Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Mili Cranor on the Wide Tracheotomy

Recommended Posts

It's great to read a voice from the distant past as well as one that offers a smart analysis of what happened.

Now if someone could convince Lifton to knock off the silliness of his *NEW*(!) discovery that Perry didn't really say he cut into the throat wound to insert the trach tube, and further trying to "prove" his goofy thrumming copter body alteration baloney. To put it kindly I think it's disgraceful to the memory of Perry that he's trying to stir that pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG Mike, I will not tell Mili how old you think she is.

But recall, she revised this for us.

Mili is really one of the best writers on the medical evidence we have.  What few people know is that she is such good researcher  that people like Mantik and Aguilar confer with her for their articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim:

thanks for posting this interesting and timely article by Dr. Cranor. I confess that it only increases my overall confusion over the frontal neck wound. It would be useful to post links to the PDF articles quoted to be able to check to be able to evaluate the content. For instance,  the article "Penetrating wounds in the neck" does not seem to refer to the particular case of President Kennedy's wound. Here is at least the abstract of the article:

J Trauma. 1978 Jan;18(1):2-7.

Penetrating wounds of the neck and upper thorax.

Abstract

During the past decade, a method utilizing individual case assessment has been employed in the treatment of 51 patients with penetrating wounds of the neck and upper thorax. Only those wounds penetrating the platysma are included. Thirty-five patients (68.6%) underwent neck exploration; 16 patients (31.4%) were managed nonoperatively. Overall, five patients died, four patients following operative treatment and one treated nonoperatively, for a mortality rate of 9.8%. In the nonoperative group, a mortality of 6.2% (one death) compares favorably with an operative mortality of 11.4% (four deaths). Ten patients (29%) in the neck exploration group exhibited significant later morbidity compared to seven patients (44%) in the patients not explored. Therefore the morbidity from a negative neck exploration was only 2% (one of 20 patients). The techniques for exploring the neck are discussed. Adequate surgical exposure is largely dependent on the possibility of vascular injury, the most common cause of death in this series.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The article likely deals with cases such as knife cut wounds where a cut through the platysma has occurred (platysma is a thin but large muscle covering the front of the neck). The collar incision would be appropriate in such cases because of the likelihood that blood vessels in the neck could have been injured. The neck wound in Kennedy was a different story: it was located clearly in the midline, and below the cricoid cartilage, meaning that the trachea was penetrated. As this was an emergency tracheostomy, Dr. Perry decided to make an incision through it and use the opening in the trachea for tracheostomy. Dr. Perry made a comparatively small incision (up to 4 cm), a neat slit through the upper edge of the gunshot wound. He was able to explore the immediate area of the trachea and the muscles through this incision. Dr. Perry certainly did not make a collar type incision shown in Blass et al. (1978) (quoted in Dr. Cranor's article) to explore also the carotid arteries or mediastinum. There was no time for this, no reason for this, and it is not supported by any of Parkland's doctors.

Actually, the original incision by Dr. Perry can still be seen in the autopsy photograph. Please find here the enlargement of the neck wound in the autopsy photograph. Of course, some details are debatable, however, a distinction between a clean slit  (1) and the cuts to the sides of this incision. Actually, there were pairs of cuts on each side of the original 3-4 cm incision which was necessary for expanding the neck wound vertically.

1: the original incision made by Dr. Perry. 2-3: skin flaps delineating by two cuts. The upper cuts in each pair connected with Dr. Perry's incision.  6: a hypothetical lower edge of Dr. Perry's incisison (not seen in the autopsy photograph). 5: a dark spot which may correspond to the opening caused by the gunshot wound/tracheotomy. 7-8: residuals of sutures? 4: the residual of the rounded gunshot wound, probably damaged by a vertical incision.

 

close_wound2.jpg?w=768&h=1383

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

OMG Mike, I will not tell Mili how old you think she is.

Oh xxxx - this is on me!  Sorry but I got her mixed up with another great one, Meagher. But they're both fantastic. Insightful, plausible and always with a ring of truth to them.

6 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Jim:

thanks for posting this interesting and timely article by Dr. Cranor.

Andrej - I'm politely and respectfully asking you to please not post those very graphic and ghastly images.  I had asked you to please not post them on another thread as well. I've asked you in the past as it can be very disrespectful to the Kennedy family. Please remove them, thank you. Also, there's simply no reason to muddy the waters here on a post that Jim is posting regarding Ms. Cranor.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andre - - post whatever you wish, and whatever you deem necessary to make your points.  Walton's  objections (and many of his statements) are pure rubbish. When it comes to photo evidence and "truth," this is a guy who changed his avatar from a true picture (he's just under 50) and tries to pose as a teenager. Enough said.   FYI: when (in 1988) I made the decision to publish the autopsy photos (in the Carrol & Graf edition of Best Evidence), I had to face the possibility of offending certain partisans of the Kennedy family, if not Kennedy family members themselves. I wrote an Epilogue making the point that the publication of these photos raised "competing interests."  Specifically, that while, in an ideal world, everyone would want sensitivity towards the living, we should also pursue the goal of justice for the dead. And that's the key: truth in history, and justice for the dead are closely related. Some people just don't "get it." They can't even be relied to tell the truth about their own age, much less answer simple questions about their education. They'd rather pose as someone they're not, and raise a bunch of disingenuous objections about how "oh so upset" they are, by autopsy photos.  This is the kind of pretentious phony that might appear as a fringe character in a novel, but is not to be taken seriously in a discussion of the most important evidence in this murder case: the body of President John F. Kennedy. Carry on.

DSL

3/13/2018 - 10 PM PDT

Orange County, California

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David:

thanks for your supporting note. I own the paperback copy of your book with Ida Dox's reproduction of the neck wound. 

The point flagged up by Michael is a relevant one, and I now know that you have carefully evaluated the risks and benefits of publishing some autopsy photographs back then, 30  years ago. Nowadays, the autopsy photographs are widely publicised and known, for instance, Robert Groden published three colored neck wound pictures, each taken from a different angle, in his book "JFK- Absolute Proof". The autopsy photographs, even those published in books, are protected by law. However, I assume that members of Kennedy's family have long waived their personal data protection claims and leave researchers to use the already published autopsy pictures for their personal research.  In my post, I have actually shown only the wound and avoided showing the face which certainly, even after 54 years, may arouse emotions in sensitive people. 

Back to our topic. I have sent questions related to sutures in the neck to Dr. McClelland, via an intermediary. I am not sure if I will hear from Dr. McClelland, however, he was leaning over President's head as he was standing behind the President's head, so he should know if Dr. Perry applied some sutures while performing a tracheostomy or after this surgery. I also included a question asking if the wound was sutured when he last saw President's body. I will inform you and the community if I receive any reply. It is more than 54 years after the fact, and I would not be surprised if Dr. McClelland would not remember this point which at that moment did not appear important to him. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mili Cranor Replies:

Andrej Stancak: 

 

“The article likely deals with cases such as knife cut wounds where a cut through the platysma has occurred (platysma is a thin but large muscle covering the front of the neck). The collar incision would be appropriate in such cases because of the likelihood that blood vessels in the neck could have been injured…..

 

“Dr. Perry certainly did not make a collar type incision shown in Blass et al. (1978) (quoted in Dr. Cranor's article) to explore also the carotid arteries or mediastinum. There was no time for this, no reason for this, and it is not supported by any of Parkland's doctors...”

 

Milicent Cranor:

 

Mr. Stancak, the articles I quoted concern penetrating wounds to the neck.  The bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck was a penetrating wound.  The appropriate response to such a wound is a “limited exploratory.” Your claim that Perry did not explore the carotid arteries or mediastinum is false:

 

Malcolm Perry – Re Carotid Arteries:

 

"I also made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea... I didn't know whether I was going to encounter carotid arteries or whatever. But the path of the bullet clearly put those vessels at risk as well as the trachea, so I made the wound big enough to do that... How big it [the incision] was, I don't know.... I made it big enough to control an underlying bleeding blood vessel if necessary.”[ARRB testimony]  

 

Malcolm Perry – Re Mediastinum:

 

“I noticed there was free air and blood in the right mediastinum and although I could not see any evidence… of it in the pleura of [or] the lung, the presence of this blood in this area could be indicative of the underlying condition.” [3 WCH 370]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Walton's  objections (and many of his statements) are pure rubbish. When it comes to photo evidence and "truth," this is a guy who changed his avatar from a true picture (he's just under 50) and tries to pose as a teenager. Enough said.   FYI: when (in 1988) I made the decision to publish the autopsy photos (in the Carrol & Graf edition of Best Evidence)

First you called me a schmuck and now because I changed my avatar, what I'm saying about your theory is rubbish?  That's fine, Dave.  It still doesn't change the fact that your body alteration theory is a flight of fantasy.

And though she's quite subtle in her writing (the story JDE posted on his site above), it looks like M. Cranor doesn't think too highly of your theory as well. Does that make her a schmuck as well?

I found this for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xel2lnpvY5Y

When was the body squirreled away by the Mad Doctors during this journey?  And please don't tell me it's during the swearing in.  That'd be about as plausible you saying Perry didn't cut through the wound. It just flies against all reason and plausibility.

And take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZtWB-4s-R4

With all the people on board milling about mid-flight - and with them removing the seats to make a special place to put the coffin for the return to DC - do you really think someone would have hurriedly removed the body back there?  And where would they have put the body?  The Irish Mafia did not want to put the body in the cargo hold for this very reason.  They thought it would be undignified to put it down in the cargo hold, hence, the little private spot they found in the back.  And yes, it was actually convenient to park it there as well as it's pretty close to the rear entrance where it was brought in and taken off later in DC. Would any of them allowed the Mad Doctors to have removed the body and then thrown it down into the cargo hold? Or maybe find some very tight nook *somewhere* on the flight deck to stuff it in and hide it?

Come on, Dave.  You have to have a "decency" or two bone in your body to realize that this whole thrumming copter and scalpels at the ready theory holds about as much water as the Hardly Lee "Oswald and his Mom had clones from Europe 13 whole years before 11/22" fiction.

And I've said this before but don't mind saying it again.  I really truly think it's disgraceful of you to be trying to twist and turn Malcolm Perry's clearly stated record that he DID cut into the throat wound in order to further bolster your thrumming copter theory.  IMO - it's outrageously distasteful of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 4:23 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

thanks for posting this interesting and timely article by Dr. Cranor. I confess that it only increases my overall confusion over the frontal neck wound. It would be useful to post links to the PDF articles quoted to be able to check to be able to evaluate the content. For instance,  the article "Penetrating wounds in the neck" does not seem to refer to the particular case of President Kennedy's wound. Here is at least the abstract of the article:

Andrej - you're putting the cart before the horse. If the Mad Doctors couldn't get a hold of the body when there were so many upset, crying, angry people around guarding the body with their lives, why put numbers on an image of the throat wound trying to prove something that never happened in the first place?

And ask yourself - what about the back wound?  The autopsy photo clearly shows that that shot would not have exited with a downward trajectory through the throat wound. Right?  Yet, Dave, you and others who believe this theory think that the Mad Doctors did surgery to the body before the autopsy. So why didn't they work feverishly to somehow try to cover up the back wound? Or did they just forget to try to cover that wound up?

That's what I've never understood about the way people think about this case.  There's plenty of evidence to prove the case for conspiracy, including the photos and the Z film.  Yet, it's always got to be more. More conspiracy, more over-analyzing of things until you wind up with theories that are nothing but malarkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mili Cranor Replies:

Andrej Stancak: 

 

“The article likely deals with cases such as knife cut wounds where a cut through the platysma has occurred (platysma is a thin but large muscle covering the front of the neck). The collar incision would be appropriate in such cases because of the likelihood that blood vessels in the neck could have been injured…..

 

“Dr. Perry certainly did not make a collar type incision shown in Blass et al. (1978) (quoted in Dr. Cranor's article) to explore also the carotid arteries or mediastinum. There was no time for this, no reason for this, and it is not supported by any of Parkland's doctors...”

 

Milicent Cranor:

 

Mr. Stancak, the articles I quoted concern penetrating wounds to the neck.  The bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck was a penetrating wound.  The appropriate response to such a wound is a “limited exploratory.” Your claim that Perry did not explore the carotid arteries or mediastinum is false:

 

Malcolm Perry – Re Carotid Arteries:

 

"I also made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea... I didn't know whether I was going to encounter carotid arteries or whatever. But the path of the bullet clearly put those vessels at risk as well as the trachea, so I made the wound big enough to do that... How big it [the incision] was, I don't know.... I made it big enough to control an underlying bleeding blood vessel if necessary.”[ARRB testimony]  

 

Malcolm Perry – Re Mediastinum:

 

“I noticed there was free air and blood in the right mediastinum and although I could not see any evidence… of it in the pleura of [or] the lung, the presence of this blood in this area could be indicative of the underlying condition.” [3 WCH 370]

 

2

Jim:

I may be wrong but the 3-4 cm slit was enough to see bleeding from carotids. The carotid arteries run on sides of a trachea which has a diameter of 1.5-2 cm. If you add 1 cm to each side  of an incision above the trachea, you may see the medial aspects of the carotid arteries and certainly, it is possible to determine if any of the two carotid arteries was bleeding in association with the gunshot wound. This is consistent with what Dr. Cranor quotes: "I also made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea..." "Big enough" to see carotid arteries (or rather bleeding from these arteries) was 3-4 cm, you do not need a 7.5 cm incision.

The mediastinum is the soft connective tissue separating organs in the thorax, it is not a neck structure. It was not visible or accessible from the level of the 2nd tracheal ring, however,  the top aspect of the mediastinum could probably be seen from a 3-4 cm incision at the level of the third tracheal ring. What Dr. Perry said in his testimony was that he did not see any injury to the carotid arteries which would explain the bubbling and frothing of blood through the neck wound, and therefore, he inferred the presence of blood and air in the right mediastinum. Thus, he did not explore the mediastinum directly (via the alleged collar type of incision). Dr. Perry himself did not see that area of the chest, he only inferred on an injury there from the direction of the bubbling air and oozing and accumulation of blood that it was coming from the right superior mediastinum.  His inference of an injury to the lungs by inference was possible as he could not see any bleeding from the carotid arteries, and the only remaining possibility was the right superior mediastinum. Dr. Perry was concerned about the possibility of a pneumothorax, and therefore further tubes were introduced to the chest.

Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.
As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves. But in the presence of this large amount of blood in this area, one would be unable to detect small injuries to the underlying structures. The air was indicated by the fact that there was some frothing of this blood present, bubbling which could have been due to the tracheal injury or an underlying injury to the lung.
Since the morbidity attendant upon insertion of an anterior chest tube for sealed drainage is negligible and the morbidity which attends a pneumothorax is considerable, I elected to have the chest tube put in place because we were giving him positive pressure oxygen and the possibility of inducing a tension on pneumothorax would be quite high in such instances. 

Dr. Perry knew what a collar type of incision was, however, he never reported making it. Dr. Perry distanced himself from causing a gash in the throat in his interview with Robert Groden in the 80th (more on this in David Lifton's posts). It appears, from at least two testimonies, that President's body arrived at Bethesda with a neat, connected incision wound with a round opening in the middle. This would be consistent with some 3-4 cm incision made by Dr. Perry of which the residuals can still be seen in the gash (my drawing posted yesterday). 

Please find here an illustration of trachea and carotid arteries which run close to each other at the level of the second thracheal ring. This illustration demonstrates that Dr. Perry did not need a 7.5 cm incision to inspect the carotid arteries.

Please convey my thanks and best regards to Dr. Cranor, I appreciate her response.

 

P.S. I was wrong in saying that Dr. Perry did not explore the carotid arteries, although he said this in an indirect way. The reason for my mistake was  that I did not recall the exact course of the carotid arteries and believed that one would not be able to explore the carotid arteries through a 3-4 cm iincision in the lower part of the neck. I only remembered the locations of carotid arteries on each side of the neck which is, indeed, true in the upper part of the neck.

 

Major-Veins-of-the-Neck-External-Jugular

 

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mili replies again:

 

[Note: I am not a doctor. I am just a layman who can read and write. – M. Cranor]

 

STANJAK:

 

P.S. I was wrong in saying that Dr. Perry did not explore the carotid arteries, although he said this in an indirect way.

 

CRANOR:

 

There was nothing “indirect” about his description. And even if you had not previously studied his testimony, you did have immediate access to his quotes – they were right in my article.

 

STANJAK:

 

The reason for my mistake was that I did not recall the exact course of the carotid arteries and believed that one would not be able to explore the carotid arteries through a 3-4 cm iincision in the lower part of the neck. I only remembered the locations of carotid arteries on each side of the neck which is, indeed, true in the upper part of the neck.

 

CRANOR:

 

Dr. Stanjak, you are a scientist. Aside from just getting the basic facts correct, you are expected to know the difference between what a doctor testified to, and your own interpretation of what he might have thought, what he might have said, and what he might have done. 

 

Above all, as a scientist, you should be aware of what is well- documented, and what isn’t – and not make assertions when you clearly do not have enough information. Like referring to “the 3-4 cm incision” as if this were an established fact when, instead, it is what is being questioned. This seems tricky to me. 

 

Such inappropriate omniscience makes you sound more like a lawyer than a scientist.

 

STANJAK:

 

I may be wrong but the 3-4 cm slit was enough to see bleeding from carotids. The carotid arteries run on sides of a trachea which has a diameter of 1.5-2 cm. If you add 1 cm to each side of an incision above the trachea, you may see the medial aspects of the carotid arteries and certainly, it is possible to determine if any of the two carotid arteries was bleeding in association with the gunshot wound.

 

CRANOR:

 

“You may see…?”  Not good enough. The incision has to be wide enough, not only for adequate visualization, but for surgical treatment of any rupture in a vessel. As Perry explained.

 

?ui=2&ik=1dd560c490&view=fimg&th=1622b44f7fea9af8&attid=0.2&disp=emb&attbid=ANGjdJ_yVdtM1814cwecgD3Z0eno4FsKaoDG7LaoiU7oJg_BmdODv5dMXv5GRmILFLuZoEgjWn4fKs_6Wiwis7vwDxf7_GE4MkvyLoAD-WTQdctYR5RlSu-Pk6i4xjo&sz=w396-h356&ats=1521149484516&rm=1622b44f7fea9af8&zw&atsh=1

 

STANJAK:

 

This is consistent with what Dr. Cranor quotes: "I also made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea..." "Big enough" to see carotid arteries (or rather bleeding from these arteries) was 3-4 cm, you do not need a 7.5 cm incision.

 

CRANOR:

 

You are not a surgeon, and are not qualified to say how much room Dr. Perry felt he needed, or how wide the incision was.

 

Did you know that there are other sources besides David Lifton?

 

Dr. McClelland told me the incision was much wider than 3-4 cm, and more like 6 cm or more.  Humes reportedly different dimensions, saying in one place that it was 6.5 cm.

 

The other doctors who gave that 3-4 cm dimension have frequently provided false information when apparently under pressure to do so. Several of them contradicted their sworn testimonies to the WC, and told theJournal of the AMA that they saw no cerebellum, for instance.  Then they switched back to their original stories. So what they said to Lifton (if they said it – I’ve not heard the tapes) about the incision is not reliable.

 

STANJAK:

 

“What Dr. Perry said in his testimony was that he did not see any injury to the carotid arteries which would explain the bubbling and frothing of blood through the neck wound, and therefore, he inferred the presence of blood and air in the right mediastinum.

 

CRANOR:

 

Not so. He did not seem to infer the presence of blood and air in the right mediastinum.”  He said he saw it there. He also said he saw no injury to the lung or pleural space.  He also said the blood could have hidden any small injuries – but he did say he saw the structures themselves.

 

What he did infer was that the blood and air in the R mediastinum could be indicative of a wound in the right hemithorax:

 

“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…”  (Previously I quoted Dr Perry’s testimony from Volume 3.  But this quote is from Volume 6, p.10:)

 

Of course we have no way of knowing what Dr. Perry actually saw. We only know what he said he saw. And some of his comments are more ambiguous than others.  The best we can do is present the most relevant testimony – and to not characterize it falsely.

 

STANJAK:

 

Dr. Perry knew what a collar type of incision was, however, he never reported making it.

 

CRANOR:

 

He did not describe at all  – by technical name – the type of incision he made.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2018 at 8:16 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Back to our topic. I have sent questions related to sutures in the neck to Dr. McClelland, via an intermediary. I am not sure if I will hear from Dr. McClelland, however, he was leaning o

Andrej, would you mind telling me why you have not even replied to my "cart before the horse" comment above?  I mean, once again, this is another example of someone getting way too carried away with the minutiae of the testimony, in this case Malcolm Perry, without even bothering to at least try to explain HOW the body was squirreled away sometime between when the caravan left Parkland to the airport.

The video clips above show how the transport took place on film as well as the layout of 26000. Instead of sitting around and dreaming that, "Oh, yeah, Lifton said it was squirreled away so it's got to be true. Now on to proving Perry was wrong," try imagining this to have happened in real time.

According to you, you're jumping to B when you haven't even bothered to attempt to explain how it started out at A.

And I also asked you - if the Mad Doctors cut up the body to hide conspiracy, why in the world did they not even bother trying to cover up the back wound, the very hole in the body they desperately needed to prove the fake Single Bullet Theory? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dear Mrs. Cranor:

My name is Stancak, for your information. 

Dr. Perry could not see the mediastinum , the lungs or the pleura, from the level of the 2nd tracheal ring. This area is still in the neck, not in the chest. A wide incision at the level of the 2nd tracheal ring would not help in seeing the mediastinum either. Please view the anatomical sketch I posted in my previous post.

I am not a surgeon, however, I have conducted several tracheostomies in rats during my junior lectureship period at a medical faculty. I know how bleeding in the vicinity of trachea looks like.

You now see that an incision of 3-4 cm was enough for Dr. Perry to see the medial aspects of the carotid arteries, and in particular to check if there was any bleeding from the carotid arteries. As there was none, it was not necessary to make a longer incision than 3-4 cm. Even if Dr. Perry made your collar type of incision, which he never admitted doing it, he would not see the mediastinum from that level of the trachea. I have quoted Dr. Perry's statement which confirms this view. Dr. Perry saw frothing of blood with bubbles of air. The air could only come from the trachea or from the punctured lungs. He could exclude the trachea, and he could then infer on the source of the bleeding and air bubbling from their direction. It was on the right side, so it could only be the right superior mediastinum. I am copying again the relevant part of Dr. Perry's testimony:

Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.
As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves. But in the presence of this large amount of blood in this area, one would be unable to detect small injuries to the underlying structures. The air was indicated by the fact that there was some frothing of this blood present, bubbling which could have been due to the tracheal injury or an underlying injury to the lung. 

My mistake of not realising that an incision of 3-4 cm was enough to inspect the carotid arteries in the vicinity of the gunshot was admitted by me. I thought for a moment, from your description of the collar incision theory, that a wide incision was necessary to view the arteries on sides of the neck, and only later I realised that this was not necessary because the carotid arteries run in parallel with the trachea. A moment of stupidity on my side for which I apologise.

Of course, there is a variety of contradictory testimonies and also different views about the appearance of the frontal neck wound, and your view is one them.

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:
On 3/14/2018 at 8:16 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Back to our topic. I have sent questions related to sutures in the neck to Dr. McClelland, via an intermediary. I am not sure if I will hear from Dr. McClelland, however, he was leaning o

Andrej, would you mind telling me why you have not even replied to my "cart before the horse" comment above?  I mean, once again, this is another example of someone getting way too carried away with the minutiae of the testimony, in this case Malcolm Perry, without even bothering to at least try to explain HOW the body was squirreled away sometime between when the caravan left Parkland to the airport.

The video clips above show how the transport took place on film as well as the layout of 26000. Instead of sitting around and dreaming that, "Oh, yeah, Lifton said it was squirreled away so it's got to be true. Now on to proving Perry was wrong," try imagining this to have happened in real time.

According to you, you're jumping to B when you haven't even bothered to attempt to explain how it started out at A.

And I also asked you - if the Mad Doctors cut up the body to hide conspiracy, why in the world did they not even bother trying to cover up the back wound, the very hole in the body they desperately needed to prove the fake Single Bullet Theory? 

Still waiting Andrej...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×