22/63 report:  "a tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry (WCE 392 [17 WCH 5]); and from Dr. Perry's 11/22/63 report: "a tracheostomy was effected. . . the tube was put in place" etc. (WCE 292 [17 WCH 7]).  

(f) One doesn't have to be a linguistics expert to understand that (a) neither doctor made any mention of making an incision and that (b) the passive voice was used, which avoided the issue entirely (i.e., "the tube was put in place", etc.).

(g) "All of the above" is by way of background--and the point is (that is "my point is") that for quit a few years, I believed that Perry had made his incision "below" the bullet wound (as he [Perry] had apparently told Breslin he had, on 11/23/63, and which Breslin had then written in his article as published on 11/24/63 in the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

Are you following me?. . . OK. . now, let's move on. . 

(h) At that point, the issue was: Why did Perry not tell the Warren Commission that he made his incision below the bullet wound, and not "through" the wound?

In other words, the issue--at that point in time--was (if what Perry originally told Breslin was the truth): Why was Dr. Perry complicit in an attempt to hide from history (and specifically, from the Warren Commission) the fact that he had not made his incision "through" the wound?  (Remember: Perry did not have access to the Bethesda autopsy photos, so he did not know how that wound looked, by the time it reached Bethesda that night. He did not have that info until Robert Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph, when he (and a Baltimore reporter) visited Perry at his office sometime in 1978/79, when the HSCA was still in session, and Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph which, apparently, he had permission to possess. . although i'm not sure on this last point).

(i) In December 1982, when I first came into possession of a set of the (Fox) black-and-white autopsy photos (See Epilogue to B.E., 1988 edition, published again in 1993, Signet), it became obvious how serious this matter was, because the effect of Perry's perjury (the proper legal name for what he did) became apparent: there was, by the time these autopsy photos were taken at Bethesda, a wide and obvious horizontal gash in President Kennedy's throat, and obviously that was not the "teach incision" made by Dr. Perry, if (a) he had made "his" incision below the original bullet wounds and (b) if he had made no incision at all.

Which brings me to the next point. . . 

(j) At some point, I became aware of Dr. Dave Stewart's statements, in a 1966 (or perhaps 1967) interview --date uncertain--and which was a front page story in the Nashville (Tenn.) Banner (again, from memory).  At that point, I tried to evaluate what he had said, but, confusing the situation, was the transcript of Dr. Perry's CBS interview (broadcast in June 1967), which--according to the transcript in White's book,--stated that he had "rendered the wound invalid." That incorrect transcript--which I did not know was incorrect (i.e., had  been deliberately falsified)--something I did not know until the visit to Gordon's home in June/July 1989--served to confuse me and thwart any attempt at proper analysis.  And here's how the "turning point" (or "tipping point", to use more current vernacular) occurred.

(k) In 1982, I did a serious, in depth, telephone interview with Dr. Stewart.  He stated--indeed, emphasized--that Dr. Perry stated that he (Perry) had said to him (Dr. Stewart) that he had left the wound "inviolate."  I listened, made notes, probably made a recording, and wrote up a detailed memo.   Based on the false transcript at the back of the Stephen White book (mentioned in my previous writing on this thread), I (incorrectly) concluded that Dr. Stewart was simply mistaken. Perry had said (I thought) that he rendered the wound "invalid." He had never said "inviolate."   All of what I have just described was in my 1982 multi--page memo.

(l) I made a copy of that memo and provided it to Pat Valentino.  More important, when I moved from New Jersey (where I lived for a few years, after B.E. was published) back to Los Angeles, Pat V. flew east to help me move.  There were tons of files, many filing cabinets and shelving, and Pat was invaluable in helping me dissemble everything, pack it up, and put it into a large truck we had rented for the cross country trip.  As he worked in my New Jersey apartment, with its beautiful view over the Hudson River, he wore a headset with a connecting wire to a small cassette recorder he wore on his belt and listened to the tapes of various recordings I had made over the years, and which were stacked on shelves.  Often, he would stop moving the dolly, take off the headset, and exclaim, "David: Did you know what Malcolm Kilduff told you?" (And I would usually say, "No, I don't remember. . what did he say?" etc., because Pat is blessed with an eidetic memory; I, unfortunately, am not)  Well, one of the tapes he listened to was my conversation (circa 1982) with Dr. Dave Stewart.  Pat was really impressed with Dr. Stewart's audio demeanor.  "David,  this man is telling you the truth! This is important!"  And I, having already reviewed the situation more than once, responded by saying, "Pat, he's wrong. He's just confused. He's got the word "inviolate" confused with "invalid." Perry said "I rendered the wound invalid. He did not say "inviolate".  Now how do you know that? was Pat's response. And my response to Pat was: "Just read the transcript of the CBS show. Its right there, in the transcript. Perry said "I rendered it invalid." He did not say that he left the wound "inviolate."  Of course, I was relying on the incorrect transcript (read: deliberately falsified transcript, falsified by someone connected with the White book) at the back of White's back.  But there the matter rested, for years.  Pat believed what Dr. Stewart had told me over the phone; I did not.  But. . 

(m) But Pat was so insistent on the point, that --around 1988/89, when I raised the money to go round the country for a series of filmed interviews, that we should include Dr. Stewart on our itinerary, and so we did.  Meanwhile, and just days before, that itinerary included a detailed interview/meeting with Groden, at his home in Hopelawn, New Jersey.   One purpose of the meeting with Groden was to get the best copies we could of the Zapruder film, and other films, for which Groden was paid $5,000, and signed a contract. (Gordon later denied much of this, but he signed the contract, he was paid, and in subsequent interviews, simply lied about it. See my essay, "Pig on a Leash," published in the Fetzer anthology, Hoax, for the details). And I certainly do not wish to be diverted here, into a discussion of Robert Groden, or his ethics, character, and general behavior.  Simply put, he's an obsessive collector, much more so than a researcher, and a hoarder. But. . putting all that aside, and that may hold the key to the  missing original Nix film, and the missing original Muchmore film) that provides the context of how it was that, lubricated by the payment (of the first $2500) and suffused with a general feeling of goodwill, Groden played (for us) his crystal clear copy of the CBS interview of Perry, made in 1966/67, and broadcast in June 1967) and there it was, right there on the tape, Perry stating that "I left the wound inviolate."   Again: "inviolate" . . .crystal clear, on the tape.

(n)  Our very next stop after spending two days with Groden (again, this was June/July 1989)  was to meet with Dr. Stewart (at his residence in the SE United States). We spent hours with him, and conducted an excellent filmed interview. Going over the whole story - - A to Z--asking every single question we could, getting it all down on film.  Its an important story, historically, because Dr. Stewart should have been (and could have been) an important witness before the Warren Commission. But that never happened because the Warren Commission was completely focused on the sophomoric "Oswald-did-it" story and never approached the case from the standpoint that there might be fraud in the evidence.  Had they done so, had they heard Dr. Stewart's story, there would have been additional testimony sought from Dr. Perry and it would have been very clear that one of them was not telling the truth. Stewart would have testified that Perry said that he left the wound "inviolate"; and Perry would have been asked to explain why he testified that he made a horizontal incision through the wound.

(O)  So that's the background about how all this was discovered, and the legal and historical implications.  Suddenly, the tables were turned, and it became clear that:

  (1) it was Dr. Stewart who was telling the truth about what Perry had said,. .

  (2)  That Dr. Perry himself actually used the word inviolate in his 1967 CBS interview (possibly done in 1966, but broadcast in June 1967); and. . 

  (3)  That the CBS transcript located at the back (in an Appendix) to the Steve White book ("Should we Now Believe the Warren Report"-1968)  was incorrect (IMHO: deliberately falsified, by someone connected with the White book, to prevent White from learning the truth about what Perry had actually said, and pursuing the matter). Because note. . 

  (4) If Perry said "inviolate" (which he did, because--as Dr. Stewart noted to us, on camera--its  right there in his CBS interview, as broadcast nationally in June 1967), then that provides a "direct path" to the thesis of body alteration.  Why? Because no longer are we dealing with "surgery of the head area" but an entirely different "highway to the truth", one that involves the front throat wound, and is based upon  a comparison of "what Perry said" with "what the autopsy photographs" (and specifically, the stare-of-death photo) shows.

Now back to your original question, which was, QUOTE: Are you suggesting the tracheotomy incision was 2-3 cm and below the throat wound, or that a tube was simply inserted into the throat wound? UNQUOTE  

My answer: My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision.  He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade).  And then the following events occurred:

(a) When interviewed by Breslin the next day (sat., 11/23/63) Perry said that he made an incision 'below" the bullet wound (apparently not wanting to get involved with anything having to do with that wound). 

(b) On March 25, 1964, by the time he was deposed by Warren Commission counsel Specter, he had (apparently) been importuned  to go along with the story that he had made a horizontal incision through the wound. On that date, he simply stated that he had "initiated the procedure" (6 WCH 9);

(c) Five days later, on March 30th, 1964, Perry testified in Washington before Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles, Ford, Boggs, etc. 

On that occasion, he said: "I began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck." (3 WCH 369)

If i'm correct, Dr. Perry was completely compromised--morally, and legally--by these decisions to testify in this manner,  but I do not believe he would have made these decisions without the sanction of 'higher authority."  That is another subject, and one which I will address in Final Charade.

In plain English, and now focusing on the throat wound: in the 1963/64 time frame, someone was behind an effort to hide the fact that the President's body was altered. As a consequence: the very serious and obvious conflict between what the face-up autopsy photo shows (the wide gash, etc.), and what Perry (originally) said that he did (never made an incision, etc) was completely hidden from view. The double whammy: Perry testified falsely; and the autopsy photographs were unavailable for (at least) five years; and remember: they were not published (by me) until 1988.

Addressing your question number 2: 

Are the Tennessee newspapers online or in Best Evidence? I have the signet edition. Any direct quotes from the newspaper so I can search for it online

RESPONSE: None of what i have written here (in this post) is in Best Evidence. Remember: B.E. was published in january 1981. As noted in these posts, all of these events (with one exception) commenced around 1982.  The exception: I was probably aware of the original Tennessee newspaper story when I wrote B.E. (1976-80) but simply didn't know what to make of it. Because Dr. Stewart was not actually in ER-1 (and because he was never interviewed by the WC), I never attempted to contact him. His true importance didn't emerge until the letter I received (circa 1982, as I recall) from Nurse Dobson, calling my attention to what Breslin had written in the (mid-December 1963) Saturday Evening Post.  Yes, it would be useful to obtain the original Tennessee newspaper  story. Certainly, it is in my original "JFK Medical Files," but those are now located, with over 40 filing cabinets, in a storage area, for which I pay a pricey bill each month.  I'm seriously considering setting up a crowd-funding project to get all this material properly indexed (and scanned, where appropriate). Meanwhile. . a suggestion: use Interlibrary Loan, at a major library; or. . the digital capabilities of one of those major newspaper sites. If you (or anyone) retrieves the story, please email me at dsl74@Cornell.edu., because I would be interested in a digital copy of that story. 

One other matter (and in the spirit of a Post Script): Obviously, Dr. Dave Stewart is one of the unsung heroes of this whole matter of the throat wound, and he will be receiving full and proper credit in Final Charade. Furthermore, its my intention that the appropriate excerpts of the June/July 1989 interview with Robert Groden and, most importantly, of Dave Stewart, will be made available either on the Internet or via DVD.

Addressing question #3:  i don't understand what "blue ray" films you are referring to. Please clarify.

Re your question #4:

QUOTE:

4. Do you think the autopsy pathologists lied about being ignorant of the original throat wound? in BE, George Barnum's 11/29/1963 written account seems like it pretty much seals the deal on the autopsy pathologists knowing. Boswell can't keep his story straight, Perry always said Humes called him on Friday night, Manchester's book says he talked to Perry at midnight. Autopsy participants who made statements indicating the autopsy doctors were aware of Kennedy's throat wound include John Stringer, Richard Lipsey, James Jenkins, John Ebersole, Robert Karnei, and Robert Knudsen. UNQUOTE

RESPONSE: I have completely re-evaluated my position (re the autopsy doctors) from what it was at the time I wrote Best Evidence. I will have much more to say about this, but it is beyond the scope of this thread.  The issue goes way beyond whether Humes was "aware of Kennedy's throat wound". The issue is "much worse" than that; and much more fundamental: whether Humes and Boswell knew that the president's body had been intercepted and altered prior to its arrival at the Bethesda morgue.  And: if they knew. . .what were they told?  How was the situation explained to them? etc. And, finally, how were the autopsy photographs created? Did these two individuals supervise the taking of photographs that were based on a reconstruction?  Again. . what were they told? How was such activity explained (i.e., justified) to them?

Stay tuned.

DSL

2/27/2018 - 3 P.M.

Orange County, California

 

 

Woah, who would've known that exclusive JFK information was a comment away.

 

I'm concerned that some of what you may consider evidence is better regarded as a semantics-related clue that may or may not mean what you think it means. "Below the throat wound", "didn't have to make an incision to insert the trach tube". The "inviolate" motif from Perry I would consider solid evidence, but your other examples sound like Perry is just simplifying what happened on 11/22/1963 when he's telling acquaintances or journalists the story.

Reminds me of your information about O'Neill's friend telling him "Wayne, there was no brain!"; from what you've provided so far this sounds like O'Neill is just simplying what happened when he's telling the story informally. Not that I've seen your super-exclusive interview tapes or anything which might give me more context than what is already publicly available in books and online.

 

Come to think of it, this is making me think of Lattimer's experiments where his 6.5 exit wound in the throat came out as a small hole with a long slit, like a surgical incision over a bullet hole. http://proutyg.jfkassassination.net/pdf/lattimer.pdf

 

 

Instead of a DVD, it would be nice to see your final dump of medical video and audio on a blu-ray disc. Future researchers will be using bionic eyes and ears, so every pixel counts.

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[David Lifton]

Andrei, and David Josephs:

There are two separate issues here - - (1) What Perry actually did (surgically, i.e. "medically") and (2) What Perry said that he did.

The underlying issue is of considerable importance to me, as the author of Best Evidence, because the important issue is whether the throat wound was altered between the time the body  was observed in ER-1 at Parkland Hospital (by the "treating physicians"); and the time the official autopsy on the body commenced (at 8 PM, EST)  in the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School, at the National Naval Medical Center ("Bethesda Naval Hospital"), Bethesda, Maryland.

Here are the facts, as I know them, and/or understand them:

On November 23, 1963, Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin that he made an incision "below" the bullet wound.  On that occasion, he did not use the word 'inviolate," (as far as we know);  he simply said (i.e., told Jimmy Breslin) that he inserted the tracheotomy tube "below" the bullet wound; and Breslin then used that word--"below"-in the article he wrote for the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch which was published on 11/24/63, and which was then  reprinted as "Death in O.R. 1" in the Sat Evening Post of 12/14/1963.

On that same weekend (according to Dr. Dave Stewart, who first related this to me in a telephone interview in 1982) Dr. Perry told Stewart --that he left the wound "inviolate."  Steward told me this in 1982, by phone; and then repeated all of it in considerable detail i a filmed interview that I conducted in June 1989, with Pat Valentino also being present. (See paragraph below, starting "In June 1989").

In late 1966 (according to notes I made), Perry was interviewed by CBS affiliate KRLD's Eddie Barker; and in that interview, he clearly stated that he "left the wound inviolate".  That interview was broadcast in June 1967, in Part 2 of the 4-part CBS program defending the Warren Report. A year (or so) before he died, the late Gary Mack pulled his copy of the tape, at the Sixth Floor Museum, and confirmed (to me, and others, on the Paul Hoch email chain) that that is what Perry said.

In the Nashville Banner of November 1967, Dr. Stewart was interviewed and stated that Perry told him that he didn't have to make an incision through the wound, because he was able to use the pre-existing bullet wound as an orifice of entry. (I will defer to whatever is printed in that Nashville Banner news story. As I recall, the word "inviolate" was not used in that story, but my recollection may be incorrect. I don't know for sure). 

In 1977 (according to notes examined a few hours ago), Groden (then employed by the HSCA)  and a Baltimore newspaper reporter visited Dr. Perry at his New York City office and showed him the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photo, showing the throat wound (with that wide gash, testified to by Humes as being "7 - 8 cm" and exhibiting "widely gaping irregular edges" (per the autopsy report). Perry shook his head from side to side and said ("sadly") words to the effect that he didn't "understand" because he had "left the wound inviolate." Gordon's account of what occurred on that occasion was set forth, by Groden, in my filmed interview with him in June 1989, just a few days after I had had the filmed interview with Dr. Stewart.

In June 1989, I (and Pat Valentino) went to Dr. Dave Stewart's home (one or two days prior to interviewing Groden, on camera)and had a multi-hour highly detailed filmed interview with Dr. Dave Stewart. On that occasion, Dr. Stewart related his entire experience with regard to his relationship with Dr. Perry, and what Perry had told him on 11/22 (or very shortly thereafter); also, how the Dallas doctors reacted to getting a call (or calls) from Bethesda on Friday night, 11/22/63, and their strong reaction to learning that there had been confusion, supposedly because of what "they" had done.  They reacted strongly to this because, Stewart told me (on camera) that no one had touched the throat wound, in doing the tracheotomy; and during this filmed interview, Dr. Stewart repeatedly quoted Perry and used the word "inviolate".

In that same filmed interview, I asked Dr. Stewart: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how certain are you that Perry used the term 'inviolate'?"; his response, quite immediate, was to state, very sharply and emphatically;  "15."

As to what Perry actually did (as distinguished from "what he said he did" [my quotes]:  in Final Charade,  I will be publishing an account from Dr. McClelland in which he (McClellan) states that Perry did not have to make an incision, and, by way of explanation, Mcclelland stated the following: that as Perry withdrew the endotracheal tube originally inserted by Dr. Carrico, Perry was then able to enter the trachea by inserting the tracheotomy tube through the pre-existing bullet wound, as soon as the endotracheal tube was withdrawn, and was at a location above that bullet wound.

Returning now to the statement made at the outset of this post: let's distinguish between what Perry "did" from what he "said he did."  He clearly states--again and again and again--that he did not disturb the pre-existing bullet wound, explaining to Dr. Stewart (who related what Perrytold him to the Nashville Banner in 1967,  that he used the pre-existing bullet wound as an orifice of entry, and (the) never had to make an incision.  Stewart told me (1989) that Perry (and the others) were clearly distressed that "they" (at the Dallas end of the line) were being blamed for having caused confusion by having altered the wound, maintaining that they hadn't touched it in any way, and left it just as they had found it. 

My personal opinion: I think going to the dictionary (as if looking for some "wiggle room") is not particularly helpful, because Perry made very clear what his position was. He never touched the wound--that's what he said (to Stewart) and Stewart related all of that to me, first in 1982, by phone, and then in the very detailed (and serious) 1989 filmed interview.

Again, i come back to the question that I asked him, on camera, as related above: "How certain are you, on a scale of 1 to 10, that Perry used the word 'inviolate'?"; to which Dr. Stewart responded, with considerable emphasis:  "15."

No amount of "dictionary research" or research as to "standard [medical] procedures" is going to change the certainty of Dr. Perry (as related to me by Dr. Dave Stewart) that he (Perry) stated that he never changed the shape of the throat wound; i.e., that he left it 'inviolate."

Finally, there is the matter of the Steve White book, and the issue that is raised by that book.

THE STEVE WHITE BOOK (1968) - -Should We Now Believe the warren Report?

White's book contains a small documentary appendix featuring a printed transcript of Part 2 of the 4 -part CBS show. The transcript very explicitly states an important falsehood: that Perry said, in the (Eddie Barker) interview, that by performing the tracheotomy, he cut through the wound and "rendered it invalid."

However, the actual (i.e., the supposedly "true") CBS transcript, but that's not the case.  The actual CBS  transcript was retrieved by JFK researcher Todd Vaughan from the Gerald Ford library, and that document states that Perry said he "left the wound inviolate".  (And that, also, is what is stated on the CBS transcript that I obtained directly from CBS files in New York City, back in June 1967, when the four-part program was first broadcast.

So. . it would appear that someone (and I suspect it was Barker, but I don't know, for sure) altered the transcript provided to author White so that when he wrote about this issue (his book was published in 1968) he would honestly believe the story --which is completely false--that the confusion at Bethesda was caused by a tracheotomy incision made by Dr. Perry in Dallas.  Its very important to understand how serious this particular facet of the throat wound mystery is: by altering that transcript, some third party was engaged in a premeditated deception; and, if this had gone to court, an obstruction of justice. The two transcripts--the official CBS transcript from the Ford Library (or CBS News in NYC) and the printed version appearing at the back of the White book--are completely word-for-word identical, except for that single sentence (!).

Finally, and I want to emphasize another point: both the late Gary Mack (and JFK researcher Todd Vaughan) independently confirmed that, without any doubt, Perry stated (in the CBS broadcast interview of June 1967) that, with regard to the throat wound,  he stated that he left the wound "inviolate."

To recap: this is a multi-faceted mystery, and there are (to my mind) at least five separate facets:

FACET #1: What Perry said: He clearly said, according to multiple sources, and to the audio record itself, that he left the wound "inviolate."

FACET #2: What Perry did (on 11/22/63):  My personal belief: He did what he said he did: Perry left the wound "inviolate."

FACET #3: Perry's changed story as to what he said he did: telling Breslin on 11/23 that he made his incision 'below"the pre-existing bullet wound; telling Stewart that he didn't have to alter the wound to effect the tracheotomy.

FACET #4: What happened to the body between Dallas and Bethesda (vis a vis the throat wound): Someone altered the throat wound; turning what was a small puncture, a quarter inch in diameter, punctate, etc.,  into a wide gash, that-- according to the Humes autopsy testimony was "7 - 8 cm" in length, and had "widely gaping irregular edges".

FACET #5:  The Altered Transcript of the Eddie Barker/Perry Interview: Someone changed the transcript of the CBS interview published at the back of Steve White's 1968 book so that it falsely stated that Perry, by the action he took, "rendered it [the wound] invalid."

My personal opinion: One can not find "the answer" to this multi-faceted mystery by looking up in the dictionary the word "inviolate" or looking into medical journals to find out how a tracheotomy is "normally" (i.e., usually) performed.  

Everything that happened in this particular case violates the norms, and---had there been a Special Prosecutor in this case, and had such a "higher authority" been created and allowed to investigate--the outcome would be (i.e., "would have been") entirely different than the sophomoric "Oswald-did-it" story that is to e found in the Warren Report; along with the disgraceful behavior of former CIA Director Allen Dulles. Specifically, when Perry testified (falsely) on March 30, 1964, that he made an incision, he was then badgered by Dulles who attempted to blame the public confusion about the throat wound on Perry's supposedly incorrect statements to the press.

DSL

2/28/2018 - 9:15 A.M. PST

Orange County, California

 

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by David Lifton

[Micah Mileto]

11 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

 

If you can get that 1967 CBS tape and maybe track down information on the kind of equipment they used back then, maybe you could somehow prove that the Dr. Perry "inviolate" skip must have been intentionally added in. Then you could easily have hard scientific proof of a coverup. Since CBS was with the CIA, proving alteration of the Perry interview tape would be a pretty big deal.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[David Lifton]

Micah:

I do not understand your comment; i.e.,  what you mean (or intend to infer) by the phrase "the 'inviolate' skip".

As heard by me and Pat Valentino--when we were both viewing Gordon's CBS tape, at his home--and as confirmed by the late Gary Mack, it is unquestionably the case that Perry says he left the wound "inviolate."

Subjectively. . yes, I felt there was something peculiar about the audio, because the audio didn't seem to match the lip movements of Dr. Perry. (And, on that score, and as I recall, Pat, and I, and Groden, all took Gordon's tape to a high class audio shop in Philadelphia, and tried to make a copy that we could study, and in which the audio and video were both "slowed down").

In any event, and as matters now stand: the demonstrable cover-up occurs in the area of the transcript  published at the back of the Steve White book which, without any doubt, was altered to remove "inviolate" and which substituted the phrase that Perry "rendered it invalid."

DSL

2/28/2018 - 9:55 A.M.PDT

Orange County, California

[Micah Mileto]

6 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Micah:

I do not understand your comment; i.e.,  what you mean (or intend to infer) by the phrase "the 'inviolate' skip".

As heard by me and Pat Valentino--when we were both viewing Gordon's CBS tape, at his home--and as confirmed by the late Gary Mack, it is unquestionably the case that Perry says he left the wound "inviolate."

Subjectively. . yes, I felt there was something peculiar about the audio, because the audio didn't seem to match the lip movements of Dr. Perry. (And, on that score, and as I recall, Pat, and I, and Groden, all took Gordon's tape to a high class audio shop in Philadelphia, and tried to make a copy that we could study, and in which the audio and video were both "slowed down").

In any event, and as matters now stand: the demonstrable cover-up occurs in the area of the transcript  published at the back of the Steve White book which, without any doubt, was altered to remove "inviolate" and which substituted the phrase that Perry "rendered it invalid."

DSL

2/28/2018 - 9:55 A.M.PDT

Orange County, California

You are saying that the 1967 Dr. Perry full CBS interview tape has the audio/video unnaturally slurring at the word "inviolate", as if somebody maybe wanted to disguise the word "invalid" as unclear dialogue or the word "invalid", right? If that's how all of the CBS copies were, then you at least have a freak coincidence. If you can prove what and what not was the cause of the audio/video error at the word "inviolate", then you may have a scientific proof of coverup involving (CIA-maintained) CBS on your hands.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[David Lifton]

OK. I "get it." Thanks. DSL