Robert Prudhomme

Shelley was quite lean. The fellow in the suit and tie is way too stocky to be Shelley.

Thanks for the photo, Bart. Just out of curiosity, is he the one graduating from something?

More and more, I'm starting to believe Molina is the man in the black tie and suit to Lovelady's right, originally thought to be Shelley. I also feel the man with his arms over his head in Altgens 6 is not Shelley either.

This leaves us with a problem. Where is Shelley? If he was chums with Lovelady, and Oswald was "out front with Bill Shelley", shouldn't we be able to see him in their vicinity?

From the WC testimony of Bill Shelley:

"Mr. BALL - Why did you go to the front?

Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
Mr. BALL - And who was out there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes."

You are respectfully blind. Not only is Baker six feet from the sidewalk, he is taking a big step parallel to its edge... thus maintaining his six-foot distance from it. Follow my blue line.

Your silly blue line is worthless and meaningless. You can't start drawing lines on photos or films and expect to extract perfect three-dimensional information, which is something Dale Myers has been trying to drill into the heads of you know-it-all conspiracy hobbyists for years:

"Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale K. Myers

Seriously? You are calling Mr. Larsen's lines silly, and referencing Dale Myers, the king of silly line drawers?

Sandy,

I appreciate the work you put into this but I'm really not seeing the relevance. I mean it's obvious a great little slice of the event captured on film of him running into the TSBD is what we see in the GIF. And the far more intriguing part of it is the Prayer Man figure still standing there at the top of the stairs.

There are people standing, looking, walking, and running amid the confusion of what just happened in that clip but I just don't see how you can take such a huge leap to assume he's heading over to D-T, then cuts and runs into TSBD. And even if he did cut and run, what does it really matter anyway?

What an act!

I knew what he meant.

Note the obvious attempt at distraction as DVP appears to be "confused" about how Baker made it to the 2nd floor in 20-25 seconds. He knows darn well this time refers to Baker's claim as to how long it took him to reach the front door.

Can't you read, Bob? That's not what I'm talking about at all. I just posted the relevant (wholly wrong) quote written by Sandy on this matter. And Sandy wasn't ONLY talking about Baker's time to get to the TSBD's front door. Here's what Sandy said....

"The official story has long held that police officer Marrion L. Baker found Oswald in the second story lunchroom of the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD) within 20 to 25 seconds of the shooting." -- Sandy Larsen

So Sandy made a little mistake. Get over it, Davey.

Not to be a stick in the mud, but I think one needs to take into account Baker's position in the motorcade. He drove up Houston on the East side of the street, headed straight toward the Dal-Tex. if his intention was to go to the Dal-Tex, he would not have made a left turn on Elm and parked his bike in front of the TSBD. IMHO.

There were people standing in the street. To reach the Dal-Tex by motorcycle, he would have had to force his way through the onlookers. The concrete island is the first place he could have contacted the curb without going through onlookers.

The same logic could be applied to the TSBD. Why did he go all the way to the concrete island, if he intended to ascend the steps of the TSBD, instead of just parking at the steps?

Great work, Sandy. You know that you're square on the mark when you've got DVP on your tail trying to shoot you down.

Someone is worried.

Note the obvious attempt at distraction as DVP appears to be "confused" about how Baker made it to the 2nd floor in 20-25 seconds. He knows darn well this time refers to Baker's claim as to how long it took him to reach the front door.

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital – Parkland Hospital. Have them stand Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. Have Parkland stand by.

12:30 Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. “Bill” Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.

Mr. BAKER - I heard Chief Curry, the chief of the police over there, say, "Get some men over on the railroad track." I think everyone at that time thought these shots came from the railroad track.

Mr. BELIN - By "everyone" do you include you, too?

Mr. BAKER - No, Sir. I had it--I was in a better position due to the wind and you know under it, that I knew it was directly ahead, and up, and it either had to be this building here or this one over here.

Guess you need pretty big hanging ones to contradict a direct order from the two top cops in the area at the time...

only to completely omit the lunchroom encounter on your same day affidavit and make the man tall, older and heavier...

"I had it..." ...(on good authority that the shots would come from the TSBD) ??? So rather than correct the broadcast and say over the radio that the TSBD appears to be the source of the shots... it seems everyone was streaming in to and out of this building that may or may not still have an assassin at large within it...

12:45 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) On this building, it's unknown whether he is still in the building or not known if he was there in the first place.

Seems that Sawyer also heard that broadcast about the triple overpass:

Mr. SAWYER. I can't say whether it was officers or who, but there was a reference also made to the overpass.

Mr. BELIN. All right, in any event--pardon me, do you have anything else to add?

Mr. SAWYER. Also, there was a broadcast here in the transcript about the railroad yard.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mr. SAWYER. And this could be part of what I was thinking about, or what I had heard, was this broadcast on the radio about the railroad yard.

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? You went inside the building, is that correct?

Mr. SAWYER. We immediately went inside the building.

So the entire time no one is sealing off this building, the police and anyone else for that matter were allowed back into the TSBD, back up stairs to their offices 0 didn't seem real concerned about an assassin in the building.

Mr. Wesley FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.

Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

The whole episode of who was in and out of the TSBD between 12:30 and 1pm lead me to conclude that TSBD was a destination well before it was broadcast that the Triple overpass was the focus of the shooting and initial orders of investigation. Whether Baker continues on to Dal-Tex, I doubt very highly.The lunchroom was made up, yet the affidavit from that afternoon suggests Baker did what he wrote, and subsequently changed during his testimony.

Was Baker invisible?

Or did he?

Excellent work, Sandy. As Bart stated, this is the clearest presentation of Baker on film I have seen to date. If only Darnell had tracked Baker for two more seconds!

Hi David

My premise is not about whether or not Baker entered the TSBD. For the record, I believe he did.The real question, though, was when he entered the TSBD. There are simply too many things wrong with the statements and testimonies of other witnesses, IMO, to allow him and Truly to be running up the stairs as early as they claimed to be doing so.

The only thing I have found that speaks of a delayed entry of Baker is Eddie Piper's WC testimony.

Mr. BALL. Tell me what you heard?

Mr. PIPER. I heard one shot, and then the next shot went off-the one that

shot him and I got on up and went on back, back where they make coffee at

the end of the counter where I could see what happened and before I could get

there, the third shot went off, and I seen the people all running and in a few

minutes someone came in the building, and I looked up and it was the bossman

and a policeman or someone.

....................

Mr. BALL. You mentioned you saw Truly?

Mr. PIPER. I don’t know whether it was a policeman or FBI or who it was,

but another fellow was with him.

Mr. BALL. And where were you?

Mr. PIPER. Standing right there where they make coffee.

Mr. BALL. What did they do?

Mr. PIPER. He ran in and yelled, “Where is the elevator?” And I said, “I

don’t know, sir, Mr. Truly.”

They taken off and went on up the stairway and that’s all I know about

that.

But whether Piper can be trusted with this testimony and whether the timing of this is correct is a whole different kettle of fish.

He does not mention Baker's white helmet at all and doesn't know whether the man with Truly was Police or FBI which does not make him very reliable.

Hi Bart

Eddie Piper's testimony is very interesting. I mean, seriously, could someone actually confuse a white helmeted motorcycle cop in boots and jodhpurs for a plain clothes FBI agent? And Mr. Piper claiming Truly asked him where the elevator was? Even if Truly was referring to which floor it was on, it still seems to be an odd question, when all Truly has to do is take a few more steps and look for himself. And, unless Mr. Piper was clairvoyant, how would he be expected to know which floor the elevator was on?

Instead of doubting the reliability of Mr. Piper, in that he could not distinguish a policeman from an FBI agent, and in that he recalled Truly crossing the main floor a few minutes after the last shot, shouldn't we be assuming, at least for the moment, Mr. Piper is correct in his claims? If Mr.Piper was the only witness to not support the official WC version, I would dismiss his testimony. However, considering the majority of witnesses on the steps of the TSBD did not even see a white helmeted police officer enter the building, I believe his testimony definitely worth examining.

Here is further testimony from Eddie Piper:

"Mr. BALL. You told us that after the shooting you came out onto the floor?

Mr. PIPER. That's right.

Mr. BALL. And the first people that you saw on the floor after the shooting was who?

388

Mr. PIPER. Mr. Truly and some fellow---I really don't know who it was; like I say, it was some fellow that was with Mr. Truly.

Mr. BALL. Some fellow; how was he dressed?

Mr. PIPER. Oh, I don't know.

Mr. BALL. Was he an officer?

Mr. PIPER. Yes; I believe he was an officer.

Mr. BALL. A police officer?

Mr. PIPER. Yes; a police officer.

Mr. BALL. Did he have a white helmet on?

Mr. PIPER. No; I don't think so. I didn't pay any attention to it. I was already excited over the shooting or something when he came running into the building.

Mr. BALL. And what did Truly and this--some fellow do?

Mr. PIPER. Well, Mr. Truly and this fellow run up the steps. He just hollered for the elevator and I said, "I don't know where it is at," and I'm still standing over there by that table and he ran up on up the steps with this police officer--him and another fellow and I was standing there and the people began swarming out and around--different ones coming in, but it was where nobody could come out.

Mr. BALL. They were the first ones to go up the steps?

Mr. PIPER. That's right.

Mr. BALL. Had anybody come down the steps before they went up the steps?

Mr. PIPER. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. They weren't the first ones to come down?

Mr. PIPER. Yes; and when the elevators come down---I really don't know who brought the elevators down, but I know nobody ever come down the steps.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see Vicki Adams come down the steps?

Mr. PIPER. No, sir; I don't know about that, if she said she did, it was after I got over here and walked over to the back door.

Mr. BALL. Did Vicki Adams come down before Truly and the man went up the steps?

Mr. PIPER. No, sir, no, sir; she didn't do it."

Notice that, in this second testimonial of Mr. Piper's, Mr. Ball refrains from asking him how long after the last shot Truly came into the building, and now Piper only thinks the "policeman" was not wearing a white helmet, as he was quite confused. Also, no mention is made of the possibility of this "policeman" being an FBI agent. Notice, too, the extraction of the necessary testimony to deny the arrival on the main floor of Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles, prior to Truly ascending the stairs.

Richard Gilbride said:

"Robert Prudhomme seems to be getting the point I made- the height disparity, that we easily discern in the movements of the Wiegman gif, between Lovelady & PrayerMan, cannot be attributed to the 5'9" Oswald."

In your enthusiasm to find people to agree with you, I believe you have seriously misinterpreted what I said to you in Post # 174, quoted in entirety below:

"If Oswald, at 5'9" (69"), was standing on the top step, and Lovelady, at 5'8" (68"), was on the next step down, and each step was approximately 7+" higher than the next, wouldn't the 1" difference in height, plus the 7" difference in steps, mean that there should be an easily apparent 8" difference in height between the two men?

Just sayin'......"

The above is in response to your assertion that, with Oswald on the top step, and the one inch shorter Lovelady on the step below him, there was a four inch difference in height between the two men.

If what you are saying is true, and Oswald was one inch taller than Lovelady, this means there could only be a three inch difference in height between the individual steps of the front steps of the TSBD. This is impossible, as Ray Mitcham has already established each step was just over seven inches in height.

Using your logic, should we not see an eight inch difference in height between Oswald and Lovelady? Does this not prove that camera perspectives can greatly distort images, and make possible the illusion that Frazier is over a head taller than Oswald in Darnell?

Thanks, Chris- I had Lovelady's movements backwards.

Bart, you do not address the point I raised. Lovelady, when he is on the 1st step, is a good 4 inches below the top of PrayerMan's head. If the 5'9" Oswald and the 5'8" Lovelady were both standing on the 1st step, their heights would be approximately the same. They're not, and so they're not both on the 1st step. Only Lovelady is.

Ray, unbeknownst to your daddy, "Buttons" Doyle, I was playing Stancak like a python. You seem more interested in spreading malicious gossip, rather than admitting that Doyle's simple insights completely refute Murphy's misbegotten thesis.

If Sean had done a height analysis before he went off and running with eliminating TSBD employees one by one, this PrayerMan debacle would've been nipped in the bud two years ago. Now it's grown into a politically-charged monster, where it's become dangerous to express a dissenting opinion, at the risk of ROKC's ClockworkOrange-style intimidation. Nincompoop blowhards who should be kept miles away from mainstream assassination research. They bet the farm on this and lost. It's going to take some serious character growth for them to acknowledge this loss and move forward.

If Oswald, at 5'9" (69"), was standing on the top step, and Lovelady, at 5'8" (68"), was on the next step down, and each step was approximately 7+" higher than the next, wouldn't the 1" difference in height, plus the 7" difference in steps, mean that there should be an easily apparent 8" difference in height between the two men?

Just sayin'......

Because Ashton's name has been brought up so many times, I'd like to say that unlike others, Ashton ALWAYS supplies supporting evidence to his theories,

so he and I get along just fine.

I don't think you are trying to irritate him, you are simply disagreeing with him.

No, Tom, he has grossly misrepresented me a number of times, asserting that I have posited some theory about about a bone fragment causing a hole in the throat. I told him clearly and in no uncertain terms that it was NOT my theory, and never had been, and asked him to QUOTE what I said in the future and not misrepresent me. He turned right around and willfully misrepresented me again with his OWN boneheaded (pun intended) theory, falsely attributing it to me. That's not "disagreeing": That's willful and malicious misrepresentation of what I said. There's no possible excuse for it. It demonstrates an utter lack of integrity, courtesy, and even decency.

I've made my record. He'd better stop making a false record for me.

As for "theories," he is the one clutching to a baseless THEORY that there was a frontal shot, when there is not now and never has been a bullet in evidence that could have caused any such shot, and when it is physically impossible for any bullet to have penetrated the throat from the front in the indicated location without going through many layers of tie material. No bullet went through many layers of tie material. Period. I'm tired of repeating myself about something that is obvious at a glance to anybody who will actually LOOK.

My challenge still stands about the "above the collar" theory, and nobody has done it, because it can't be done.

My statement that started this thread stands: There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat. Period.

Ashton

Ashton

I would love to hear your thoughts about the "shallow" back wound JFK suffered, supposedly caused by something called a "short shot".

FOR ROBERT PRUDHOMME:

Tom

I saw this post and, as I agreed with what was presented, I saw no point in replying.

However, I should point out that not every tracheotomy is performed in exactly that location, and by performing the tracheotomy below the isthmus of the thyroid, displacing (or severing) the isthmus can be avoided.

An incision can also be made in the membrane between the thyroid and cricoid cartilages, just above the top of the trachea. I have seen this performed and actually assisted a doctor with the following intubation.

Michael,

You might want to avoid taking Mr. Prudhommes proffered "challenge." See my post #664.

After you do the work and post the results that disagree with HIS position, he will simply ignore your post, and any subsequent requests for a response to the original post that HE demanded.

This is an attempt to waste your time and cause you frustration. It is a common tactic on this site.

Tom

Oh for Chrissakes, Tom. Okay, I will go back and look at your post #664.

Hi Ray

I see what you are saying, that the ETT did not allow Perry to examine the inner parts of JFK's neck. However, I do recall reading that it was determined also that the ETT was not effective at sealing the tracheal wound, and preventing the leakage of air from it, and that this was the primary reason for switching from the ETT to a tracheostomy tube.

As I said, having personally examined an ETT, and knowing the tip of its tube gets inserted almost to where the bronchi branch, and that the inflatable cuff is just above that tip, I am puzzled as to why the ETT was unsuccessful, if the tracheal wound was just below the 2nd tracheal ring.

I have some ideas why it might have been unsuccessful.

"Sandy, for what it's worth, that is a good point. As I've posted photos, GIFs and such here and elsewhere, Bob P. can do the same, so you're right on this point."

Thank you ever so much for granting me permission to post photos and diagrams.

"Because this "15cm" shot happens at Z313, it couldn't possibly have caused a piece of bone or bullet fragment to fly out of his throat because that would have *had to have happened earlier at Z225* when you see Kennedy throwing his hands up. Only it doesn't happen at all because his reaction is not from a shot in the skull and fragments coming out of this throat; it's from the frontal throat shot hitting him, the same shot that Dr. Perry said was a wound of entrance when he first saw him in the trauma room."

Michael

Here is a challenge for you. Provide proof to us, photographic or otherwise, that JFK had a wound in his throat prior to frame z313 of the Zapruder film.

I'm having a hard time imagining what they could have been trying to hide. From what the doctors at Parkland reported and testified, it seemed like a straightforward tracheotomy procedure.

Something that has always bothered me about the tracheotomy is why it was done at all. Read what Dr. Jenkins had to say in his WC testimony about the endotracheal tube Dr. Carrico had inserted through JFK's mouth, through his larynx and supposedly to just above where the trachea branches into the bronchi:

"Dr. Carrico had just introduced an endotracheal tube, I'm very proud of him for this because it's not as easy as it sounds. At times and under the circumstances--it was harder--he had. just completed a 3-month rotation on the anesthesiology service, and I thought this represented good background training for a smart individual, and he told me he had a cuff on the endotracheal tube and he introduced it below the wound.

The reason I said this, of course, this is a reflex--there is a tube, the endotracheal tube, if it is pushed down a little too far it can go into the right main stem of the bronchus impairing respiration from both lungs, or both chest."

In other words, the endotracheal tube has a cuff near the inserted end that,once inflated would have stopped air from escaping through the tracheal wound.

Endotracheal tube, inflatable cuff on left.

As the idea was to get the tip of the ETT to just above the junction of the bronchi and trachea, this cuff would be well below a wound above the 3rd tracheal ring. I am not sure how they determined the depth of insertion of the ETT tip in 1963 but, nowadays, a portable x-ray is used to determine depth of insertion.

After commending Carrico for doing a good job Jenkins, in the next breath, says this:

"There were three others who came in as I did who recognized at once the neck wound, in fact, where the wound was, would indicate that we would have serious pulmonary problems unless a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs. These were doctors Malcolm Perry, Charley Baxter, and Robert McClelland, who with Dr. Carrico's help, I believe, started the tracheotomy."

So, despite Carrico being satisfied the cuff was below the tracheal wound, they pull the ETT out, do a tracheotomy and insert a tracheotomy tube with an inflatable cuff on its tip that doesn't appear to go as far down the trachea as the ETT did.

I don't get it.

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area.

Sandy. this was Dr Perry to the W.C.

"The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure."

Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate".

​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you?

Hi Ray

This brings back the same old problem with so much of the evidence in this case. When Perry stated the incision was two to three centimetres, was he referring to the incision in the throat, or was he referring to the incision in the trachea itself? As Perry stated that part of the tracheotomy was for exploratory purposes to ascertain damage to blood vessels and other structures, an incision this small through the skin of the throat hardly seems adequate, if you consider that these blood vessels are located toward the rear of the trachea. Also. the trachea was deviated somewhat to the left and hidden under the left strap muscles, forcing Perry to sever one of the left strap muscles to locate it. Could this have been done through such a small incision?

I'm having a hard time imagining what they could have been trying to hide. From what the doctors at Parkland reported and testified, it seemed like a straightforward tracheotomy procedure.

Something that has always bothered me about the tracheotomy is why it was done at all. Read what Dr. Jenkins had to say in his WC testimony about the endotracheal tube Dr. Carrico had inserted through JFK's mouth, through his larynx and supposedly to just above where the trachea branches into the bronchi:

"Dr. Carrico had just introduced an endotracheal tube, I'm very proud of him for this because it's not as easy as it sounds. At times and under the circumstances--it was harder--he had. just completed a 3-month rotation on the anesthesiology service, and I thought this represented good background training for a smart individual, and he told me he had a cuff on the endotracheal tube and he introduced it below the wound.

The reason I said this, of course, this is a reflex--there is a tube, the endotracheal tube, if it is pushed down a little too far it can go into the right main stem of the bronchus impairing respiration from both lungs, or both chest."

In other words, the endotracheal tube has a cuff near the inserted end that,once inflated would have stopped air from escaping through the tracheal wound.

Endotracheal tube, inflatable cuff on left.

As the idea was to get the tip of the ETT to just above the junction of the bronchi and trachea, this cuff would be well below a wound above the 3rd tracheal ring. I am not sure how they determined the depth of insertion of the ETT tip in 1963 but, nowadays, a portable x-ray is used to determine depth of insertion.

After commending Carrico for doing a good job Jenkins, in the next breath, says this:

"There were three others who came in as I did who recognized at once the neck wound, in fact, where the wound was, would indicate that we would have serious pulmonary problems unless a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs. These were doctors Malcolm Perry, Charley Baxter, and Robert McClelland, who with Dr. Carrico's help, I believe, started the tracheotomy."

So, despite Carrico being satisfied the cuff was below the tracheal wound, they pull the ETT out, do a tracheotomy and insert a tracheotomy tube with an inflatable cuff on its tip that doesn't appear to go as far down the trachea as the ETT did.

I don't get it.

The JFK "Stare-of-Death" photograph from Robin Unger's fine site. I have added an inset of the throat wound and surrounding neck tissue.

There are a multitude of photos on the web that CLEARLY show the trachea through the tracheotomy incision. Note the bright light on JFK's face and neck...note the interior of the throat incision. The flesh and muscles overlying the unseen trachea are clear and moderately bright. Below the level of flesh and muscles however, where we should see the trachea, there is only blackness. The inset has been brightened and filtered to the extent that the flesh of the neck has disappeared above the white level threshold. Compare the small circular areas within the incision opening in the photo and inset. Note they have turned bright white. The pixels at the level of the trachea are 100% black -- no picture information at all.

Why are the shadows behind his head, neck, and shoulders so dark and IMO oversize? Perhaps to create the illusion that the area within the tracheostomy incision opening SHOULD be this dark?

With the light shining brightly into the open incision, the trachea SHOULD be easily detectable. This area has been deliberately darkened to hide the interior organs of the neck. We should also see indications of the tracheal incision made by Malcolm Perry. Despite all of his many interviews he was never asked what type of incision he made in the trachea to allow insertion of the trach tube. Did he cut a flap, fold it back and sew it down? Did he completely remove an area of trachea which would leave a hole? We should most likely see an actual physical hole. We do not.

If you look carefully, you may detect what appears to me as a VERY jagged portion of the protruding DOWNWARD. It extends 1/2 of the width of the incision opening on JFK's anatomical right, and 1/3 of the width on his left. Is this the end of a completely severed trachea, the jagged wound described on the right side of the trachea or something else entirely?

What is being hidden here? The extent of the actual damage to the trachea and its precise location...I can't think of anything else that would be obliterated by this intentional blackness.

Tom

Yeah, it does look like just a black hole, doesn't it.

Have I missed something here? I thought it was pretty much accepted that Perry made the tracheotomy incision

between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (or 3rd and 4th, I can't quite recall)

Per their own statements Perry and Charles Baxter performed the tracheostomy and Robert McClelland held the retractor. Perry actually made the incision. To the best of my knowledge Perry has not provided a precise location for the cut. Baxter, Assistant Professor of surgery at the time, had this to say in his WC testimony:

"Our tracheostomy incision was made in the second tracheal ring which was immediately above the area of damage."

Perry and Baxter were the only doctors to see precisely where the wound and incision were located relative to the tracheal rings. If the wound was located in ring 3 or below ring 3, would Baxter not state this? He uses the phrase "immediately below." Clearly, the wound was between rings 2 and 3. Every Parkland doctor that has stated the wound location relative to tracheal rings, has stated between rings 2 and 3.

Baxter provides the best description of the wound location, and he and Perry had the best view. I'm convinced.

Perry made the tracheotomy incision between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings for the simple fact he wanted to make the incision below the wound in the right side of the trachea.

Perry et al have stated that the wound was located in the place "where you would normally do a trach incision anyway." The 'best' location is between rings 2 and 3 in every piece of medical info I have found, and that's where Perry cut.

In the "stare-of-death" photograph, the wound margins are clearly visible on the upper and lower incision margins which have been spread WIDELY in this photograph, by retracting the lower neck a considerable distance. The upper neck has not been retracted. How do we know this? In my earlier post, I pointed out the OBVIOUS difference in the curvature of the upper and lower INCISION margins. Remember, this started out as a straight line. Performing a simple rotation of the wound in 3D space around a line (axis) from the pointed ends of the spread incision equal to the angle the camera is offset below the wound, provides an image of the upper incision margin as a straight line. If the upper margin of the incision had been retracted (pulled) upward, this now straight line, would still be curved. Due to this correction for camera location, the lower incision margin is now LOWER and MORE curved than it was in the original photo.

In the original AND the compensated photo, the upper margin of the incision IN THE FLESH OF THE NECK reveals 20% of the circumference of the wound 'hole.' The lower incision margin reveals the other 80%. Thus, Perry's incision was THROUGH the wound itself, but somewhat ABOVE the centerline.

Tom

Okay, so they did elect to make the incision in the trachea above the tracheal wound, and rely on the length of the inserted tube to put the inflated cuff below the tracheal wound. Makes sense. This is what I was trying to point out to Ashton. He seems to think one slice with a scalpel will remove all traces of a wound but if the tracheal incision was made above the tracheal wound, Perry didn't do a very good job of "obliterating" every trace of wounding in the anterior neck. And, as both of us have pointed out, slicing through the throat wound with a scalpel certainly didn't remove all traces of the throat wound, as the semi-circles of the original wound are still visible.

However, I still maintain that my Adam's Apple (or laryngeal prominence) is within 1/4" of the tops of my shirt collars when I button them up, and a wound at the 3rd tracheal ring (or between the 2nd and 3rd ring) is far below this prominence.

I have to agree with Ashton on this one. Whatever caused the throat wound, the evidence points to it being well below the top of JFK's collar.