Robert Prudhomme

Hi Sandy I believe you are correct about Custer et al being duped by the conspirators, and that the conspirators made a serious mistake by planting a damaged bullet in the shallow wound in JFK's back. "It was distinguishable enough to know it was a bullet. It wasn't complete because there was some fragmentation. Some area of destruction on the bullet." If the bullet had lost so much velocity, or didn't have enough velocity originally, that it was only able to penetrate the flesh of JFK's back one inch, it was not going fast enough to cause it to fragment, or become damaged in any other fashion. What should have fallen out of JFK's back, if this charade was true, is a complete pristine bullet.

If you lay a straight edge on this drawing, with one end touching the base of the skull and the other end passing between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, you will find the edge passes through cervical vertebrae C3 and C4. The vicinity of C3/C4 is precisely where the Bethesda x-ray technician Jerrol Custer told the HSCA he recalled seeing "many fragments" on the x-rays of JFK's neck he recalled seeing. Skull bone is tough. A bullet could easily strike a tangential blow along the bottom of the skull, be deflected a few degrees and go on to hit the vertebrae. A bullet struck a tangential blow on John Connally's 5th rib; following the surface of that rib for 10 cm. (4 inches) before exiting Connally's chest and making a round 3/8 inch diameter hole in the front of his suit coat. Abov e is the Glaser Safety Slug, first introduced on the market in 1974. A custom made bullet similar in construction to this may have been what hit JFK at the base of his skull. If the blue plastic ball remained intact and managed to pass through the vertebrae it would make a round exit hole in JFK's throat regardless of what angle it exited. It would also leave no metallic traces on the shirt slits below JFK's collar.

They never give up, Bart.

David The words "trach incision" seem to mean different things here. On one hand, these words are used to describe the incision made in the skin and subcutaneous tissue of the throat in order to expose the trachea. OTOH, these words are used to describe the actual incision in the trachea itself, through which the tracheostomy tube is passed. When you spoke with Perry, did you ask him to clarify which of these two incisions he was referring to when he told you the incision was 2-3 cm. in length? I hope you are able to see the problem I have here in understanding how Perry only made an incision 2-3 cm. long in the skin and subcutaneous tissue of the throat. As I stated before, the inside diameter of the average adult male is 2.5 cm., and the type of metal trach tube used on JFK was approximately 2 cm. in diameter PLUS it had, according to medical testimony, an inflatable cuff on it. Perry's own testimony must also be considered, as he stated that, with the obvious wounding on the right side of the trachea, he made his initial throat incision long enough to be able to observe the tissues and blood vessels to the right of the trachea and assess any damage to them. However, what I believe everyone has missed is the observation by Perry that JFK's trachea was deviated to JFK's left; a sign of the growing tension pneumothorax in JFK's right lung. When Perry made his initial incision in the skin of JFK's throat, was he aware the trachea was deviated to the left? I don't believe so. I believe this only became apparent as he was parting the thyroid gland and anterior strap muscles. Once apparent that the trachea was not where it was supposed to be, Perry would be obligated to extend the throat skin incision to JFK's left, in order to expose the deviated trachea beneath. IMO, the greatest coverup that took place here, after the coverup to conceal a large exit wound in the right rear of JFK's skull, was the coverup to conceal the fact a disintegrating bullet entered the top of JFK's right lung; bringing on the tension pneumothorax that caused JFK's trachea to be deviated to the left. If Perry appeared uncomfortable when you asked him about the length of the incision, and if was actually referring to the incision in the skin, I believe he had good reason to be. First, with an outer diameter of the trachea at roughly 3 cm., his 2-3 cm. incision completely contradicts his testimony of exploring the area to the right of the trachea. Second, I believe Perry's description of a slight deviation to the left of the trachea was a watered down description of where the trachea actually was. A slightly deviated trachea would not require severing of the left strap muscle, in order to access it, and this "slight" deviation was either the result of intimidation of Perry or WC editing of Perry's testimony. If Perry was threatened, he would, of course, be reluctant to give the true length of the throat incision, as this could give away just how much the incision was extended to the left to uncover the deviated trachea. Once the true nature and extent of the deviation was known, anyone with any medical knowledge would immediately suspect a pneumothorax, and the SBT would be in danger of being exposed for the fraud it was.

So, if we assume a "small irregular ecumonic area above the super ecolobular ridge" is some unenlightened transcriber's interpretation of a "small irregular ecchymotic area above the supraorbital ridge", is Ebersole saying the only thing they noticed about JFK, when they removed him from the coffin, was a small bruised or bloody area above his eyebrow ridge? As well as the surgical opening in his throat? Seriously? Was Ebersole blind? What about the front right half and the top of JFK's head being blown off, as the conspirators would have us believe? What about that great pink flap of God knows what we can see hanging down beside JFK's right cheek in the Zapruder film? You know, the one the useless doctors at Parkland missed, too. Oh wait, I forgot. Jackie stuffed all of that back into his skull and precisely relocated all the parts of his scalp, making the big wound in the frontal bone invisible. *sarcasm off, again*

I wonder, Pat, if the large fragment of bone found in the limo, and x-rayed by Ebersole, might not have been the back of JFK's head, seen lying on the back seat of the limo by Secret Service Agent Clint Hill? Coincidentally, isn't the occipital bone in the lower back of the skull? " Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital? Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. " Oh wait, what am I saying, a Secret Service agent would not be qualified medically to be able to observe a large hole in the back of someone's head. I guess you'd have to be a neurosurgeon in order to make that kind of observation, just like Ebersole could not possibly be knowledgeable enough to identify a piece of occipital bone. And there's just no way that Ebersole might have been told to x-ray a fragment of occipital bone that had already been identified as occipitl bone by someone at the autopsy (or in Dallas) more than qualified to identify a fragment of occipital bone. *sarcasm off*

Finck said the Harper fragment arrived the night of the autopsy?!?! Holy crap, Sandy, you have to tell me where I can find that statement from him. It supposedly was not even discovered until the next day, and would not have left Dallas until almost the next evening; almost 24 hours after the autopsy. Could the "large fragment of the occipital bone" that Ebersole x-rayed have actually have been the Harper fragment?

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

If the Harper fragment was found in Dealey Plaza 24 hours after the assassination, it cannot be the large fragment of occipital bone Ebersole claimed was received from Dallas at Bethesda, just after midnight, even if one allows for the time difference between Dallas and Bethesda. What became of this large fragment of occipital bone? Could it be part of the back of JFK's head Clint Hill saw lying on the back seat of the limo?

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

Of course, its entirely possible that Ebersole's words were purposely transcribed as gibberish by the HSCA, in order to conceal something about the true nature of JFK's wounds. Here is another gem from Ebersole's HSCA testimony: " The only function that I had was later in the evening, early in the morning, perhaps about twelve thirty a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I X rayed these. These were the last X rays I took. The X rays were taken by the Secret Service that evening; I did not see them again. " Being the Assistant Chief of Radiology at Bethesda Naval Hospital, would Dr. Ebersole be qualified to identify a piece of skull bone as being occipital? And being that the occipital bone is entirely in the back of the head, and the autopsy photos show the back of JFK's head to be quite intact, how did a large fragment of JFK's occipital bone happen to arrive at Bethesda at a separate time than JFK's corpse? PS It is entirely possible that someone else just happened to lose a piece of occipital bone on that part of Elm St. at the same time JFK was shot, and the large fragment of occipital bone delivered from Dallas to Bethesda that night belonged to this other person. It is also entirely possible pigs might fly some day.

It's possible that is what occurred with Dr. Ebersole. I like to think he believed the HSCA proceedings were a joke put over on the Americn public by a bunch of clowns, and this was his way of thumbing his nose at everyone. Ecumonic is not even a real word, and there is nothing in the body that even sounds like "super ecolobular ridge", unless Ebersole actually said "supraorbital ridge". Now, if Ebersole meant the "supraorbital ridge", and was referring to the right supraorbital ridge, or just above it as I recall, we are onto something. Do you recall that, in some of the autopsy photos, there is a black "reference triangle" just above JFK's right supraorbital ridge? Is it just a coincidence that this triangle should be in the very spot Dr. Ebersole observed a "small irregular ecumonic area", whatever that is? If Ebersole's original testimony was misinterpreted while being recorded by the HSCA, I for one would very much like to know what he actually said to the HSCA, and if the actual words he used equated to "entrance wound made by bullet".

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

I think it would depend on the position of JFK's head when the trach tube was removed. During the tracheotomy procedure, a rolled up towel is placed under the back of the neck in order to make the trachea stick out more than usual. When the trach tube was removed, this towel might have been removed, and his head tilted more toward his chest. This would naturally cause the wound to close up. In the autopsy photo in which we see the gaping tracheostomy incision in JFK's neck, his head is tilted quite far back, stretching the throat incision and causing it to open. There were definitely some very strange reports from Bethesda eyewitnesses. Do you recall which witness stated he saw the throat incision sutured shut?

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

What is never discussed is whether or not Perry truly observed the deviation of JFK's trachea to JFK's left prior to making the throat incision, or only after he was able to see the trachea up close. If he did observe the deviation leftward of the trachea prior to opening the throat, did he appreciate just how far to the left it was deviated, and how this would affect the tracheotomy procedure? It is entirely possible he made a very symmetrical throat incision, only to find he had to extend this incision to JFK's left just to get complete access to the left side of JFK's trachea.

I'm beginning to think this is the case, Sandy. All the photos I have seen so far of the metal tracheostomy tubes they were using in 1963 show these tubes to be about 2 cm. in diameter, meaning a 2-3 cm. incision in the trachea itself would be needed to allow the tube entry into the trachea. As the interior diameter of the adult male trachea is only 2.5 cm., I would wager Perry made the 2-3 cm. incision a vertical incision. It hardly seems possible that Perry made a transverse incision in the skin outside of the trachea that, at 2-3 cm. long, could have been shorter than the outside diameter of the trachea.

It's starting to look like there is a strong possibility of the incision in the skin of JFK's throat not being altered between Parkland and Bethesda although, while I strongly feel the throat incision could not have been 2-3 cm., the incision seen in the autopsy photo still seems to be too large. Ever notice how Perry, in all of his testimonies and interviews, never actually states the dimensions of the throat incision?

There is a great variety of tracheal incisions. Considering that the trachea only has an inside diameter of 2.5 cm, and that Perry stated to Lifton he made an incision 2-3 cm. long, I would tend to think this was a vertical incision in the trachea itself he was describing. Note, in second diagram, diameter of tracheostomy tube in relation to trachea; showing the obvious need to make a 2-3 cm. long incision in the trachea to accommodate insertion of the tracheostomy tube.

Micah This is taken from Dr. Perry's testimony to the ARRB. " MR. GUNN: could you describe about how big the tracheostomy wound was that you cut?DR. PERRY: I've been asked this a lot. Of course, some of them said it was too big for a surgeon but my reply to that was that it was big enough.There are only two medical emergencies, airway & bleeding. Everything else can wait. This just couldn't wait, and I had no idea how big it was. I made it big enough. At that time we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes and quite large [sic] with a cuff on them. And when I made the incision through the wound , I made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea. There was blood in the trachea through the end - when I looked through the pharyngoscope and attempted to put in the tracheal tube with blood inside the trachea.There was hair [sic = "air"] in the mediastinum, and 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 was, I don't know. I'm sure Dr. Humes measured it to see when they got there. When he found out it was a tracheostomy, he measured. But since I made the transverse incision, went right through it, I made it big enough to control an underlying bleeding blood vessel if necessary and big enough to do a trach.How big it was, who knows. Ron might know, but I don't know. Big enough.DR. JONES: I was busy putting in the left chest tube and doing a cut down on the left arm and I was not paying a lot of attention to that.DR. PERRY: We were all -DR. JONES: I thought it was about an average size incision. I didn't see anything abnormally large or abnormal length of the incision.DR. PERRY: It was bigger than I would make for an elective situation. In a patient that's not in extremis where you're doing an elective tracheostomy you make a nice tiny skin line incision in order to minimize the subsequent scarring. In an emergency situation, you make an incision adequate to accomplish the job, and in this case it was going to take more. After I'd made the incision, Dr. McClelland arrived and his hands came in to help me with the tracheostomy, but I'd made the incision at that time but Bob may recall how big it was because he held the retractors for it. It was big enough for me to control the trachea, and if necessary, to do a little more." From Wikipedia: " In humans, the trachea passes ventrally to the esophagus, dorsally to the ascending aortic arch, but the left main bronchus from the trachea, passes ventrally to the descending aortic arch. The human trachea has an inner diameter of about 25 millimetres (1 in) and a length of about 10 to 16 centimetres (4 to 6 in). " As the interior diameter of the trachea is 25 mm (2.5 cm), and Dr. Perry stated to the ARRB that he made the transverse neck incision long enough to give him a good view of the areas on either side of the trachea, in order to assess damage, and as the trachea was discovered to be not where it was expected to be but, rather, deviated to the left, I am beginning to believe a 2-3 cm. transverse incision in the skin of JFK's neck would not have been long enough to give him the control of the trachea and surrounding tissue he described. The tracheostomy tube used on JFK was described as being made from metal. Below is a photo of a typical metal tracheostomy tube from that era. If the man's fingers in this photo are similar in size to mine, I would estimate this metal tube to be approximately 2 cm. in diameter; possibly smaller. Perhaps the 2-3 cm. incision was really a vertical incision in the trachea itself, large enough to accommodate a 2 cm. tracheostomy tube. I am at a loss to understand how this metal tracheostomy functioned properly as, from what I have studied, the metal tracheostomy tubes did not have an inflatable cuff to lock them in place in the trachea and provide an airtight seal for positive pressure ventilation; unlike the inflatable cuff seen on a plastic tracheostomy tube. What kept the air from escaping past the metal tracheostomy tube, with no cuff to seal the trachea off?

How did Dr. Perry know there was bruising to the apex of the right pleura? Was this not known about until the lungs were removed from JFK's chest at the autopsy?

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. Not even close.

I thought you'd never ask! LOL Deviation to the left (or the right) is the result of a respiratory emergency known as a "tension pneumothorax", more commonly referred to as a collapsed lung. As is typical of a lung injury, the lung is no longer able to fill and expand with each inspiration (indrawn breath), due to a tear or perforation of the lung tissue itself. However, instead of expanding the lung, air will travel through the lung and fill the pleural cavity the lung occupies. Often, air will enter this cavity but will be unable to return to the trachea when the patient exhales, due to the collapsed lung acting as a check valve. With each breath, the pressure and volume of air in the pleural cavity grows, until pressure begins to be exerted on the heart, superior and inferior vena cavae (large veins), pulmonary veins and arteries and the opposite unaffected lung; severely impairing the function of all these things. The problem is made worse by positive pressure ventilation, suc as was administered to JFK with a respirator, once the tracheostomy was in place. One of the external signs of a tension pneumothorax is a trachea visibly deviated away from the side the tension pneumothorax is on. As I said, this is a medical emergency and, if left untreated, has a very good chance of killing a patient. JFK's back wound was much lower than what was reported in the autopsy, and the bullet entered the top of JFK's right lung. The 1/4 inch bullet hole through the flesh of JFK's back either sealed itself, or was sealed when JFK was laid on the gurney in Trauma Room One. Once this entrance wound was sealed, and positive pressure ventilation begun, a tension pneumothorax in the right lung was inevitale; explaining two very important points. 1. Dr. Carrico's observation of diminished breath sounds, especially in the right lung, when he listened to JFK's breathing with a stethoscope; following intubation of JFK with an endotracheal tube. 2. Dr. Perry's request that a chest tube be inserted into JFK's right lung and that this tube be connected to underwater drainage; the standard method for relieving a tension pneumothorax. Wow, sure killed that thread quick.

No recollection from the time he reached the bottom of the ramp until the police were holding him on the ground. Sounds familiar.

Just curious, Steven. Were you actually able to get a look at a photo of the passenger door to verify it did not ave a similar marking. This is an interesting find.