Tom Neal

I have. It's absolutely MANDATORY to understand Dulles. He made a career out of ignoring orders and doing his own thing. Multiple incidents in the book illustrate that Dulles was a sociopath. Devoid of conscience with delusions that he knew better than anyone what was the right thing to do. His wife and mistress referred to him as "shark." What more do we need to hear? Tom

Scott, What is your source for Dulles' planned retirement following a successful BOP invasion? As David states, Dulles' future changed, so his motivations may have changed as well. Tom

Semantics once again comes into play. To be considered "aligned", I would expect the slits to be coincident along their full length when the shirt is buttoned. If coincident, I think the word "overlap" would be more accurate than "align". However, they chose align, perhaps to give the (false) impression that they are the same, while not actually stating that. They certainly do not 'overlap' as one would expect if they were made simultaneously. The (anatomic) left slit aligns with the center of the button hole, and the right slit aligns with the button. The path traversed by the scalpel through the shirt inflicted markedly different-shaped slits in each layer. Although the lower part of the overlapping shirt was somewhat free to move independent of the top part of the shirt, the shape of the two slips STILL gives the appearance that these slits were made separately. By no means am I stating this as a fact, but the top part of the slit which appears to be in the collar *MAY* be a loose thread or possibly two loose threads on top of the collar. These two lines appear to be about 1/2 the width of the remainder of the slit. Does anyone else think this is a *POSSIBILITY*? Admittedly, I may have been staring at the photo for too long... In any case, these slits give the appearance that they were made separately, especially the lower half. Additionally, on the anatomic right side of the shirt, the semicircular lower half of the slit has a 'cut' that is perpendicular to a straight line connecting the upper and lower ends of the semicircle. And this is the LOWER side of the shirt. With the shirt buttoned, how can a scalpel make this cut without cutting the upper side of the shirt? If you are going to 'fake' these slits, wouldn't anyone be smart enough to button the shirt and then make a single slit? And if you are attempting to create an exit for a bullet fragment, wouldn't you make a hole rather than a long slit? It surprises me somewhat to see the collar button still attached to the shirt. Rather than unbutton it while presumably wearing surgical gloves, wouldn't it be faster and easier to 'flick' the button off with the scalpel after first removing the necktie? I wonder if any other buttons remained on the shirt? With the current information available, IMO the most reasonable assumption is these slits were cut with a scalpel in the process of removing the necktie, and have nothing to do with the exit of a bullet or bone fragment. However, questionable aspects of this opinion still remain. Tom

From this previously posted FBI memo: http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ed_mccauley/media/spectrographic%20analysis%20if%20JFK%20shirt%20slit%20and%20back%20bullet%20hole_zpscrmwctem.jpg.html?filters%5Buser%5D=142410050&filters%5Brecent%5D=1&sort=1&o=0 "...near the front of the collar of the shirt a ragged slitlike hole approximately 1/2" in length located 7/8" below the collar button in the overlap of the shirt. The hole has the characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment." Malcolm Perry reported the size of the throat wound to James Humes as 3-5mm. 5mm = 0.2" or 1/5". A 1/2" vertical slit is a characteristic of an exiting 1/5" bullet fragment? Really? "Although the hole appears to have been caused by a bullet fragment, spectrographic examination revealed no evidence of bullet metal." This test did NOT reveal "traces of copper" as was found on the entrance holes in the back of the shirt. In fact it revealed "no evidence of bullet metal." Is this another one of the "characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment?" It appears that this slit was indeed caused when the nurse used a scalpel to cut JFK's tie for rapid removal. Did this action also nick the knot in the necktie? "An elongated nick in the left side of the tie knot was also located which may have been caused by the fragment after it had passed through the shirt." This memo does NOT mention any spectrographic examination of the nick in the tie knot. Considering the above statement "which may have been caused by a bullet fragment", one has to wonder why the "nick" was not ALSO tested. Unless of course, someone decided that the bullet couldn't nick the knot in the tie without first passing through the shirt, which (according to their tests) did NOT happen. And anyway, the slit in the shirt is 7/8" BELOW the collar button and the knot in the tie was AT the level of the collar button, so an alignment issue exists. It seems rather unlikely that the bullet fragment lodged in the "neck wound" so it must have exited the body. It did not exit through the shirt slit, and it could not have nicked the knot in the tie because there is no hole in the shirt behind the nick. If a bullet or bone fragment exited through the "neck wound" without damaging the shirt, then said wound had to be located *above* the collar. I think... Tom

Only ONE missing tooth? Sorry to hear you spent SO MUCH time on the bench!

The ones that support it and know better, have an agenda. That few that actually believe it -- I can't make any sense out of them at all. Possibly the individuals will believe *anything* said by an authority figure... I have no idea. IIRC, Harold Weisberg stated that in a personal Carrico stated that the two nurses used scalpels to remove the tie and shirt and jacket. Prior to that the slits were controversial. In a 1997 video interview conducted by the Sixth Floor Museum he states that they used scissors. I don't offhand recall the nurses being asked what they used, but I will re-read their testimony. Tom

I didn't realize Canadians used baseball metaphors. Hockey was always my favorite sport (and I have the collapsed vertabrae to prove it!) and I imagine you also prefer hockey to baseball. Tom

Well once again, my post vanished when I tried to post it!!! One more try... Hey Bob, I was able to find the source. Glad you asked because I either hadn't read the entire memo, or I had forgotten that as well as stating that a spectrographic analysis on the hole in the back of the shirt that revealed traces from a jacketed bullet, it also states that the slit in the front of the shirt was tested in the same manner and there were no traces of a bullet. Here's a link to the document. The results of the tests are indicated in the last sentence of paragraphs 1 and 2: http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ed_mccauley/media/spectrographic%20analysis%20if%20JFK%20shirt%20slit%20and%20back%20bullet%20hole_zpscrmwctem.jpg.html?filters[user]=142410050&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0 Do I get a "You really hit one out of the park for that one"? Tom

I'll provide the source, but it will probably take me a while to find it and I will be away until tonight. PS Did you see my post #229? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=16#entry323994 After the ed forum top of the page appears, give it a few seconds to go to the actual post...eventually, it gets there. Tom

Bob, As is clearly stated in the post, I quoted Ashton. If you don't believe that he was not serious despite his statement that he was not, that is your prerogative. IF you think that I am agreeing with any needle/poisoning theory then I have no idea why you think this. See my post to Ray... Tom

Thank you. That is an edited version of the interview. I was hoping that you had the full version. Please point out to me where in the testimony she states that she observed it BEFORE the clothing was removed. I absolutely do believe that there was *a* wound in JFK's throat. But, was it a *bullet* wound? IMO the most likely cause of this wound was an exiting bullet *FRAGMENT*. It could also have been a bone fragment. If you believe I'm saying that there was *no* wound, or *only* a needle puncture then I'll *repeat* my earlier statement: I've not stated an opinion one way or another regarding the "needle" - until now. I don't believe he was poisoned with an injection from a needle. *IF* you think that I doubt there was *any* wound in his neck then I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. To summarize, my only doubt is: was it a bullet fragment or bone fragment that created the neck wound. I do find it EXTREMELY interesting that per Ashton's post, Burkley apparently (I have to do some more reading prior to deciding when he arrived) arrived in TR-1 ahead of Carrico and examined JFK. If true then he certainly saw JFK prior to his clothing being removed, and he would have known whether or not the neck wound was above JFK's collar or not. I believe this wound was *most likely* behind the collar, but just below the top of the collar. It is possible it was above the collar, but no one has stated that in their testimony. I realize we don't agree on this point. If you can point out to me the specific words Henchliffe uses to state this, I will gladly change my opinion. If the wound was visible while dressed then the exiting fragment be it bullet or bone would not have damaged the shirt or tie. I don't think that it is certain that the nurses used scalpels to remove his clothing. If not, what caused the vertical slit in JFK's shirt? Does an exiting bullet fragment create a clean slit much longer than the diameter of the wound itself? I know we are talking about exit v. entrance wounds here, but the hole in the back of JFK's shirt is not a slit it is round or elliptical but not a clean slit. Spectrographic analysis of the hole in the back of the shirt revealed traces of the bullet. Was the shirt *slit* ever tested this way? I don't think so, but I do NOT know, and I would like to... UPDATE: I have posted an FBI memo stating that the slit in the front of the shirt just below the collar actually was subjected to spectrographic analysis. NO TRACES of a bullet were detected. The same test on the hole in the back of this shirt revealed traces of a copper-jacket bullet. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=16#entry324008 (Post #236) If you think that I believe in the needle/poison theory you're going to have to show me where I state this, because I have never believed it. Tom

Gene, Your response is PERFECT. I envy your ability to communicate dispassionately. Tom

Bob, Since you mentioned the larynx and trachea... My research has indicated that the trachea begins immediately below the Larynx, and in an adult male that would occur at the juncture of C6 and C7. Would you agree with that? Carrico and Perry describe the 'throat wound' as just below the larynx. I'm attempting to find a statement as to how far below the larynx the wound/tear in the trachea was actually located. I have a vague memory of it being located at the "3rd ring" in the trachea, but I can't seem to find that statement. Any thoughts? Thanks, Tom

Ashton, thank you for the response. I think it is QUITE thorough and it indicates testimony that I need to read. Good luck with your book, and since you are very busy at this time, your response is *especially* appreciated. Tom

Ray, Since Ashton stated he is very busy with his book but still took the time to provide a thorough response to my question, since I've read the entire thread, and you may be referring directly to me in your statement, I'll jump in here and make a few comments. First, earlier in the thread he was asked 'what' could have caused the throat wound if it was not a bullet. He speculated that it could have been a large-bore needle. In response to a question from me, he indicated that he didn't think that this actually happened, but he was trying to answer a question and was speculating. In response to a question of mine, Ashton: "Seriously, I don't have any "belief" about the throat wound having been created with a large-bore needle." Later, he clearly stated that "If, and that's a big 'if' a needle was used..." so he is not stating that actually happened. If your statement that "These guys are moving in to Cinqueland." includes me, at no time have I stated that I believe or disbelieve in the 'needle' theory. If you are referring to something other than the needle you'll have to clarify... Tom

Ray, if you re-read my post quoted in this post, I stated that IMO Carrico's testimony was NOT ambiguous. Ashton Gray responded and agreed with me that it was NOT ambiguous. I don't know WHO you are agreeing with. Again, if you re-read my previous posts I stated that Henchliffe DID observe the neck wound. I FURTHER stated that what IMO is ambiguous is WHEN she FIRST saw the neck wound. i.e. She may have seen it before removing JFK's clothing, and she may have FIRST seen it AFTER removing the clothing. Also, I have asked you twice if your source for BOWRON's 1993 interview was from Livingstone's book "Killing the Truth"...a response would be appreciated as I am seeking an unedited version of her testimony. Tom EDIT: appended "a response..." at the end of the last line in the post as it had somehow been clipped off

Ashton, thank you for your response to my question. It's been a while for me, but my recollection agrees with yours. Connally was brought in first and was attended by Carrico and Dr. Richard Dulaney/Delaney(sp) in Trauma Room 2. When JFK was brought into TR-1, Carrico headed there and Bowron and Henchliffe agree that he was the "first doctor" to arrive. This I did not know. Or I did know, but have forgotten. Burkley was quite a way back in the motorcade so he must have arrived after JFK's limo. But it did take a while to remove the Governor, and Jackie did not want to let go of her husband, so Burkley certainly could have arrived in the TR ahead of JFK. The nurses assumed all the "suits" were Secret Service and did not know he was a doctor. Presumably Burkley identified himself to the doctors as JFK's personal physician when he handed over JFK's "special" meds. Do you recall your source for Burkley's arrival time in the TR ahead of Carrico? Noted. The Personal Physician in the Trauma Room with a Large-Bore Needle...while the Palace Guards looked on. Tom

Robert, If a bullet fragment did cause this 'puncture' in JFK's neck then it either lodged in the puncture hole or exited the body completely. If it lodged in the hole then Perry would have encountered it so this doesn't seem likely. If it exited the body it doesn't seem reasonable that it would make that long slit in the shirt where the cloth overlaps when the shirt is buttoned. A nick in the knot of the necktie has been reported, do you know its actual location? Also, from the anatomical location of the wound as described by the doctors do you believe the wound was as low as it appears in the Bethesda photos that show a "gash" in the neck area? Tom

Based solely on the statement below, did Carrico observe the "neck wound" before JFK's shirt and tie were removed? C. JAMES CARRICO TESTIMONY PARKLAND HOSPITAL 03-25-1964 0930: Dr. CARRICO: We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck... IMO Carrico is stating that only after opening JFK's shirt and tie did he observe a "small wound" in the neck. i.e. Prior to opening the shirt and tie he had not previously observed the neck wound. Does anyone disagree, or feel that his statement is ambiguous? Thanks for any thoughts, Tom

Jon, I agree 100%. Oswald's mother and Mark Lane insisted that a lawyer, preferably Lane, be present precisely for the reasons you state. The WC found Lane unacceptable, and agreed to assign someone who's name I don't recall. Unsurprisingly, there is no record that he was present at any time, and he certainly did NOT participate. It would have been "interesting" to see how many witness statements would have been tossed out due to leading questions, etc. But, if we ignore EVERY piece of evidence that may be false, what is left to work with? Tom

Ashton, By no means do I discount your opening post or your animation. However, there are questionable aspects to photos, x-rays, testimony and other evidence. Brief examples: TESTIMONY: questions were poorly phrased and the WC frequently led witnesses many witnesses have stated that their statements were altered Q&As have been misinterpreted and/or taken out of context PHOTOS: many photos appear to have been touched up: e.g. the intact back of the head at autopsy the 'gash' in JFK's throat appears to many to have been enhanced X-RAYS: David Mantik's optical density is STRONG evidence of alteration the original chest x-rays are missing There is a statement that the multitude of spots on the lungs "that appear to be metallic" are dirt particles Any testimony, photos, x-rays and other evidence has to be scrutinized for any signs of alteration. Therefore, investigating the testimony is still important. e.g. IF Margaret Henchliffe, Diana Bowron and James Carrico all testified that they saw the "neck wound" prior to the removal of JFK's clothing then that is strong evidence that the neck wound is higher than it appears in the photos. This is why I pointed out that per her testimony to the WC, Bowron did not see the wound until AFTER the trach tube was removed. Per a 1997 interview Carrico states that he did not observe JFK's neck until AFTER his clothes were removed. That leaves Henchliffe and it is NOT known whether she saw the throat before she removed JFK's clothing, although she states that she saw it before the trach. IMO it is STILL worth investigating ALL the evidence for comparison and degree of validity. Other evidence may lead towards the answer as to WHAT caused the "puncture" in JFK's throat. e.g. IF the nurses used scissors rather than scalpels to remove clothing, then what caused the slit in JFK's shirt? A projectile? If a piece of bone caused the throat wound and the wound was covered by the shirt and/or tie then it had to have inflicted clothing damage. Did it cause the slits in the shirt? Thus, there are still numerous questions to be investigated regarding the "throat wound." Tom

Wallace Milam interviewed Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, but I am unable to locate a transcript. Has anyone read it or know anyone that has it? Tom

What I can't decide from her testimony, is exactly WHEN Henchliffe FIRST observed the "neck wound". This is germane to Ashton Gray's post as to whether the neck wound was FIRST OBSERVED prior to the removal of JFK's clothing, or after. This from Nurse Hincliffe's testimony to the W.C. Mr Specter "What did you observe to be the President's condition when you first saw him?" Miss Hinchcliffe "I saw him breathe a couple of times and that was all." Mr Specter "Did you ever see any wound in any other part of his body?" Specter has now changed the time frame from "when you first saw him" to at any time Miss Hinchcliffe "Yes; he was very bloody, his head was very bloody when I saw him at the time." Henchliffe only mentions the head even though Specter has asked if she "ever" saw a wound in any "other part" of his body Mr Specter "Did you ever see any other wound in any other part of his body?" Specter repeats the question in identical words Miss Hinchcliffe "When I first saw- except on his head." She is referring to what she "first saw" not what she ever saw. In the subsequent part of her response: "-except on his head"; is IMO, her asking for affirmation from Specter that he wants to know if she saw any wounds on his body not including any wounds on his head when she FIRST saw the body. Mr Specter "Did you see any wound on any other part of his body?" Specter repeats the question, but does not reference any time period Miss Hinchcliffe "Yes; in the neck." She states that she did see a neck wound, but is she referring to when she "first saw him" or at any time? Mr Specter "Would you describe it please?" Miss Hinchcliffe "It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck." Mr Specter "About how big a hole was it." Miss Hinchcliffe "About as big around as the end of my little finger." At no time does she describe the transverse incision made by Malcolm Perry. IMO she saw it PRIOR to Perry's tracheostomy. But did she see the wound before she and Bowron removed JFK's clothing? IF she only saw the wound AFTER removing JFK's necktie and shirt, then the wound was located 'behind' the tie and collar. If so, then ANY projectile exiting his neck had to damage the collar and tie, or the shirt. The tie has a "nick" and the shirt has a vertical "slit" below the collar. Whatever made the slit did so while the shirt was buttoned, so it passed through two layers of overlapping cloth. The 'prevailing' theory is that the tie and shirt damage was caused by the nurses using scalpels to hurriedly remove JFK's clothing. Does anyone know if the slits in the shirt were subjected to the same spectrographic analysis as were the holes in the back of JFK's suitcoat and shirt? Tom

Ray, I did see that post, and I agree that it is certainly possible that this and any other testimony was altered. IF it benefited the Commission to do so. BUT, since you presented her testimony as evidence of what she saw, that is what I am referring to. Until she herself indicates that her testimony was altered, we have to include the possibility that in the 30 year interval between her WC testimony and telephone interview her memory may have changed. Ray: Do you have access to the 1993 Bowron interview in its entirety? I've never read the whole thing. Tom

DUPE