Sandy Larsen

In 1972 Stringer told David Lifton, in a recorded interview, that the wound was on the back of the head: Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" Stringer: "In the back." Lifton: "In the back?...High in the back or lower in the back?" Stringer: "In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck." Lifton: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" Stringer: "Yes. In the back part." Lifton: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of the skull?" Stringer: "Oh, some of it was blown off--yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." Lifton: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" Stringer: "Yes, sure." Lifton: "The top front was intact?" Stringer: "Right." Lifton, unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, "Yes." (Best Evidence, p.516) You can't get any more "back of the head" than that! Stringer changed his testimony -- as did others -- once he realized that it didn't fit with the archived evidence. IMO.

Pat, who do you think had a better view of the large skull wound... the Dealey Plaza witnesses or the Parkland Doctors? Maybe an exploding bullet was used and the result was blow-back shooting out the entrance wound. If so, that could explain why Dealey Plaza witnesses saw blood shooting out the temple area. Or maybe these witnesses got the wound location confused because, upon getting hit in the temple, Kennedy's head quickly snapped to his left in such a way that the back of his head -- with the gaping wound -- arrived almost instantaneously in the same position his temple had been. This happened so quickly that witnesses didn't realize the wound was in the rear of the head, not the side. I just took another look again at Zapruder, and I now believe that what I just described is probably what happened.

This is not true. Some of the doctors thought the wound was on the side or top of the head. What Don Jeffries said is true, Pat. At Parkland, nearly every medical professional who saw the gaping wound said it was in the rear, or extended to the rear. In your response to him, you picked the very few doctors whose recollections jibe most closely with what you believe. But let's look more closely at the exceptions you pointed out to Don. Salyer, for one, said [the wound] was on the side. Dr. Sayler: "I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound" (Warren Commission-V6:81) I see that Sayler is a good first choice for you, because he places the wound squarely in the area of the right ear. But he also makes the point that he was on Kennedy's left side and didn't have a direct "point of view" to observe the wound. Giesecke, for one, said it was on top. Dr. Giesecke: "...from the vertex to the left ear, and from the brow line to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing." Specter, surprised that Giesecke claimed the left side asked: "That's your recollection?" Giesecke answered: "Right, like I say, I was there a very short time--really." (WC-V:6:72-78)" Giesecke is not a very good witness for you, Pat, because he says that the wound extends to the occiput (the very back part of the skull). But then, he isn't a good witness for ANYBODY given that he recalls the wound being on Kennedy's left side. Perhaps that can be explained by his comment that he was there for "a very short time--really." So far, this makes two for two pro-Speer witnesses who didn't have a good view of the wound. McClelland, of course, famously said it was a wound to the left temple. Dr. McClelland: "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33): I don't know how you get "left temple" out of that, Pat. McClelland is a very poor witness for your side. You are also wrong to say they uniformly thought it was a blow-out wound. A "blow-out" wound is an exit wound. Dr. Clark, the most qualified man in the room, said he thought the wound was a tangential wound. A tangential wound is a wound of both entrance and exit. It is a big sloppy mess. It is not a "blow-out" wound. Actually Pat, what Dr. Clark said supports what Don said. Dr. Clark: "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) As you said, a "blow out" wound is an "exit wound." Your position on the blow-out wound seems very wrong, Pat. However.... The evidence you provide here is very compelling. You're right, the inside view of the Harper fragment does NOT have grooves and ridges like what we see in the photo of the occipital region. I'd like to hear what Dr. Mantik has to say about this. This looks like a major problem for him and those with his view regarding the Harper fragment location. (Since I'm convinced that the blow-out wound was on the back of the head -- the right side of the back of the head, to be more precise -- I'm betting that either 1) you've made some sort of mistake regarding the ridges on the occipital bone, or 2) the fragment placement by Mantik is wrong and should really be further to Kennedy's right. That would more closely fit the location of the wound as described by witnesses, and I don't see any big ridges there.)

I agree. As for the squabbling over the details, I'm starting to become Mantik-depressive. LOL, another good one, Ron.

I'll let you decide..... jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes I don't have a lot of time, but I'll take a stab a some of these things Jim D. is said to believe: 1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK. I'm pretty sure there is zero evidence that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63. There is, however, evidence he didn't shoot a rifle that day. 2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit. That person apparently wasn't Oswald. Interestingly, Oswald's wallet was found there, even though it was also found on Oswald at the theater. Clearly it was planted. 3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker. I don't know enough to comment. 4.) Oswald did not visit the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963. The evidence points to an imposter, not Oswald, being there in Mexico City. Though it is possible that both the the imposter AND Oswald were there. Whether he was there depends partly upon whether it was he who visited Sylvia Odio. (I currently believe it was an Oswald imposter visiting Odio. So Oswald may have been in Mexico City. Though not necessarily at the embassies.) 5.) Oswald probably wasn't even IN Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963. Same as #4. 6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods. The evidence suggest this to be the case. 7.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc. I don't know anything about this topic. 8.) Oswald's signature on the register of the Hotel del Comercio in Mexico City is a fake signature. That wouldn't surprise me given that the style Oswald's signature was all over the map, and thus could easily be forged. Look at his endorsements on checks he deposited and you will find that his signature varied greatly. 9.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake. The evidence indicates that many of the rifle documents had to have been faked. 10.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake. I don't know enough to comment. 11.) Marina Oswald lied about dozens of things, including when she said that Oswald had told her that he had taken a shot at General Walker. Marina contradicted herself numerous time. So there is no question that she lied a lot. 12.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, with Ruth being instrumental in getting Oswald his job at the Book Depository so that LHO could be set up as the proverbial "patsy". Either the conspirators got VERY lucky that a suitable patsy just happened to have gotten a job at a place where he could be set up, or Ruth Paine got him that job for that very purpose. I find the latter case to be far more likely. But I also find it highly unlikely that she had any idea as to why she was told to get him a job there. 13.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963. Don't know. 14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD. I've seen a number of videos where Frazier talks about the length of that bag. In all but one he said that the bag was too small to have been carrying a broken down Carcano. 15.) Captain J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the DPD basement on Nov. 24, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot. Don't know. 16.) The backyard photos of Oswald are fakes (despite what the HSCA said). I'm currently not convinced either way. However I tend to lean on the "fakes" side of the fence because: 1) It is clear to me that the sling mount that can be seen in one of the photos doesn't match the sling mount on the rifle allegedly used to kill Kennedy. 2) It certainly does appear to me that the shadows from the wood steps are identical in multiple BY photos, even though the shadows from the Oswald character change dramatically from photo to photo. 3) In one BY photo, the Oswald character is missing fingertips. And 4) Oswald's chin is wrong, something I'm not convinced the lighting could account for. 17.) The autopsy report is pure bunk, which almost certainly means that DiEugenio thinks that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Finck, and Boswell) lied out their collective assholes about President Kennedy's wounds. Well of course the Autopsy is bunk. That's a proven fact as far as I'm concerned. No question about it. 18.) The conspirators planning the assassination, although they wanted to frame ONLY Lee Oswald, shot JFK from a variety of locations, and they fired more than three shots in so doing, which pretty much guaranteed that their "One Patsy" plot would be exposed after the shooting. (But Jimbo and many like him believe this craziness anyway. Go figure.) This is absolutely true. One shot hit Kennedy in the back, one at the base of his skull from the back, and one from the front hit near his temple, blowing out the back of his skull. The throat wound was likely caused by an exiting bone fragment. Connally was hit by a separate bullet., from behind. 19.) A Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD after the assassination, even though the plotters knew they had to frame their one and only patsy with a Carcano rifle. (Brilliant!) The evidence strongly suggests this to be the case. Clearly a clumsy blunder. 20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey. In the case of JFK's murder, yes, it appears that most the evidence was fabricated or manipulated. That's surely wasn't a difficult feat given that so much was classified and filed away for no one to scrutinize. 21.) There were very likely at least two "Lee Oswalds" running around in various locations before the assassination. (In general, DiEugenio pretty much believes everything in John Armstrong's book of fantasy about there being "2 Oswalds" and "2 Marguerites". This proves that NO theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate.) I haven't read the Armstrong's book yet... just the first fifty pages. So I'm not sure about Harvey and Lee. But there were certainly some impostors involved... the ones in Mexico City proven to be impostors by the FBI. 22.) Jim Garrison was right about Clay Shaw after all. Shaw was guilty of being a co-conspirator in JFK's murder, despite the fact that Garrison did not provide ONE solid piece of evidence at Shaw's 1969 New Orleans trial to show that Shaw was involved in planning the assassination. I read Jim's book, and he laid out a good case. But I feel I don't understand it well enough to comment on Clay Shaw's role. I am convinced, however, that Garrison's case and reputation were systematically destroyed by those involved in the assassination cover-up. In summary, I can't see merit in any of your allegations against Jim DiEugenio, aside from the topics I don't have a good understanding of.

That surprises me. From what I've heard, Trumps past statement's paint him as a Democrat. I've been thinking that if he wins the GOP primary, our next president is guaranteed to be a small-d democrat.

Utter nonsense, Jim. The media was reporting that the murder weapon had a SCOPE on it as early as just a few hours after the assassination. There are even several FILMS (broadcast to the public on television on November 22) that show the scope attached to the rifle -- such as Tom Alyea's film, which was shown in its "wet" form (i.e., totally unedited) on WFAA-TV on the afternoon of the 22nd, with the film being narrated at various times by Bob Clark and Bert Shipp and Bob Walker, with the newsmen even pointing out the obvious fact that the rifle had a SCOPE on it. And Walter Cronkite, on Nov. 22 and 23, talked about the rifle's "sniper scope attachment". And Dan Rather, at about 7:00 PM on Nov. 22, narrated a film showing Lt. Carl Day walking through the DPD corridor carrying the rifle, with Rather telling the CBS audience that the rifle "has a four-power telescopic sight on it" (with the scope easily visible in the film as well; see video below).... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html#An-Italian-Gun And the newspapers were reporting about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle as early as Day 1 (November 22) as well. Here's an example from a Portland, Oregon, paper: Portland-Oregon-Newspaper-Front-Page-November-22-1963.jpg Here's another newspaper (also dated 11/22/63), showing the same information about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle: Sante-Fe-New-Mexico-Newspaper-Front-Page-November-22-1963.jpg And yet another: Oxnard-California-Newspaper-Front-Page-11-22-63.jpg Those newspapers were reporting the early erroneous info about the rifle being a "7.65 Mauser". But each paper also mentioned the fact that the assassination rifle was equipped with a "telescopic sight". That Oxnard paper was even correctly reporting, as early as November 22 (the date on the paper), that the rifle was an "Italian" gun. So, as all these examples illustrate, Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what he's talking about. Yes, Jim is mistaken on this one point. Everybody makes an occasional mistake. (Hopefully you're not generalizing when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about.) I guess Jim thinks that just because the media was reporting the $12.78 price for the assassination weapon for a few days beyond Nov. 22, that means that "the entire media...somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope". But if that's Jimmy's belief, he looks awfully silly, because I just provided a bunch of examples showing that the media WAS reporting on the "scope" within hours of the assassination.

I don't think ANY testimony should be changed or altered. But my guess is that James Cadigan answered the same question twice, and the revised answer was used in the transcript. Is it your contention that Cadigan never uttered the words "No, this is a latent fingerprint matter"? Do you think the WC (Dulles?) just inserted those words into the mouth of Cadigan? I'm saying that the Warren Commission altered evidence. What this example of evidence tampering tells me is that the WC had no qualms about changing evidence to meet their needs. What DVP's response to this tampering tells me is that -- no matter how bad something looks -- he will make an excuse for it. But only if it suits his pro-WC agenda.

Jim didn't post the example of the government (the FBI in this case, according to John Armstrong) taking liberties in modifying sworn testimony. So I will. Here's the transcript of Cadigan's testimony: Note the handwritten changes! Now here is proof that the changes made their way to the Warren Report: Incredible! What do you have to say about this, David V.P.? BTW Jim, maybe you're having trouble posting images because of the 1 MB limit placed on images hosted on the forum. Are you aware that you can still post images? The images remain hosted on another website (like harveeandlee.net) but appear here in the thread. Here's how to do that, just in case you don't know. Right-click on the image you want and select Copy Image Location. Then in the thread here, click the editor's Image icon. When asked for the image URL, paste the image location (right-click and select Paste) you had copied.

Excellent point made by John Armstrong in his write-up. David V.P., why didn't the WC prove that the 2/15/63 date on the deposit slip was a mistake, and that the deposit was really made on 3/15/63? All they had to do was introduce into evidence Klein's February and March bank statements. And DVP, why did Waldman testify that he had no way of proving the date was wrong?

The first thing to determine is whether or not the extant neck x-ray(s) are genuine. Here's what I've found in this forum so far: Cliff Varnell stating that the extant x-ray has been declared genuine by Dr. Mantik. Also stating that the x-ray shows an "air pocket" at C7/T1. Robert Prudhomme stating that Jerrol Custer remembered the x-ray showing several fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. Also noting that Custer therefore thought the extant x-ray to be inauthentic. Pat Speer stating that Custer was looking at HSCA cropped and enhanced versions of the x-rays, and it was those he said he didn't recognize. However, when shown the originals by the ARRB, Custer acknowledged them as x-rays he'd taken. (In the post I saw, Pat Speer doesn't dispute that Custer remembered fragments at C3/C4.) Someone (Cliff Varnell?) stating that the extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA expert witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities. (Could these be the fragments near C3/C4 that Custer remembers??) (Note that some of the above may be dated. My apologies if I mischaracterized any of it.) Any help will be greatly appreciated. Information gained in this thread could help solve the neck wound mystery.

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios Version: 11 Date: 2/10/16 (Changes shown in red.) Below The Collar Line A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat. A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat. Common Notes: These scenarios are supported by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below. The holes/slits in the shirt were made by the projectile. But a test done on the holes showed no traces of metal. The nick in the tie may have been made by the projectile. If it's true that the nick was on JFK's left side of the knot, as reported by the FBI, then it could not have been made by the projectile. (Because in that case the nick would be higher than the shirt holes, due to the knot's structure.) Note, however, that if by "JFK's left" the FBI meant the left side of the front of the knot, that would mean the the nick was unrelated to the wound. (This may be the case as there is extant a photo showing the nick in that very position. Though it is unknown to us if the knot shown is the original knot.) It was unrelated to the wound because the trajectory could not include the knot. According to Cliff Varnell, the neck x-ray (declared genuine by Dr. Mantik) conflicts with these scenarios. It shows an air pocket at C7/T1. On the other hand, Jerrol Custer thought the x-ray is fake. (Was he the one who saw bullet fragments or dust in the neck x-ray?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities. Above The Collar Line A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.) Common Notes: These scenarios are contradicted by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below. The shirt holes/slits were suspected of being bullet holes, as they were tested for traces of metal. There seems to be no explanation for this test being performing if the wound was above the collar line, or if the the holes/slits looked like scalpel cuts. (Incidentally, the test revealed no traces of metal.) There seems to be no explanation for the two holes/slits in the shirt or the nick in the tie. The true neck wound was successfully covered up, and a lower one faked in its place. It seems that the only reasonable explanation for this cover-up would be to support the SBT. (See the line of reasoning for this in Post 538 on this page.) Due to the SBT's late date, this cover-up had to have been performed by altering the "death stare" autopsy photo, not the body. Non-Projectile Scenarios Theory Based on Ashton Gray's Hypothesis: Everything (wound in throat, hole in shirt, and possibly nick in tie) was made by an assassin with a 1/4" diameter needle connected to a syringe full of non-traceable poison. This scenario is supported by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below. The major difficulties for this scenario are 1) there had to have been a nurse or doctor involved in the conspiracy; 2) who happened to be in the right place to perform the injection; and 3) who did so in front of others, thus risking being caught. According to Cliff Varnell, the neck x-ray (declared genuine by Dr. Mantik) conflicts with this scenario. (See details under the Below the Collar Line scenarios, above.) Related Posts Post 556 on this page: Early Throat Wound Testimonies Useful Animated GIF (Posted by Ashton Gray years ago. Note that I believe the arrow should be lowered by about 1/4" to aligned with the holes. But I need to carefully check this.) (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 567 on this page.)

Robert, From the above it appears that you believe there were definite holes through the shirt halves in addition to the 'slits' - is this correct? My question has nothing to do with what I personally believe. It has more to do with why anyone testing the shirt for deposits left by bullet jacket material would bother testing two obvious scalpel slits, if it was that plain they were not holes made by a projectile. Also, why would the holes/slits behind the tie be tested if the wound was above the tie and collar line?

[deleted]

What scalpel slits? I don't see any. In other words, good point. I'll bet the scalpel slit idea originated from a desire to discount the SBT. (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 557 on this page.)

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios Version: 10 Date: 2/9/16 (Changes shown in red.) Below The Collar Line A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat. A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat. Common Notes: These scenarios have eyewitness support. See the Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. These scenarios are supported by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below. The holes/slits in the shirt were made by the projectile. The nick in the tie may have been made by the projectile. If it's true that the nick was on JFK's left side of the knot, as reported by the FBI, then it could not have been made by the projectile. (Because in that case the nick would be higher than the shirt holes, due to the knot's structure.) Note, however, that if by "JFK's left" the FBI meant the left side of the front of the knot, that would mean the the nick was unrelated to the wound. (This may be the case as there is extant a photo showing the nick in that very position. Though it is unknown to us if the knot shown is the original knot.) It was unrelated to the wound because the trajectory could not include the knot. According to Cliff Varnell, the neck x-ray (declared genuine by Dr. Mantik) conflicts with these scenarios. It shows an air pocket at C7/T1. On the other hand, Jerrol Custer thought the x-ray is fake. (Was he the one who saw bullet fragments or dust in the neck x-ray?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities. Above The Collar Line A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.) Common Notes: The eyewitness support for these scenarios is questionable. See the Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. These scenarios are contradicted by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below. There seems to be no explanation for the two holes/slits in the shirt or the nick in the tie. The true neck wound was successfully covered up, and a lower one faked in its place. It seems that the only reasonable explanation for this cover-up would be to support the SBT. (See the line of reasoning for this in Post 538 on this page.) Due to the SBT's late date, this cover-up had to have been performed by altering the "death stare" autopsy photo, not the body. Non-Projectile Scenarios Theory Based on Ashton Gray's Hypothesis: Everything (wound in throat, hole in shirt, and possibly nick in tie) was made by an assassin with a 1/4" diameter needle connected to a syringe full of non-traceable poison.This scenario is supported by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below. Related Posts Post 556 on this page: Opposing Early Throat Wound Testimonies Useful Animated GIF (Posted by Ashton Gray years ago. Note that I believe the arrow should be lowered by about 1/4" to aligned with the holes. But I need to carefully check this.) (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 557 on this page.)

Opposing Early Throat Wound Testimonies Version: 4 Date: 2/9/16 (Changes shown in red.) 1. Behind or Above the Tie? Dr. Charles Carrico (WC Testimony) DR. CARRICO: There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple. MR. DULLES: Will you show us about where it was? DR. CARRICO: Just about where your tie would be. MR. DULLES: Where did it enter? DR. CARRICO: It entered? MR. DULLES: Yes. DR. CARRICO: At the time we did not know -- MR. DULLES: I see. DR. CARRICO: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here. MR. DULLES: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is? DR. CARRICO: Yes, sir; just where the tie... MR. DULLES: A little bit to the left. DR. CARRICO: To the right. Carrico seems to be saying that the neck wound is behind the tie. And Dulles seems to be attempting to lead his testimony elsewhere... above the tie. SSA Roy Kellerman (WC Testimony) SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area? KELLERMAN: No, sir. SPECTER: From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed? KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir. This testimony seems definitive. But could someone really be able to tell where the tracheotomy would be relative to a neck shirtline when there is no shirt in place? (If the death stare photo shows the true location of the tracheotomy, I would say yes.) 2. Above the Shirtline Currently there are no known early testimonies of the wound being above the shirtline. Notes Carrico's Later Reversal Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) "Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying ‘No.’ I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report." This seems to contradict what Carrico stated before the WC (above). Could Carrico have changed his mind? (Note: The interview took place some time between 1967 and 1975.) I checked to see if Carrico's testimony changed over the years regarding the gaping wound in the occipital region. I found that it did NOT change up through the HSCA hearings. But some time between then and 1981 it did change... dramatically. In a June 21, 1981 Boston Globe article, investigative reporter Ben Bradlee wrote, "Carrico was not Interviewed by The Globe, but in a letter sent in response to questions, he said the official tracing [i.e. the Ida Dox drawing] of the autopsy photograph showed "nothing incompatible" with what he remembered of the back of the head." I suspect he changed his testimony upon seeing the Ida Dox photo, which shows no gaping wound on the back of the head. Because of Carrico's history regarding the rear gaping wound, we know that he was willing to change his testimony under the right circumstances. I suspect he changed his testimony about the location of the neck wound once he realized that the SBT could not have occurred unless the exit wound was above the tie and shirtline. Because he had seen no hole through the tie. LATER ADDITION: One other thing about Dr. Carrico's testimony: James Gordon mentioned in another thread (Post 29) that Carrico was actually in Trauma Room 2 with Governor Connally when JFK arrived at Trauma Room 1 and began having his clothes removed by nurse Diane Bowran. So there is some doubt as to what he actually saw regarding the location of the throat wound. Note, however, that Tom Neal questions what Gordon said in that thread (Post 45).

Since Tom Neal disavows the Weisberg quote, I will remove it from my list. (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 542 on this page.)

Sandy Larsen said: "I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that." Your own statements reveal that you do NOT know who posted it. I have already objected more than once to you misquoting and/or attributing a quote or a theory that is not mine. I am NOT the only person to voice this complaint. You also denied my statement that you are "still" doing this, yet here you go again... You only "thought" I posted the quote, yet despite my multiple objections you once again attached my name to something when you have NO evidence at all that it was my statement. It was not necessary to attach my name to this - you could have simply stated that you don't know WHO posted it! Rather than post "I thought..." why didn't you find the source of this post? Don't you strive for accuracy? Sandy Larsen said: "It wasn't I who first posted it." According to the search function the first time this parsed quote appears on this forum is in YOUR post #541...so unless you can come up with the original post, it is clear that you don't even know what YOU yourself post. But don't let this stop you from denying your own objectionable post...or attempting to foist it off on me. Well, you got me there, Tom. I guess I'm just a scatterbrain. So what do you want me to do about it? See a shrink? Get a lobotomy? As I said before, if I make a mistake all you have to do is ask me to correct it. And BTW, since when is it wrong to say "I think" something? (I did think you posted the quote.) I've seen you do very much the same thing yourself many times, for example when you say "IIRC" ("if I recall correctly").

Hello Ashton, From an undated letter regarding Robert Groden using info from Post Mortem sans permission: "They were made by a scalpel in a nurse's hand as Carrico had described to me. I did not note the name of the one who did that when Carrico told me but it was either Margaret Henchcliffe(sic) or Diana Bowron." From a 1977 Letter addressed to Dr. Malcolm Perry: "When I left our last interview I went to the Parkland lobby and made notes immediately." The above statements are verbatim quotes from Harold Weisberg in reference to interviews with Dr. C. James Carrico and Dr. Malcolm Perry at Parkland hospital on 12-1-1971. It is clear to me that Weisberg neither recorded these interviews nor took notes during the interviews. Mr. Weisberg at no time refers to the presence of a third party during these interviews. Tom The two Weisberg quotes Tom refers to in his post are not the one Ashton specifically objected to, which is this: "Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying ‘No.’ I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report." I don't know how this quote relates to the ones in Tom's post. It wasn't I who first posted it. I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that. If it was Tom who posted it, I will do with it (delete or keep it) as he wishes. If it wasn't Tom, then I will delete the quote unless anyone objects. Tom, do you want me to keep or delete this Weisberg quote?

If it's possible, then I'm sure you will have no problem proving it once and for all. Therefore, please: 1. Locate the point between your third and fourth tracheal ring, and mark that location on your skin with a round mark of the appropriate size. (Testimony varies, ranging from 4 to 8 mm. You decide.) 2. Put on a correctly fitting dress shirt, buttoned at the neck, and a tie, and using only natural motions of your head and neck, position the collar and tie so that a projectile could pass above the tie and collar, and penetrate at the spot you've marked on your skin without hitting the top of the collar or the tie. You may not pull down on the shirt or tie with your hands or by any artificial means. 3. Take a selfie, or have someone photograph you, and post it for us. I 'm looking forward to seeing it. Ashton I apparently have a very short neck. The only thing I feel between my Adam's apple (thyroid cartilage) and the notch of my sternum (suprasternal notch) is my circoid cartilage. My trachea is completely covered by my sternum. I can feel my trachea only if I tilt my head all the way back. And even then, only the top 1/4" of it. Which strikes me as odd when I look at anatomical diagrams of the neck, and photos like this one: (Source: cerebrovortex.com) (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 542 on this page.)

Why do you keep propagating this hearsay? Where's this alleged "interview"? Where is a record of it? Who witnessed it? Thanks to you and Ray for your feedback. I have replaced the Posner quote with one from a more reliable source As for the Weisberg hearsay, I kept that because he was a respected researcher. And why do you also keep throwing irrelevant hearsay about the head wound into this thread on the throat wound? If you read carefully my comment about the head wound, you will see that I was using it to determine if Carrico was the type of person who would stick to his guns when confronted with opposing information, or if he would conform to it. I concluded the latter was true of him. This was a relevant and useful exercise. Why do you keep posting and reposting hearsay at all? People can decide for themselves whether hearsay (from a respected source) has any value. Just as they can decide for themselves whether a document has been forged or a photo altered. Maybe I didn't make a mistake in turning this noise off before. If my methodology irritates or offends you, then by all means put me on Ignore. Ashton (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 542 on this page.)

Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies Version: 3 Date: 2/7/16 (Changes shown in red.) 1. Behind or Above the Tie? Dr. Charles Carrico (WC Testimony) DR. CARRICO: There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple. MR. DULLES: Will you show us about where it was? DR. CARRICO: Just about where your tie would be. MR. DULLES: Where did it enter? DR. CARRICO: It entered? MR. DULLES: Yes. DR. CARRICO: At the time we did not know -- MR. DULLES: I see. DR. CARRICO: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here. MR. DULLES: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is? DR. CARRICO: Yes, sir; just where the tie... MR. DULLES: A little bit to the left. DR. CARRICO: To the right. Carrico seems to be saying that the neck wound is behind the tie. And Dulles seems to be attempting to lead his testimony elsewhere... above the tie. 2. Above the Shirtline Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) "Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying ‘No.’ I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report." This seems to contradict what Carrico stated before the WC (above). Could Carrico have changed his mind? (Note: The interview took place some time between 1967 and 1975.) I checked to see if Carrico's testimony changed over the years regarding the gaping wound in the occipital region. I found that it did NOT change up through the HSCA hearings. But some time between then and 1981 it did change... dramatically. Gerald Posner quotes him, in Case Closed, as saying that the wound was on the right side and that he didn't believe they saw any occipital bone. In a June 21, 1981 Boston Globe article, investigative reporter Ben Bradlee wrote, "Carrico was not Interviewed by The Globe, but in a letter sent in response to questions, he said the official tracing [i.e. the Ida Dox drawing] of the autopsy photograph showed "nothing incompatible" with what he remembered of the back of the head." I suspect he changed his testimony upon seeing the Ida Dox photo, which shows no gaping wound on the back of the head. Because of Carrico's history regarding the rear gaping wound, we know that he was willing to change his testimony under the right circumstances. I suspect he changed his testimony about the location of the neck wound once he realized that the SBT could not have occurred unless the exit wound was above the tie and shirtline. Because he had seen no hole through the tie. 3. Behind the Tie SSA Roy Kellerman (WC Testimony) SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area? KELLERMAN: No, sir. SPECTER: From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed? KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir. This testimony seems definitive. But could someone really be able to tell where the tracheotomy would be relative to a neck shirtline when there is no shirt in place? (If the death stare photo shows the true location of the tracheotomy, I would say yes.)

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios Version: 9 Date: 2/7/16 (Changes shown in red.) Below The Collar Line A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat. A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat. Common Notes: These scenarios have eyewitness support. See the Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. The holes/slits in the shirt were made by the projectile. The nick in the tie may have been made by the projectile. If it's true that the nick was on JFK's left side of the knot, as reported by the FBI, then it could not have been made by the projectile. (Because in that case the nick would be higher than the shirt holes, due to the knot's structure.) Note, however, that if by "JFK's left" the FBI meant the left side of the front of the knot, that would mean the the nick was unrelated to the wound. (This may be the case as there is extant a photo showing the nick in that very position. Though it is unknown to us if the knot shown is the original knot.) It was unrelated to the wound because the trajectory could not include the knot. According to Cliff Varnell, the neck x-ray (declared genuine by Dr. Mantik) conflicts with these scenarios. It shows an air pocket at C7/T1. On the other hand, Jerrol Custer thought the x-ray is fake. (Was he the one who saw bullet fragments or dust in the neck x-ray?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities. Above The Collar Line A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.) Common Notes: The eyewitness support for these scenarios is questionable. See the Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. There seems to be no explanation for the two holes/slits in the shirt or the nick in the tie. The true neck wound was successfully covered up, and a lower one faked in its place. It seems that the only reasonable explanation for this cover-up would be to support the SBT. (See the line of reasoning for this in Post 538 on this page.) Due to the SBT's late date, this cover-up had to have been performed by altering the "death stare" autopsy photo, not the body. Non-Projectile Scenarios Theory Based on Ashton Gray's Hypothesis: Everything (wound in throat, hole in shirt, and possibly nick in tie) was made by an assassin with a 1/4" diameter needle connected to a syringe full of non-traceable poison.Related Posts Post 545 on this page: Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies Useful Animated GIF (Posted by Ashton Gray years ago. Note that I believe the arrow should be lowered by about 1/4" to aligned with the holes. But I need to carefully check this first.) (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 542 on this page.)

Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies Version: 2 Date: 2/7/16 (Changes shown in red.) 1. Behind or Above the Tie? Dr. Charles Carrico (WC Testimony) DR. CARRICO: There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple. MR. DULLES: Will you show us about where it was? DR. CARRICO: Just about where your tie would be. MR. DULLES: Where did it enter? DR. CARRICO: It entered? MR. DULLES: Yes. DR. CARRICO: At the time we did not know -- MR. DULLES: I see. DR. CARRICO: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here. MR. DULLES: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is? DR. CARRICO: Yes, sir; just where the tie... MR. DULLES: A little bit to the left. DR. CARRICO: To the right. Carrico seems to be saying that the neck wound is behind the tie. And Dulles seems to be attempting to lead his testimony elsewhere... above the tie. 2. Above the Shirtline Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) "Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying ‘No.’ I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report." This seems to contradict what Carrico stated before the WC (above). Could Carrico have been persuaded to changed his mind? (Note: The interview took place some time between 1967 and 1975.) I checked to see if Carrico's testimony changed over the years regarding the gaping wound in the occipital region. I found that it did NOT change up through the HSCA hearings. But some time between then and 1992 it did change... dramatically. Gerald Posner quotes him, in Case Closed, as saying that the wound was on the right side and that he didn't believe they saw any occipital bone. I suspect he changed his testimony after seeing or hearing about the autopsy photos, which conflicted with the Parkland consensus on the gaping wound. I have a very hard time believing Carrico's testimony would have changed for the Weisberg interview. But I also have no explanation for the seeming difference between his WC testimony and his interview with Weisberg. Because of Carrico's history regarding the rear gaping wound, we know that he was willing to change his testimony under the right circumstances. I suspect he changes his testimony about the location of the neck wound once he realized that the SBT could not have occurred unless the exit wound was above the tie and shirtline. Because he had seen no hole through the tie. 3. Behind the Tie SSA Roy Kellerman (WC Testimony) SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area? KELLERMAN: No, sir. SPECTER: From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed? KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir. This testimony seems definitive. But could someone really be able to tell where the tracheotomy would be relative to a neck shirtline when there is no shirt in place? (If the death stare photo shows the true location of the tracheotomy, I would say yes.)