Andrej Stancak

Tommy: There were only two women on the top landing during and immediately after the shooting: Mrs. Sanders and Mrs. Stanton. Both these two women both can be seen in one and the same frame of Darnell film in the presence of Prayer Man. So, how can Sarah Stanton be Prayer Man? Mrs. Stanton did not say that she stood alone in the western part of the doorway where Prayer Man can be seen or did she? Please read the testimonies of the relevant persons and conclude for yourself if anyone gave any indication that Mrs. Stanton had stood in the western corner: 1. Mrs. Sanders: "To the best of my recollection, I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance. I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am unsure as to the others." (3/19/1964). This testimony implies that Mrs. Stanton could not be too far from Mrs. Sanders who stood in the east part of the doorway. Thus, Mrs. Stanton could stand at best in the center-east part of the doorway to allow Mrs. Sanders to say that Mrs. Stanton stood next to her. 2. Mrs. Stanton: “When President John F. Kennedy was shot I was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository Building with Mr. William Shelley, 126 South Tatum, Dallas, Mr. Otis Williams, 3429 Southwestern, Dallas, Mrs. R.E. Sanders, 4226 Delmar, Dallas, and Billy Lovelady, 7722 Hume Drive, Dallas. (3/18/1064) This testimony says that Mrs. Stanton stood in a cluster of people seen in the center of the doorway: Williams, Lovelady, Shelley, and Mrs. Sanders (she cannot be seen in Altgens6). Mrs. Stanton does not say that she stood close to the western wall or that Mr. Frazier was her closest neighbour which would be the case should she stand at Prayer Man's location. 3. Mr. Shelley for the Warren Commission: 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. Mr. Shelley says that Mrs. Stanton stood with them just in front of the glass door, not that she stood alone in the western corner. Mr. Shelley in no case admitted that Mrs. Stanton stood in the western corner of the doorway, away from the group of three people in the center of the doorway. Billy Lovelady's testimony is equivocal in the sense that it is not entirely clear if Mrs. Stanton stood to his left or to his right, however, in every case he wanted to say that she stood behind him. So, we have witness testimonies of two ladies and other doorway occupants saying that both ladies stood far away from the western corner of the doorway, and we have a photographic evidence (Darnell frame) showing both ladies in the presence of Prayer Man. Can this be enough data to convince you that Mrs. Stanton was not Prayer Man?

Tommy: if we can believe Mr. Frazier, he was at a spot from which he could see people coming from the loading area of the Depository building along the Houston street. Apparently, he was on the first step from the bottom and even further down on the sidewalk approaching Houston Street when he allegedly saw Lee Harvey Oswald. This is the transcript of his interview for the Sixth Floor Museum: "So we stood there for a few minutes, and, and I walked down to the first step, where Billy was standing down there, by myself so I looked around. And it was just total chaos there. And then from there I started to go down to see if I could find Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady, there was so much chaos down there. I said, well, I better go back to work, go back to the steps, so now, and I did, I walked back to the bottom of the steps, and then I walked out to the corner of the building right there where Houston comes up beside the building. And I was talking to someone, it was a lady, and I looked to my left, and come walking along the side of the Texas School Book building was Lee Oswald.Mr. Fagin: walking along this side of the building?Mr. Frazier: Yes.Mr. Fagin: Houston Street" What Mr. Frazier claims in this interview is that he did not return to the Depository and straight into the basement (his Warren Commission testimony) but that he exited the doorway and walked towards Houston Street where he saw Lee Harvey Oswald as he was leaving the Depository building. You have a choice to decide which of Mr. Frazier's two scenarios was correct and true, the one he conferred to the Warren Commission or his later interviews. In the interview for the Sixth Floor Museum, Mr. Frazier also claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald did not bring a lunch to work which contradicts Lee's own statements he made during his interrogations. Mr. Frazier's denial of a lunch sack in Oswald's possession has certainly worsened the things for Lee Harvey Oswald. Now, where is any guarantee that Mr. Frazier would truthfully disclose the identity of Prayer Man?

Tommy: The possibility that some researchers, including myself, pursue is that Prayer Man was Lee Harvey Oswald. You asked the right question: who was Prayer Man if every of Depository employees' whereabouts is well known and none of them reported to stand in the western part of the doorway, It is the matter of debate and research to establish the body height of this person which I believe was 5'9''. This body height would qualify this person to be a man. So, we likely have here a Caucasian, a man, measuring exactly as Oswald measured, and displaying a hairline similar to Oswald's hairline. Mr. Frazier, to my knowledge, was not able or willing to say who Prayer Man was, however, he clearly testified something which was not true during his Warren Commission testimony: how can then be trusted in this particular issue? To recall, Mr. Frazier said that he has returned to the Depository and went to the basement soon after the shooting. However, in his later interviews, Mr. Frazier said he actually had seen Oswald walking on the Houston street because he (Mr. Frazier) was in front of the Depository entrance. While Mr. Frazier always spoke nicely about Lee Oswald, all his statements, including those regarding the package Oswald brought to work, were very damning for Lee Harvey Oswald. My point is that Mr. Frazier still covers his role in framing Lee Harvey Oswald and he would not answer the question who Prayer Man was even if it were Lee Harvey Oswald.

Tommy: there were two ladies on the top landing who have been missing for 54 years. They were Mrs. Sarah Stanton and Mrs. Pauline Sanders. One of the ladies was short and was standing very close to the glass door in the eastern part of the doorway. This lady was not seen in Algens6 because the view of her figure was obstructed by Bill Shelley. She was not seen in in Wiegman film because this film never captured the eastern part of the doorway where she stood. The short lady was not seen in most frames of Darnell because she was behind Mr. Molina who just happened to step down one step and that was the reason for seeing her in one of the final frames of Darnell film. This short lady, according to the testimonies, could be Pauline Sanders. The other lady who by exclusion was Mrs. Sarah Stanton is seen in Altgens6. Her figure is largely hidden by Billy Lovelady, however, a small bright blob located between the heads of Mr. Lovelady and Mr. Shelley suggests that there was a person in that location in Altgens6. There are faint contours of that lady in the shadow behind Mr. Shelley's right shoulder can be seen in Darnell. The point is that that frame in Darnell shows not only the short lady )Sanders) and this other lady (Stanton) but also Prayer Man. Thus, Prayer man could not be Mrs. Stanton as there were no other ladies besides Stanton and Sanders on the top landing. You can read details here: https://thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com/ or in the thread on this forum: "Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Stanton, where are you?"

Barring the payments to the website host cover the service till May 11, can we discuss the practicalities allowing the EF to continue. As it is turning out, EF will be sustained by voluntary donations of forum members and/or members of the public. The most simple solution would be having a functioning donation option on this website, and a donation meter showing the current balance. It would then be enough for one of the moderators to monitor the balance and issue a timely request to Forum members in case the balance would not cover the maintenance costs for few months ahead.

Thanks, James and all moderators, for keeping this Forum going. I did not answer the question whether the manners and language matter because I am a relatively new member and thought that senior members should speak first. Of course, the language does matter. This Forum is extremely important for the entire JFK assassination research and should continue. As per donations, I have tried to make a donation about a month ago but I was not successful - some glitch in the software? The language in our posts is important. It is every Forum member's duty to learn how to disagree. Politeness, ability to admit the conditioned and only probable value of every (even own) statement, and addressing substantial questions are needed. Some Forum members take this Forum as a kind of FaceBook and spend basically their whole waking day on the Forum, answering compulsively to any thread. After a very short time, their messages become shallow and have no substance. They then often revert to a very personal, intrusive style of posting. This Forum could be much better if people consider the value of their post first. Posting less may improve the quality of the posts of many members. Posting less would also give more time to the frequent posters for own research and elaboration of topics. Again, please let us know how could standard members help in keeping this Forum to be a place where knowledge and information on a delicate topic is exchanged freely. My recommendation would be that, besides language, less posting and observing the content and objective of own posts could be a way forward.

Jim: Do you consider Dr. Crenshaw a reliable witness? Similarly, would you think that Dr. Mantik would place into his meticulously prepared book information about an encounter which did not happen?

Dr. Mantik in his e-book "John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis - And a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment" (2015) in Appendix L reports on an interesting encounter between a Rochester Institute Technology senior photographer Quentin Schwinn and an unknown visitor. The visitor brought several color transparencies pertaining the autopsy, and the pictures appeared to show the state of Kennedy's wounds before alterations happened. One of the pictures showed an entry wound in the right forehead, and what could have been the pre-autopsy appearance of the neck wound. The picture below is a reconstruction of Mr. Schwinn's recollections of what he witnessed. The following text refers to the neck wound (Appendix L in Dr. Mantik's book): "The horizontal one (incision, A.S.) was about an inch long and the vertical was about 1 1/2 inches. The resulting four corners of skin looked thick and were curled back at the tips. There were two clean cuts at right angles to each other. There was no tearing or ripping or missing skin, just curled back corners from the two cuts and a small hole in the middle."

Dr. Crenshaw on the size of the frontal neck wound, at 4' 55'' :

Steve's comment aims at the same point which popped up in my mind after viewing the way how a casket weighing 280 kg (with the body inside) could be moved up the stairs by 4 men only. The posture and the way how the casket was held by one of the two men on stairs in the photo posted yesterday seems incompatible with the burden of 280 kg. Which poses a question if the body was in the bronze casket while the coffin was loaded on AF1. I am sure that David has explored in his analyses the possibility of dissociating the body from the bronze casket already at Parkland hospital.

Jim: the collar incision in the drawing shown in Mrs. Cranor article appears lower in the neck than the incision/gash seen in the autopsy photograph.

Dear Mrs. Cranor: My name is Stancak, for your information. Dr. Perry could not see the mediastinum , the lungs or the pleura, from the level of the 2nd tracheal ring. This area is still in the neck, not in the chest. A wide incision at the level of the 2nd tracheal ring would not help in seeing the mediastinum either. Please view the anatomical sketch I posted in my previous post. I am not a surgeon, however, I have conducted several tracheostomies in rats during my junior lectureship period at a medical faculty. I know how bleeding in the vicinity of trachea looks like. You now see that an incision of 3-4 cm was enough for Dr. Perry to see the medial aspects of the carotid arteries, and in particular to check if there was any bleeding from the carotid arteries. As there was none, it was not necessary to make a longer incision than 3-4 cm. Even if Dr. Perry made your collar type of incision, which he never admitted doing it, he would not see the mediastinum from that level of the trachea. I have quoted Dr. Perry's statement which confirms this view. Dr. Perry saw frothing of blood with bubbles of air. The air could only come from the trachea or from the punctured lungs. He could exclude the trachea, and he could then infer on the source of the bleeding and air bubbling from their direction. It was on the right side, so it could only be the right superior mediastinum. I am copying again the relevant part of Dr. Perry's testimony: Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves. But in the presence of this large amount of blood in this area, one would be unable to detect small injuries to the underlying structures. The air was indicated by the fact that there was some frothing of this blood present, bubbling which could have been due to the tracheal injury or an underlying injury to the lung. My mistake of not realising that an incision of 3-4 cm was enough to inspect the carotid arteries in the vicinity of the gunshot was admitted by me. I thought for a moment, from your description of the collar incision theory, that a wide incision was necessary to view the arteries on sides of the neck, and only later I realised that this was not necessary because the carotid arteries run in parallel with the trachea. A moment of stupidity on my side for which I apologise. Of course, there is a variety of contradictory testimonies and also different views about the appearance of the frontal neck wound, and your view is one them.

I agree with the innocent interpretation of the casket selection problem. It is interesting that only two men (one using one arm) were able to lift and hold the front part of the heavy casket with the body. Obviously, it was possible. ------------------------- This ceremonial casket was disposed of in 1966. An original document on the whole process and background is described here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/mystery-jfks-casket-0?page=1 According to this document, the casket and three sandbags, 80 pounds each, weighed 660 pounds. This gives 660-240 = 420 pounds or 200 kg. The casket with the President's body weighed 280 kg.

If things regarding President's body happened as David suggests, I wonder if the selection of the bronze casket to transport the President's body was a random choice. Suppose that the coffin would be a plain metal casket: it would weigh some 40 kilograms. In such a case, it would be difficult to pretend that the body was in the casket as the body would weigh at least double of that weight. Even a heavier wooden casket with no ornaments on it would weigh only some 80 kg, and it would still be possible to find out that the body was not in the casket. Only a casket weighing maybe 200-250 kg (the ceremonial bronze casket) would be heavy enough to cover up for the absence of a body in it because adding e.g. 80 kg to a casket weighing 250 kg would not be such a difference as adding 80 kg to a casket weighing 80 kg.

Jim: I may be wrong but the 3-4 cm slit was enough to see bleeding from carotids. The carotid arteries run on sides of a trachea which has a diameter of 1.5-2 cm. If you add 1 cm to each side of an incision above the trachea, you may see the medial aspects of the carotid arteries and certainly, it is possible to determine if any of the two carotid arteries was bleeding in association with the gunshot wound. This is consistent with what Dr. Cranor quotes: "I also made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea..." "Big enough" to see carotid arteries (or rather bleeding from these arteries) was 3-4 cm, you do not need a 7.5 cm incision. The mediastinum is the soft connective tissue separating organs in the thorax, it is not a neck structure. It was not visible or accessible from the level of the 2nd tracheal ring, however, the top aspect of the mediastinum could probably be seen from a 3-4 cm incision at the level of the third tracheal ring. What Dr. Perry said in his testimony was that he did not see any injury to the carotid arteries which would explain the bubbling and frothing of blood through the neck wound, and therefore, he inferred the presence of blood and air in the right mediastinum. Thus, he did not explore the mediastinum directly (via the alleged collar type of incision). Dr. Perry himself did not see that area of the chest, he only inferred on an injury there from the direction of the bubbling air and oozing and accumulation of blood that it was coming from the right superior mediastinum. His inference of an injury to the lungs by inference was possible as he could not see any bleeding from the carotid arteries, and the only remaining possibility was the right superior mediastinum. Dr. Perry was concerned about the possibility of a pneumothorax, and therefore further tubes were introduced to the chest. Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves. But in the presence of this large amount of blood in this area, one would be unable to detect small injuries to the underlying structures. The air was indicated by the fact that there was some frothing of this blood present, bubbling which could have been due to the tracheal injury or an underlying injury to the lung.Since the morbidity attendant upon insertion of an anterior chest tube for sealed drainage is negligible and the morbidity which attends a pneumothorax is considerable, I elected to have the chest tube put in place because we were giving him positive pressure oxygen and the possibility of inducing a tension on pneumothorax would be quite high in such instances. Dr. Perry knew what a collar type of incision was, however, he never reported making it. Dr. Perry distanced himself from causing a gash in the throat in his interview with Robert Groden in the 80th (more on this in David Lifton's posts). It appears, from at least two testimonies, that President's body arrived at Bethesda with a neat, connected incision wound with a round opening in the middle. This would be consistent with some 3-4 cm incision made by Dr. Perry of which the residuals can still be seen in the gash (my drawing posted yesterday). Please find here an illustration of trachea and carotid arteries which run close to each other at the level of the second thracheal ring. This illustration demonstrates that Dr. Perry did not need a 7.5 cm incision to inspect the carotid arteries. Please convey my thanks and best regards to Dr. Cranor, I appreciate her response. P.S. I was wrong in saying that Dr. Perry did not explore the carotid arteries, although he said this in an indirect way. The reason for my mistake was that I did not recall the exact course of the carotid arteries and believed that one would not be able to explore the carotid arteries through a 3-4 cm iincision in the lower part of the neck. I only remembered the locations of carotid arteries on each side of the neck which is, indeed, true in the upper part of the neck.

David: thanks for your supporting note. I own the paperback copy of your book with Ida Dox's reproduction of the neck wound. The point flagged up by Michael is a relevant one, and I now know that you have carefully evaluated the risks and benefits of publishing some autopsy photographs back then, 30 years ago. Nowadays, the autopsy photographs are widely publicised and known, for instance, Robert Groden published three colored neck wound pictures, each taken from a different angle, in his book "JFK- Absolute Proof". The autopsy photographs, even those published in books, are protected by law. However, I assume that members of Kennedy's family have long waived their personal data protection claims and leave researchers to use the already published autopsy pictures for their personal research. In my post, I have actually shown only the wound and avoided showing the face which certainly, even after 54 years, may arouse emotions in sensitive people. Back to our topic. I have sent questions related to sutures in the neck to Dr. McClelland, via an intermediary. I am not sure if I will hear from Dr. McClelland, however, he was leaning over President's head as he was standing behind the President's head, so he should know if Dr. Perry applied some sutures while performing a tracheostomy or after this surgery. I also included a question asking if the wound was sutured when he last saw President's body. I will inform you and the community if I receive any reply. It is more than 54 years after the fact, and I would not be surprised if Dr. McClelland would not remember this point which at that moment did not appear important to him.

Jim: thanks for posting this interesting and timely article by Dr. Cranor. I confess that it only increases my overall confusion over the frontal neck wound. It would be useful to post links to the PDF articles quoted to be able to check to be able to evaluate the content. For instance, the article "Penetrating wounds in the neck" does not seem to refer to the particular case of President Kennedy's wound. Here is at least the abstract of the article: J Trauma. 1978 Jan;18(1):2-7. Penetrating wounds of the neck and upper thorax. Blass DC, James EC, Reed RJ 3rd, Fedde CW, Watne AL. Abstract During the past decade, a method utilizing individual case assessment has been employed in the treatment of 51 patients with penetrating wounds of the neck and upper thorax. Only those wounds penetrating the platysma are included. Thirty-five patients (68.6%) underwent neck exploration; 16 patients (31.4%) were managed nonoperatively. Overall, five patients died, four patients following operative treatment and one treated nonoperatively, for a mortality rate of 9.8%. In the nonoperative group, a mortality of 6.2% (one death) compares favorably with an operative mortality of 11.4% (four deaths). Ten patients (29%) in the neck exploration group exhibited significant later morbidity compared to seven patients (44%) in the patients not explored. Therefore the morbidity from a negative neck exploration was only 2% (one of 20 patients). The techniques for exploring the neck are discussed. Adequate surgical exposure is largely dependent on the possibility of vascular injury, the most common cause of death in this series. ----------------------------------------------------------- The article likely deals with cases such as knife cut wounds where a cut through the platysma has occurred (platysma is a thin but large muscle covering the front of the neck). The collar incision would be appropriate in such cases because of the likelihood that blood vessels in the neck could have been injured. The neck wound in Kennedy was a different story: it was located clearly in the midline, and below the cricoid cartilage, meaning that the trachea was penetrated. As this was an emergency tracheostomy, Dr. Perry decided to make an incision through it and use the opening in the trachea for tracheostomy. Dr. Perry made a comparatively small incision (up to 4 cm), a neat slit through the upper edge of the gunshot wound. He was able to explore the immediate area of the trachea and the muscles through this incision. Dr. Perry certainly did not make a collar type incision shown in Blass et al. (1978) (quoted in Dr. Cranor's article) to explore also the carotid arteries or mediastinum. There was no time for this, no reason for this, and it is not supported by any of Parkland's doctors. Actually, the original incision by Dr. Perry can still be seen in the autopsy photograph. Please find here the enlargement of the neck wound in the autopsy photograph. Of course, some details are debatable, however, a distinction between a clean slit (1) and the cuts to the sides of this incision. Actually, there were pairs of cuts on each side of the original 3-4 cm incision which was necessary for expanding the neck wound vertically. 1: the original incision made by Dr. Perry. 2-3: skin flaps delineating by two cuts. The upper cuts in each pair connected with Dr. Perry's incision. 6: a hypothetical lower edge of Dr. Perry's incisison (not seen in the autopsy photograph). 5: a dark spot which may correspond to the opening caused by the gunshot wound/tracheotomy. 7-8: residuals of sutures? 4: the residual of the rounded gunshot wound, probably damaged by a vertical incision.

Thanks, Micah.

I took the picture which Micah has posted as it looks to be of a better quality compared to those which I was able to view via a Google search. Of course, the wound is dark and the resolution not perfect, however, I guess it is still possible to reconstruct parts of what was the original incision made by Dr. Perry and a crude alteration performed later. The picture below shows a cropped view of the autopsy photograph with the throat wound area (top), and the outcome of the photographic processing. The processing consisted in increasing the contrast and adding the light to the dark tones, adding hues which helped to resolve the contiguous patches of pixels (middle part), and resampling. The lower panel gives the description of different features of the wound. using numeric labels. This is explained in the next figure zooming only on the wound. The next figure is the enlargement of the gash on the throat. Residuals of the original tracheostomy: 1: The upper edge of Dr. Perry’s clean horizontal incision. 5. Existing gunshot hole or a tracheostomy opening. 6. A hypothetical line delineating the inferior edge of Dr. Perry’s incision. 7-8. Small openings related to sutures? Expansion-related signs: 2. A cut expanding the upper horizontal edge of Dr. Perry’s incision on the right-hand side of President’s throat. A raised flap of skin forms a triangle. 3. A raised skin flap on the left side of President’s throat. 4. A vertical mid-saggital cut. Of course, some of the signs are debatable, however, the neat about 3-cm line (1) clearly differs from the lines (cuts) on each side (2-3) or in the lower lip of the wound(4). These are different cuts made by different persons. What was likely to happen was that Dr. Perry made a clean incision (1) and performed a tracheostomy. The skin incision was very likely sutured with 2 stitches, one on each side, during or after the tracheostomy. Since the skin incision was very professional and neat, it would have been possible to inspect the original skin injury related to the gunshot as to whether it was an entry or exit wound. I assume the wound was sutured by some junior staff member after the senior staff left and the body was being in the process of preparation for the transport for the autopsy. This neat wound was apparently seen by Dr. Ebersole (BE, Chapter 23) and since there was a stitch over the midline as well, he was confident that this was related to the tracheostomy. Surgeons would close the wounds which were created by themselves and would leave those wounds which existed and did not threaten patient's life intact for forensic purposes. The pathologist knows in such a case what was a wound related to the crime and what was a wound created by the surgeons. It is also a part of a good surgical practice to close any wounds arising during a surgery no matter whether the patient survived or not. The wound was heavily tampered with though. The sutures from Dallas, if they existed, were removed, and cuts were made to extend the top lip of Dr. Perry's incision wound to each side. These cuts were about 1.5-2 cm each. Then, the lower lip of the original incision wound was cut vertically with about 1 cm cut. This cut eventually destroyed the rounded gunshot wound. A retractor was used to pull the lower lip of what is now an expanded incision, and as the wound was expanded by at least 2 cm, it was necessary to relieve the tension around the edges by two other cuts. This is why a triangular flap (2) can be seen in the gash on the throat. As Dr. Ebersole claimed he had seen the neat sutured wound at Bethesda and attributed it to the tracheostomy made in Dallas, this expanded wound was very likely caused after Dr. Ebersole's first view of the body. Could it then be during the time elapsing between the first presentation of the body and the official start of the autopsy? I am aware that David (L) assumes that this time was used to reunite the body with the bronze casket, however, the alteration of the throat wound would be a matter of 3 minutes, and could be squeezed into more than 30 minutes elapsing between the first and second presentation of the body.

David: Did you ask directly Dr. Perry or any other doctor who was in ER1 if they made any suture while doing the tracheostomy? The thing is that they may have done some stitches but did not tell because it was automatic and they would not describe all details of how they did the tracheostomy - for them it was a routine. Sometimes, two sutures are placed directly on the cut tracheal ring on both sides of the catheter, and sometimes two stitches are made on the skin on each side. These sutures help to keep the catheter stable in the trachea. The doctors could have told about making stitches were they asked, and they did not bother to tell if no one asked. Who knows. However, I agree it would be strange that no one would report that any sutures have been made in the neck area. ------------ Addition (07/03): I have now refreshed my memories of Best Evidence by re-reading Chapter 23 and some other chapters. Dr. Ebersole testified for the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he has seen "neatly sutured by a surgeon in Dallas". I also got that you have asked Dr. Clark about the possibility of applying sutures to any of the wounds which he has denied. Dr. Ebersole claimed that the neck wound has been sutured including the hole which he thought at that time that it was related to the tracheostomy. Your book says that the medical staff got into contact with Dallas doctors about 11-11.30PM and that was the time when they realized that there was sewing on the throat. Dr. Ebersole reasoned that a tracheostomy was made, the tubes were pulled out, and only then the stitches were made. Dr. Ebersole repeated this to the reporter Gil Dulaney. ------------- Well, this opens one more possibility besides a body alteration after the body left Dallas and before it was presented for an autopsy. If there is a surgery causing opening of patient's body and even if the patient dies, all wounds caused by the surgeons would be sutured. Suppose there is a patient undergoing a cardiac surgery, and the patient dies during the surgery. The surgeons would not abandon the body as it was when the patient died, they would close the chest and suture the wounds. Could something similar happen in Dallas? Most of the doctors leave and while the body is being prepared for a transfer to the pathology department, stitches are applied to the neck. I am just trying to make any sense of the different testimonies regarding the neck wound, with not too much of success I see.

Michael: I do not know how exactly was President's body transported to Bethesda Naval Hospital. However, it surely arrived in a different coffin compared to the heavy ceremonial casket, and President's body was in a plastic zipper bag, not in a blanket and towels. This is enough to assume a massive clandestine manipulation with the President's body. How exactly this all has been done is a matter of research, and David has put forward a reasonable hypothesis. I myself do not have my own theory because I feel I do not know enough about this problem. As you may know, I am continuously working on a 3D reconstruction of the Depository doorway, and after three years of a systematic work, I can see some humble fruits. While one can be a good expert only in one aspect of the case, I am also interested in medical aspects and other aspects of the case because this helps me two understand the events unfolding in the Depository better. I am familiar with David Von Pein's comments and appreciate them even if they are biased towards the lone-nut side. I could not see any point in David (VP) posts which David L would not have responded in great detail ("ultra-detailed" in David von Pein's words). I hope this helps.

Michael: may I ask you to stop ventilating your aversion to David Lifton and other forum members in this thread? Please set up your own thread, and you will see how many people will respond to it. David Lifton is a distinguished researcher and author and deserves all respect. We are privileged to have such expert among forum members. David put his name and much of his life into his research. He was also lucky but also perseverant to be able to speak with a number of witnesses in person, record their reports, gather different materials, and visit the critical places such as the morgue at Bethesda hospital. Those of us who came late (and may not even live in the USA) can only refer to secondary information which has been filtered and perhaps tainted. The closeness to the sources is also one of the reasons why David's work is original, essential and unreplicable. Here I need to correct myself a bit because a large part of David's research has been actually confirmed, e.g. by Mr. Doug Horne. I take David's presence on this forum and his sharing with us his original ideas as a sort of another Christmas. However, you need to understand that when someone is working more or less alone on a research problem and is very deep and advanced, there are not too many people who can help. It is like digging a deep tunnel which narrows down as you progress and at end, there is no one nearby to help you. While David knows his stuff very well, he also needs to hear an independent view else it is very easy to commit a mistake and jump to conclusions too fast. Can you second David's theses? Can you provide a feedback which may not be accurate or elaborate but which could still highlight a potential problem? If not, may I then kindly ask you to withdraw your insulting comments.

David (L): your research and hypotheses are mind-boggling. I confess that I need more time and reading to be able to swallow all new information. However, let me come back to the neck wound. Even here I am in a state of confusion, seeing that any attempt to make sense of it would not survive the next round of posts. Anyway, let me review the three possibilities of how a tracheostomy could have been achieved. 1. Inserting a tracheal catheter straight into the neck wound without making any incision or tracheotomy. This is a very unlikely possibility because there was blood frothing from the wound. Such option would be risky as it could result in suffocating the patient. Without a detailed inspection of the wound, it would not even be clear where this opening would lead to. This possibility is not supported by most of the testimonies and reports. A skin incision and a tracheotomy were performed. 2. An incision was made through the neck wound which allowed inspection of the wound. This is what Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission, and he also provided some details about the wound which details were obvious to him after making a horizontal cut through it. Further, the wound would be expanded above and below the opening in the trachea (caused by the gunshot), and that allowed to expose the second or third tracheal ring and to make a tracheotomy below the existing hole in an undamaged part of the trachea. This would be consistent with both a tracheotomy below the wound and an incision through the wound. Dr. Perry's statement for the ARRB, quoted in one of previous David Von Pein's posts, provides some support to this possibility. The wound would be very large by now and it would be fully understandable if Dr. Perry would also suture the neck wound with 1-2 stitches on each side. Suturing the skin and fascia around the tube used for a tracheostomy is a part of the procedure. The tracheostomy allegedly lasted 5 minutes (William Manchester's book) which long time might have involved also making some 4 surgical knots. After the President was pronounced dead, all the tubes were removed from President's body. This left the neck wound sutured and narrow, with an opening in the midline which opening was related to the neck gunshot wound. There was no suture through the opening in the neck because sutures were made with the tube in its place. The resulting picture of the neck wound was that of a neat incision because it was sutured and a rounded hole in the middle of the throat because of the gunshot wound and the circular tube which was just removed. Therefore, Dr. Perry did not remember ever causing a gash on the neck seen in the autopsy photograph. He might have said that he left the neck wound inviolate because it looked after removing the catheter more or less the same as he saw it when he first approached President's body. The gash on the throat might have been the result of tampering with the body or a part of the autopsy in which the sutures were cut for an inspection of this wound. 3. An incision was made below the neck wound and a tracheotomy and tracheostomy were carried out on an undamaged part of the trachea. This solution would contradict Dr. Perry's testimonies for the WC and ARRB, and it is therefore not the most likely scenario. Unless some novel information pops up which is entirely possible given how dynamic this thread is, I am inclined to believe in (2) : there was a cut through the wound, Dr. Perry created a space above and below the wound, and used a healthy part of trachea below the site of injury for tracheotomy and tracheostomy. As a standard part of any tracheostomy, he sutured the tissues on both sides of the catheter. After the catheter was removed, the incision was appearing as a narrow horizontal line, well sutured, and the opening caused by the gunshot wound was seen as it looked before any surgery to the neck - it was "inviolate". This wound, in my opinion, could have still be used to decide whether the gunshot wound to the neck was an entry or an exit wound.

Let me add one more source which provides some authentic information relevant to the case of the neck gunshot wound, William Manchester's "The Death of A President", 1967 (2013 edition). On the neck wound, page 182: "They could not win now. The throat wound - which was then assumed to be an entry wound, because there was no time to turn him over - was small, and it exuded blood slowly". On the tracheostomy, page 184: "The great need was, however, for some sort of breathing passage. The tube that the resident had inserted wasn't working, apparently because of the wound in the neck. Analgesics were unnecessary. Kennedy was in coma. "Scalpel", Perry muttered. A nurse slapped one in his rubber palm. Incising the President's throat just below the mediastinal wound, he began a five minute tracheostomy ("a mouth in the throat"). Meanwhile, the tube between Kennedy's lips had been connected to the respirator in an attempt to start him breathing again." On page 186: "Perry had just finished the tracheostomy when Clark arrived; he was inserting a cuffed tube in the windpipe. Jenkins attached it to an anesthesia machine , the controls of which were more delicate that those of the respirator. ----------------------------------------------- The use of "mediastinal" in the 2nd quote was not correct because mediastinum is the soft tissue in the chest that separates different organs. Anyway, Manchester's description fits well with Mr. Breslin's account of what Dr. Perry told him, and with Dr. Perry's "inviolate" to Dr. Stewart (in David's messages). The presence of bleeding from the neck wound (which I learned from Manchester's book by checking again what I read a while ago) excludes the possibility of using this wound as it was for a tracheostomy. Taken together, it is very likely that Dr. Perry made an incision below the gunshot wound in the neck and he therefore was sure he left it "inviolate" and could deny causing the damage to the throat seen in the autopsy photograph. What followed next, Dr. Perry's testimony for the WC and his CBS interview, are in my view deceptions prompted by expanding the wound to obfuscate the frontal shot to the neck. While they are important to document the level of the cover-up, they only distract from the true course of events in the ER1.

David (L): thanks for your very systematic account which sheds new light on the throat wound. This is an important addition to the data on President's head wounds (BE). As for the audio clip with "rendrd ..... uh... inv..", it could have been tampered with. There could have been two versions of the tape, one with "...inviolate" and one with "... invalid". It is just difficult to prove and this is why if I would press on this point I would be accused of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist seeing alterations and falsifications everywhere. I look forward to reading about the neck wound and other new work in your upcoming book. P.S. I asked my son who is a medical doctor (orthopedist) about whether he would perform an emergency tracheostomy with an existing throat wound located advantageously in the midline. He recommended asking a trauma surgeon which is something I recommended in my earlier post. After pressing more, he admitted he actually would use an existing wound in case of an emergency.