Why was there a back wound?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Jack, I went to Sibert's testimony and excerpted this for you. Compare it to how I summarized it versus the complete whole-cloth spy fiction you were fed:

From Deposition of James W. Sibert, Assassination Records Review Board, 11 September 1997:

• QUESTION: Now, just a moment ago, you referred to the telephone call that you made to Mr. Killion. Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?
  SIBERT: Oh, that was after the body was removed. It was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There's no exit to this back wound," and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. ...So, that's when I called and thought maybe there was some type of bullet that would disintegate. There just was no bullet that could be located. ...When I talked with Killion that night, "Chuck," I said, "is there any kind of a bullet that would completely fragmentize? Maybe hit a bone and go down in the lower extremities of the body?" And I said, "They— The doctors can't find a bullet" and "they're at a loss to account for the bullet causing the back wound." He said, "Well, you heard about the bullet that they found on the strcteher over in Dallas." And I said, "No, I hadn't." He said, "Well, the Secrct Service is bringing that bullet in to the laboratory." They didn't know whether it was on Kennedy's stretcher or on Connally's, but it was on its way in. So: with this information I went back and relayed this to Humes immediately, because I thought it was something that he'd probably want to know. I thought he might even want to call Burkley or others. ...I came back with the Killion statement about the Dallas stretcher bullet. It's in my 302, that when I was told about this bullet being found on the stretcher over at Parkland, I relayed this information to Humes. Humes said it was clear that—about these bullets—and the one in the back had been probably worked out by cardiac manipulation over there at Parkland. That was in my 302. Maybe he was satisfied then, and decided that was his conclusion.
  

Hope that helps.

Ashton

It would most certainly help if one would cease to confuse the issues (& persons) with the facts.

Did the saying not go something like: "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up"?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Jack, I went to Sibert's testimony and excerpted this for you. Compare it to how I summarized it versus the complete whole-cloth spy fiction you were fed:

From Deposition of James W. Sibert, Assassination Records Review Board, 11 September 1997:

• QUESTION: Now, just a moment ago, you referred to the telephone call that you made to Mr. Killion. Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?
  SIBERT: Oh, that was after the body was removed. It was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There's no exit to this back wound," and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. ...So, that's when I called and thought maybe there was some type of bullet that would disintegate. There just was no bullet that could be located. ...When I talked with Killion that night, "Chuck," I said, "is there any kind of a bullet that would completely fragmentize? Maybe hit a bone and go down in the lower extremities of the body?" And I said, "They— The doctors can't find a bullet" and "they're at a loss to account for the bullet causing the back wound." He said, "Well, you heard about the bullet that they found on the strcteher over in Dallas." And I said, "No, I hadn't." He said, "Well, the Secrct Service is bringing that bullet in to the laboratory." They didn't know whether it was on Kennedy's stretcher or on Connally's, but it was on its way in. So: with this information I went back and relayed this to Humes immediately, because I thought it was something that he'd probably want to know. I thought he might even want to call Burkley or others. ...I came back with the Killion statement about the Dallas stretcher bullet. It's in my 302, that when I was told about this bullet being found on the stretcher over at Parkland, I relayed this information to Humes. Humes said it was clear that—about these bullets—and the one in the back had been probably worked out by cardiac manipulation over there at Parkland. That was in my 302. Maybe he was satisfied then, and decided that was his conclusion.
  

Hope that helps.

Ashton

It would most certainly help if one would cease to confuse the issues (& persons) with the facts.

Did the saying not go something like: "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up"?

*&$? Gremlins

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Jack, I went to Sibert's testimony and excerpted this for you. Compare it to how I summarized it versus the complete whole-cloth spy fiction you were fed:

From Deposition of James W. Sibert, Assassination Records Review Board, 11 September 1997:

• QUESTION: Now, just a moment ago, you referred to the telephone call that you made to Mr. Killion. Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?
  SIBERT: Oh, that was after the body was removed. It was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There's no exit to this back wound," and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. ...So, that's when I called and thought maybe there was some type of bullet that would disintegate. There just was no bullet that could be located. ...When I talked with Killion that night, "Chuck," I said, "is there any kind of a bullet that would completely fragmentize? Maybe hit a bone and go down in the lower extremities of the body?" And I said, "They— The doctors can't find a bullet" and "they're at a loss to account for the bullet causing the back wound." He said, "Well, you heard about the bullet that they found on the strcteher over in Dallas." And I said, "No, I hadn't." He said, "Well, the Secrct Service is bringing that bullet in to the laboratory." They didn't know whether it was on Kennedy's stretcher or on Connally's, but it was on its way in. So: with this information I went back and relayed this to Humes immediately, because I thought it was something that he'd probably want to know. I thought he might even want to call Burkley or others. ...I came back with the Killion statement about the Dallas stretcher bullet. It's in my 302, that when I was told about this bullet being found on the stretcher over at Parkland, I relayed this information to Humes. Humes said it was clear that—about these bullets—and the one in the back had been probably worked out by cardiac manipulation over there at Parkland. That was in my 302. Maybe he was satisfied then, and decided that was his conclusion.
  

Hope that helps.

Ashton

It would most certainly help if one would cease to confuse the issues (& persons) with the facts.

Did the saying not go something like: "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up"?

*&$? Gremlins

Double *&$? Gremlins: Sooner or later the attachment will come through

[Ashton Gray]

In the anim below, the photo of the back of JFK's shirt was overlaid on the autopsy photo of the back wound, and a good faith effort was made to get the shirt situated in a reasonable approximation of correct size relative to the body, with attention to JFK's right shoulder and the neck line. The effort was hampered, of course, by the somewhat twisted position of JFK's body and the angle of his neck, but it is believed that the experiment is completely within acceptable tolerances for what is being demonstrated:

Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

In the anim below, the photo of the back of JFK's shirt was overlaid on the autopsy photo of the back wound, and a good faith effort was made to get the shirt situated in a reasonable approximation of correct size relative to the body, with attention to JFK's right shoulder and the neck line. The effort was hampered, of course, by the somewhat twisted position of JFK's body and the angle of his neck, but it is believed that the experiment is completely within acceptable tolerances for what is being demonstrated:

Ashton Gray

Thank you, Ashton!

Now we're on the same side...

Edited January 15, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Antti Hynonen]

Ashton Gray Posted Yesterday, 05:30 AM

In the anim below, the photo of the back of JFK's shirt was overlaid on the autopsy photo of the back wound, and a good faith effort was made to get the shirt situated in a reasonable approximation of correct size relative to the body, with attention to JFK's right shoulder and the neck line. The effort was hampered, of course, by the somewhat twisted position of JFK's body and the angle of his neck, but it is believed that the experiment is completely within acceptable tolerances for what is being demonstrated:

Ashton Gray

The visual demonstration by Ashton is another powerful, yet simple demonstration showing what utter bullxxxx the SBT is. "Shirt and coat were crumpled up" = BS. The more I study this case, the more surprised I am at what the WC members supported and signed.

[Alan Healy]

Hello,

can someone here tell me,

who else has stated that there were metallic fragments found at the bottom of this "bullet" hole to JFK's back, other than Paul O'Connor?

Any chance of a full quote please?

Also,(& I apologise for not reading the full thread 'cause it's getting late but) it has been said here that Perry "destroyed" the evidence of the throat wound.

I have trouble with that.

I doubt he did any such thing.

Those photos that show the throat wound were not taken at Parkland, they were taken many hours later after who knows what had happened to the body(I know you know that but still).

If there was an entrance wound like Perry described, then it stands to reason from the "evidence" that followed, that someone has already been "at" the body & removed any bullets fired from "the front".

That is why we see this huge wound to the throat in the photos, I would never confuse that mess with the professional surgery Perry performed to his President's neck in Dallas.

Great reading though gents.

G'night.

Alan

[Ashton Gray]

...it has been said here that Perry "destroyed" the evidence of the throat wound.

I have trouble with that.

I doubt he did any such thing.

Hi Alan.

Here's the relevant excerpt from Perry's Warren Commission testimony:

• MALCOLM PERRY: ...I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.
  SPECTER: Why did you elect to make the tracheotomy incision through the wound in the neck...
  MALCOLM PERRY: The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy. ...Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway.
  

Isn't it convenient that the throat wound happened to be precisely where one customarily would electively make an incision for a tracheotomy?

Yes, Malcolm Perry certaintly destroyed the evidence of the throat wound—however that wound got there in the first place, which wasn't from a projectile—by electing to make an incision [/b]"right through the wound"[/b].

Whether someone else later "more destroyed" it of course is open to question, but seems extremely unlikely. Either way, there clearly was eradication any useful forensic evidence of that wound forever.

Perry had a scalpel in his hand. Perry sliced "right through the wound in the neck."

And however badly or mortally or fatally wounded, John F. Kennedy was not dead when he arrived at Parkland Hospital.

Ashton

Edited January 19, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Bill Grote]

The dart was designed to dissolve without a trace.

We have our hands around yet another twosie: It was veteran FBI agent Sibert (of "orange-sized hole in back center of head" fame) who introduced the idea of a magic dissolving projectile—but in relation to the back wound, not the throat wound (which, by the time Sibert saw the body, had been conveniently hacked out of existence by Malcolm Perry).

It was Sibert who purportedly took a little break from the autopsy vigil to go to a phone and call HQ to inquire about a magic disappearing bullet when the back wound was probed and determined to be shallow, with no bullet having at that time been discovered.

So here we go: vast clouds of confusion over not one, but two purported magic disappearing projectiles. Let's all go on a snipe hunt, kids: there are at least two for everyone to go on chasing endlessly for the rest of their lives.

Two No-See-Ums to chase. It's not just a twosie: it's a No-See-Um twosie. It's a floor wax and a dessert topping.

The snipes are waiting.

"Run, boy! Run!" [sUNG] "In Camelot..." [/sUNG].

Ashton

Chauncy Holt reportedly delivered to Dallas some custom-loaded ammunition. Some of them were short rounds. Could this be so that the MC bullet would have just enough power to enter Kennedy's back and lodge there so that everyone could find it and identify it as the "magic bullet?"

-- Just a thought.

-- Bill Grote

[Thomas Graves]

Chauncy Holt reportedly delivered to Dallas some custom-loaded ammunition. Some of them were short rounds. Could this be so that the MC bullet would have just enough power to enter Kennedy's back and lodge there so that everyone could find it and identify it as the "magic bullet?"

-- Just a thought.

-- Bill Grote

_____________________________________

Bill,

IMHO, excellent idea.

--Thomas

_____________________________________

[Ashton Gray]

Chauncy Holt reportedly delivered to Dallas some custom-loaded ammunition. Some of them were short rounds. Could this be so that the MC bullet would have just enough power to enter Kennedy's back and lodge there so that everyone could find it and identify it as the "magic bullet?"

Inherent in my original hypothesis on this question (at the beginning of this thread)—that the purpose of the back wound was to provide a "plausible explanation" for a front throat wound (that actually wasn't a bullet wound at all)—is one of two possibilities:

1. What you said (with the addition that somebody at Parkland was going to make damned sure it became "dislodged" during resuscitation efforts and be "found" later, not in the back), or,
   
2. The use of just such a disintegrating projectile as Cliff Varnell has described for the back shot, with a "magic bullet" of doubtful origin being "found" at just the right time.
   

Both of these possibilities have alignment with the facts as known.

In regard to 1. above (and possibly to 2. as well), there is some literature I've seen on a .22 caliber gun purportedly utilized by CIA and underworld mechanics, sometimes with half-loads. Maybe someone familiar with half-loads will shed some light on their effects.

In regard to 2. above, if such a calling-card disintegrating round in fact had been used, a primary concern of the perpetrators would be to preemptively get mention of such possibility into the record, and immediately have it "debunked" by the timely "finding" of a loose bullet.

It's funny, but the latter is exactly what happened. FBI Agent Sibert wasted not a second doing exactly that the moment the back wound was identified and probed during the autopsy, then made damned sure it got put into the FBI 302.

Funny how that kind of crap works out, isn't it? If, e.g., E. Howard Hunt had written that into one of his pulp spy fictions, a decent editor probably would have cut it out with hedge clippers when he stopped laughing.

• Now the bricks lay on Grand Street
  Where the neon madmen climb.
  They all fall there so perfectly,
  It all seems so well timed.
  
  —Bob Dylan
  

Ashton

Edited January 19, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Alan Healy]

Thank you Ashton.

However(& I apologise more not being more specific before),

Perry only said he used the site of this "entrance" wound for the tracheotomy incision, I don't understand why that makes you think he destroyed any evidence.

A cut by a surgeon would easily be drawn back together to reveal the shape of the wound.

He used that wound as the incision point confident that he wouldn't hamper any investigation, this wasn't an amatuer.

He was being smart IMO, he was thinking "if he(JFK) lives, I will leave as little scaring as possible, no point in creating another wound when I can use this one".

Obviously though, if you believe the mess on the neck in the autopsy photos was soley created by Perry then I see your point.

You must have to consider then surely,

how the heck did Perry stay in employment if he could do something like this to the Chief of Staff?

Anyway, as you probably guessed I do believe the body was altered & bullets removed & I certainly do not trust the back wound at all, I think it's simply a false wound created to match up with the pristine bullet planted on the stretcher.

I'll go back & read the thread again properly over the weekend, I missed some things last night.

Regards,

Alan

...it has been said here that Perry "destroyed" the evidence of the throat wound.

I have trouble with that.

I doubt he did any such thing.

Hi Alan.

Here's the relevant excerpt from Perry's Warren Commission testimony:

• MALCOLM PERRY: ...I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.
  SPECTER: Why did you elect to make the tracheotomy incision through the wound in the neck...
  MALCOLM PERRY: The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy. ...Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway.
  

Isn't it convenient that the throat wound happened to be precisely where one customarily would electively make an incision for a tracheotomy?

Yes, Malcolm Perry certaintly destroyed the evidence of the throat wound—however that wound got there in the first place, which wasn't from a projectile—by electing to make an incision [/b]"right through the wound"[/b].

Whether someone else later "more destroyed" it of course is open to question, but seems extremely unlikely. Either way, there clearly was eradication any useful forensic evidence of that wound forever.

Perry had a scalpel in his hand. Perry sliced "right through the wound in the neck."

And however badly or mortally or fatally wounded, John F. Kennedy was not dead when he arrived at Parkland Hospital.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

Perry only said he used the site of this "entrance" wound for the tracheotomy incision, I don't understand why that makes you think he destroyed any evidence.

Oh. Well, perhaps I didn't quote enough of Malcolm Perry to give him an opportunity to explain just to what lengths he went to accomplish exactly that. Here's a reprise of his relevant testimony, expanded:

• MALCOLM PERRY: ...I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.
  SPECTER: Why did you elect to make the tracheotomy incision through the wound in the neck...
  MALCOLM PERRY: The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy. ...Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway. ...Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary [sic] to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary [sic] to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. ...At that point I was down in the trachea. Once the trachea had been exposed I took the knife and incised the windpipe at the point of the bullet injury.
  

Now, I'm the first to admit that Malcolm Perry did not take a hot poker and cauterize the throat wound, or pour Red Devil Lye or Drano on it, or carve the whole thing entirely out of the body and take it home in his pocket as a souvenir, and I would stand up to defend him in a court of law as not having done a single one of those things.

Failing that, though, I don't know exactly how he could have destroyed all evidence of the throat wound any more thoroughly.

Obviously though, if you believe the mess on the neck in the autopsy photos was soley created by Perry then I see your point.

See detailed account of butchery above.

You must have to consider then surely, how the heck did Perry stay in employment if he could do something like this to the Chief of Staff?

Damn good question.

Anyway, as you probably guessed I do believe the body was altered & bullets removed & I certainly do not trust the back wound at all, I think it's simply a false wound created to match up with the pristine bullet planted on the stretcher.

I think you'll find the evidence points to just the opposite conclusion: there is a bullet hole through both JFK's coat and through JFK's shirt that match up very precisely with the hole in the autopsy photo of the back, viz:

John Dolva finds my results on the above questionable, and is sporadically posting messages in another thread to the effect of "I am moving my left foot... I am moving my right foot" and someday may—or may not—get around to posting a meaningful result. Meanwhile, I stand by the above.

The throat wound that Malcolm Perry destroyed, on the other hand, has no corresponding bullet hole in shirt or tie whatsoever, and could not possibly have been caused by a projectile of any description:

The only conclusion possible is that the throat wound was created at some point after John F. Kennedy arrived at Parkland Hospital—which, of course, would fully account for why all evidence of it had to be destroyed. And, consistent with that, the throat wound was created precisely where just such medically "justified" destruction could be carried out and explained away.

Ashton

Edited January 20, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ron Ecker]

Two things regarding the shirt superimposed on the corpse. First, on the throat wound, I think one has to consider the fact that flesh will sag on a lifeless body lying flat. Note how sunken the flesh is around the collar bones. The wound may therefore look lower than it would in life.

Second, if the back wound is, as the arrow indicates, the smaller hole below the larger one, then the wound is even further from the neck than I thought. What, pray tell, is the larger hole in JFK's back that I thought was the wound?

[Ashton Gray]

In regard to the throat wound—which could not possibly have been caused by a projectile, as demonstrated repeatedly in this thread and others—I several times have posted this image as a type of device that could have been used to create the throat wound after John F. Kennedy's arrival at Parkland Hospital:

I think it's now time to mention a salient fact: prior to the murder of John F. Kennedy in 1963, at an exact date unknown, the CIA's Operation Division of the Office of Medical Services had produced a ball-point pen rigged with a hypodermic syringe. The purpose of the pen was a delivery system for a potent and deadly poison. The needle was "so fine," CIA's Dr. Edward Gunn later boasted, "that the victim would hardly feel it when it was inserted." Gunn compared it with "the scratch from a shirt with too much starch."

Indeed, and so well put, Dr. Gunn.

Of course if one is lulled into believing the CIA's own cover stories, one can become gullible enough to believe that this device had been developed to assassinate Fidel Castro—which never happened.

The same year the CIA developed this delivery system for poison, though, the President of the United States was assassinated. After having been shot several times, but not in the throat, he somehow came to have a puncture wound delivered to his throat—after arriving at Parkland Hospital—with some device not dissimilar in size and shape to a ball-point pen, a device very probably rigged with a hypodermic needle as a delivery system for a potent and deadly poison.

All useful forensic evidence of the puncture wound was almost immediately destroyed by Malcolm Perry in Trauma Room One of Parkland Hospital, and very soon afterward Malcolm Perry proclaimed to the entire world that the wound in the throat had been an "entry wound" of a bullet.

Ashton Gray

Edited January 20, 2007 by Ashton Gray