Micah Mileto

Who is this Kirkpatrick lady? Were you quoting her as a joke to summarize the kind of thing Kissinger would say?

Human rights are a matter of budget. A poor people's revolution is not likely to have much of a budget for extra human rights.

“Vero Beach Press-Journal”, 11/14/93: article by Craig Colgan---As Gary Aguilar has reported, “Craig Colgan reported Stringer’s surprise when he heard, and positively identified, his own tape-recorded voice making the above statements to Lifton in 1972. He insisted in the interview with Colgan that he did not recall his ever claiming that the wound was in the rear. [?] The wound he recalled was to the right side of the head [this is the identical about-face Stringer did with Livingstone after the first interview!]. ABC’s “Prime Time Live” associate producer, Jacqueline Hall-Kallas, sent a film crew to interview Stringer for a 1988 San Francisco KRON-TV interview [“JFK: An Unsolved Murder”, 11/18/88, with Sylvia Chase, later of “20/20” fame] after Stringer, in a pre-filming interview told Hall-Kallas that the wound was as he described it to Lifton. Colgan reported, “When the camera crew arrived, Stringer’s story had changed [another about-face]”, said Stanhope Gould, a producer who also is currently at ABC and who conducted the 1988 on-camera interview with Stringer…”we wouldn’t have sent a camera crew all the way across the country on our budget if we thought he would reverse himself”, Gould said…”(In the telephone pre-interview) he corroborated what he told David Lifton, that the wounds were not as the official version said they were,” Hall-Kallas said.”;

Wasn't there a story about Stringer being interviewed, and saying the hold was in the back of the head, but only when the cameras started filming him did he instantly change to saying it was on the top of the head?

What? You must be aware that Ramsey Clark and John Stringer admitted that they were pressured into signing that inventory, because of the lack of any photographs of the interior chest.

A 12/1/1971 interview of Dr. McClelland by Harold Weisberg was included in Weisberg’s 1975 book Post Mortem (Link): [...Epilogue, p. 376-377] From Carrico’s office in Room 208, I went to the sixth floor, where Drs. Robert N. McClelland and Perry have offices opposite each other. McClelland was in, Perry was then not. McClelland was pleasant, greeting me cordially. I asked him about his contemporaneous statement, that “the cause of death” was “a gunshot wound of the left temple” (R527) He does remember it and began an apology by saying “it was a total mistake on my part”. His explanation is that “Ginger”, Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, called the spot to his attention. McClelland seemed genuinely disturbed about this. He was bitter that the New Orleans assistant district attorneys had asked him about it and self-satisfied with how he talked them out of calling him as a witness – by telling them he would swear it had been a “total mistake”. I asked him why he never corrected this alleged mistake, especially when he was deposed and Specter, having avoided it with obvious care, asked him instead if there was anything he had said that he wanted to change or anything he wanted to add (6H39). McClelland had no answer. So I asked him how he know it was, in fact, a “total mistake”. He then shifted to this position: “I don’t know that it wasn’t and I don’t know that it was”. We both realized this was a far cry from his opening, “it was a total mistake,” for almost immediately, and without vigorous questioning, he was admitting openly and without leading questions that it might not have been any mistake. A bit embarrassed, he formulated still another position, “I presume it was a wrong assumption.” He was anxious to complain about Garrison and his assistants, and I listened to a long, bitter and irrelevant diatribe, which seemed to satisfy him. When he ran down, I asked how he would or could now account for such an error, if error it was. He then conjectured it was a spot of splattered blood. Perhaps an experienced surgeon and professor of surgery cannot tell the difference between a bullet hole of entrance to which he attributed the crime of the century and a spot of blood. I found it not easy to believe. So I asked him how he came to realize that perhaps he was in error. That it turns out, was not anything he had seen or of which he had personal knowledge, but the autopsy report taken around and shown by the federal agents! It was not in the autopsy report so it was not true, regardless of his own professional observation and opinion. There was another obvious question and I asked it: Had he, Jenkins, or anyone else wiped this alleged spot to see if it was no more than a spot of blood or to see if it was a bullet hole when all knew there would be an inquest which would have to establish the cause of death? His answer was simple, direct and unequivocal: “No.” I reminded him that Jenkins also had testified to the existence of this left-temple wound. McClelland had no explanation. Jenkins was not available. His second reference to this under oath was remarkably detailed and precise in locating the alleged wound in the left temple (6H51). This followed immediately upon an off-the-record “discussion” with Specter, the content of which Specter described as “on a couple of matters which I am now going to put on the record” (6H50). With regard to Jenkins’ professional belief and observation of the carefully described and oriented left-temple wound, Jenkins testified, “you have answered that for me”. This is one way of conducting an “investigation” with the lawyer telling the expert witness what to say and believe. Thus it is clear, regardless of whether the doctors’ observations were correct or in error, on what could have been a vital element of the evidence, the only doctors who have personal knowledge have no basis for denying their immediate, competent, professional and unsolicited observation, that there had been a left-temple wound of entrance and that it was the likely cause of death. Instead, they were told by Specter and federal agents what to say and believe and what not to say or believe.

What's wrong with the new 3D model study on the Zapruder film?

One thing I am not sure if I know is the number of interviews Dr. Jenkins gave in 1979. On 7/30/1979, Jenkins was interviewed by Harrison Livingstone, and according to a transcription from the audio tape, Jenkins said (Link): [...6:32] Livingstone: “Well, Dr. McClelland said I think in the left temple, he found a–“ Dr. Jenkins: “No. Let’s get that straight [laughs]. Dr. McClelland walked in, I was standing there, and I actually saw it. I had a finger on the temporal artery [unintelligible] and [unintelligible] facing the heart. I didn’t [unintelligible] there because blood was going to drip behind my shoes.” Livingstone: “Oh.” Dr. Jenkins: “On the phone Dr. McClelland said ‘Well where was the wound?’ And I told him I put my finger [unintelligible] where the hole was. That’s the whole background for that. But this guy in New Orleans [Jim Garrison], built his case on it [unintelligible]. So, Dr. McClelland didn’t find a– blood there, he thought I was [unintelligible], underneath the temple area.” [intercom interrupts] Dr. Jenkins [to intercom]: “Please get Dr. [unintelligible].” Livingstone: “Thank you.” Dr. Jenkins: “You know, everybody is comin’ up with so much stuff on this. The Warren Commission I think was right, even if they [unintelligible] to these things, and they did a magnificent job not [unintelligible] access to the autopsy findings.” Livingstone: “Yeah.” Dr. Jenkins: “But that’s somethin’ that’s not popular to hear, and actually a lot of the [unintelligible].” The same interview, or a different 1979 interview with Dr. Jenkins was summarized in Livingstone’s 2004 book The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy “As I remembered my meeting with him in 1979, when he had me lie down on a table and demonstrated the wounds (he did this with Ben Bradlee Jr. when my Boston Globe team went to Dallas to check my work), he said that he "thought" there was an entry hole in the left temple, but he was evidently mistaken” (Link). Some of Livingstone interview tapes are stored at the JFK library, and most or all of the JFK library ones seem to have been uploaded to Youtube recently, but only Bart Kamp has access to the last known audio tapes and other records from Livingstone that have not been digitized yet. In terms of lost media from Harrison Livingstone, it may also be worth mentioning that his old website HarrisonELivingstone.com, seems to have some pages which were not archived on the Wayback machine: Could there be any more lost media from Livingstone? Anything his family members may have been given or anything donated to a library other than the JFK library? I know that he was at one point considering donating some stuff to the Hood college in Maryland, but maybe de decided against it because that was Weisberg's spot.

Uhh... Hello? Did ya'll read my post which showed evidence that, at the very least, the left temple did have a spot of blood that somewhat looked like a wound? This apparently was not just a case of Jenkins feeling the temple and McClelland thinking he was pointing. So now we have at least 2 seemingly independent explinations for why there was intrique about the left temple area. Jenkins also told the Warren Commission "I thought there was a wound there". Both McClelland and Jenkins' testimony failed to fully address the left temple report - with McClelland, the talk seemed intentionally evasive.

Ugh. I'm sorry but I don't think that tread is correct. A few searches of specific quotes on newspapers.com refute your hypothesis IMO. Also, who were the Associated Press reports available physically in Dallas before 3 pm? Just Jack Bell or more? Soon ill post more about the transcript and how it is corroborated by the radio reports.

Dr. Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel stated that he personally saw a temple wound, and do did Hugh Huggins, although Huggins was a clown. We also have witnesses who, at the very least, indicated that there was a blood clot on the left side which looked like a wound. In 1967, we have Dr. David Stewart, who would relate conversations with Dr. Perry, also claiming to have heard there was a left temple wound (although there is no known record of him stating exactly where he got the left temple information, specifically). Also in 1967, we have Father Huber denying having seen a wound near the left eye, and stated that what he saw must have been a blood clot. In 1970, we have James Gochenaur apparently claiming that Elmer Moore said that Perry told him there was a small wound near the left eye. In 1979, Dr. Marion Jenkins told Livingstone that he thought blood on the left side may have influenced McClelland to think there was a wound there. Along with a 6/23/1990 letter, Dr. McClelland wrote on a copy of his original hospital report “This is my statement to the Secret Service. There was no wound at the left temple as First thought - simply much blood clot in that area” (Link). He also said this to the ARRB in 1997. In 1992, Perry did reportedly say: The basis for this was an intern seeing blood on Kennedy’s temple, but there was no wound there, Perry said. From Dr. McClelland’s appearance in D Magazine, The Day Kennedy Died by Michael J. Mooney, Nov. 2008: Jenkins had his hands full, but nodded down to Kennedy’s head. He said, “Bob, there’s a wound there.” The head was covered in blood and blood clots, tiny collections of dark red mass. McClelland thought he meant there was a wound at the president’s left temple. Later that gesture would cause some confusion. Also in 1992, we have Dr. Crenshaw denying that there was a left temple wound but claiming that there was a "blood clot" in that area.

Not only did Harrison Livingstone appear to cite Dr. Porto directly, but Dr. Ronald Jones in 1997 also told a story about Dr. Porto speaking of something on the left temple.

What's Lito Porto, chopped liver?

I've asked this before - is there any way that a new narrative will prop up arguing that the single bullet theory doesn't have to be true to make the official story work? What if they tried claiming Oswald intentionally drained some of the powder in one or more of the rounds he fired, firing one at Kennedy at around z180 and then Connally at around z222? Still implausable for so many reasons, but it could act as a way of reassuring the public that it would be physically possible.

What? How does it help the SBT? The exit point is over an inch below the top of the collar. That's more than a one-pixel error.

Does he have a video of the Pittsburgh conference with the autopsy witnesses?

Doesn't it arguably show the exit point 1 1/2 inches or more below the throat point? It shows the line moving well through the tieknot, not just above it. And the appearence of the tie knot is based on the Zapruder film.

Sorry I couldn't have The Case For An altered Throat Wound out by the anniversary. The more time the better it will be. My first write-up took 2 years also. so much xxxxing trivia to cram into every page that may or may not be considered "suspicious" - for the sake of completeness I must include and acknowledge every theory and every suspicion even if I don't agree with it.

The bullet could've gone in any number of directions after it would've Connally's fifth rib. Still a stretch in the model.

Holy xxxx, Illuminati scientifically confirmed in 2 days? We'll see.

Is facial recognition as useful as they want you to think, or is it bunk?

The meathead himself from All In The Family has a JFK conspiracy podcast now? Wow.

One of the primary pieces of evidence for an altered throat wound is Lifton’s reported 1966 interviews with Parkland doctors, where they were each asked to recall the length of the tracheostomy incision. Drs. Charles Carrico, Charles Baxter, Marion Jenkins, and Gene Akin were reportedly interviewed on 1/8/1966, Robert McClelland on 11/9/1966, Ronald Jones on 11/10/1966, and Paul Peters on 11/12/1966. It reads in Best Evidence, starting with Carrico (Link): […Part III. A Search for New Evidence, Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda] On November 8, 1966, I telephoned him, introducing myself as a UCLA graduate student attending a legal seminar held by "Professor Wesley Liebeler, who was on the Warren Commission." I told him I was doing a paper on the tracheotomy operation. "Dr. Perry testified that he made this incision in the neck... you were there when this happened, correct?" "Right." "Could you tell me approximately the length of the tracheotomy incision that was made?" "Gee. It's been a while. Probably-it would just be a guess-between two and three centimeters, which is close to an inch." "Between two and three centimeters?" "Yes." I asked: "Do you think the incision that Dr. Perry made might have been, let's say, four centimeters?" Replied Carrico: "Oh, I really don't know. But it, that would probably be the upper limit. I doubt if it was that large." As with Perry, the confident tone of Dr. Carrico carried the message that he did not need more than an inch to insert the tracheotomy tube. The next doctor was Charles Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy. I posed the question: LIFTON: Now, about what was the length of the incision? BAXTER: Oh, it's roughly an inch and a half. LIFTON: ...you could see the incision before they placed the tracheotomy tube into the incision? BAXTER: Oh, yes. Yes. LIFTON: So at that time you remember it as being an inch and a half [3.8cm]? BAXTER: Yeah, roughly.1 The assassination, I commented, was three years before. How sure was he of the details? "It's pretty vivid," replied Baxter, adding: "It's such a common operation that it's just standard. I think he probably had the most standard of standard operations . .. you do exactly what you're trained to do . . . if it wasn't standard, I don't know what it would have been." Besides asking each doctor about the incision length, I also sought his reaction to an 8cm (3.2in) incision. I asked Jenkins: "Do you think the incision could have been three and a quarter inches?" "No, I don't think so," he replied.2 Dr. Carrico responded: "Jiminy Christmas. How big is eight centimeters?" "Three and a quarter inches," I replied (actually it is 3.2 inches). Replied Carrico: "It would be certainly the exception. It would have to be an unusual circumstance."3 Carrico asked me if the autopsy report gave the incision length, but I dodged the question. I asked Baxter if he ever made tracheotomy incisions that were three inches long: "No, we seldom do. You don't need that much."4 Dr. Peters told me of his most vivid recollection. The incision had been made when he walked into the room, and Dr. Perry had one, possibly two, fingers in it. Quantifying his recollection of length was difficult. Dr. Peters estimated: "With two fingers, there's about, well, an inch and three quarters . . . at most, it was two inches."5 In the course of my inquiries about length, I developed some contrary data, and evidence that doctors at Parkland were discussing my calls. The problem first arose with McClelland. I had trouble reaching him, and had to leave my name. When I did reach him, I had the feeling he was anticipating what I was going to ask. When I came to the question of incision length, his reply agreed exactly with Dr. Humes' testimony: "In centimeters, that would be something like eight centimeters, seven or eight centimeters."6 I asked McClelland whether he thought that was the usual length of a tracheotomy. McClelland, a professor of surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital, replied: "That's about the usual length, uh huh."7 McClelland then admitted he had heard about Liebeler and his course. Curious to see just how far McClelland would go to allay my suspicions, I asked: "Would you say that if eight [centimeters] is the normal size, would you say they sometimes run up to, let's say, ten to twelve centimeters?" (Twelve centimeters is 4.8 inches.) "Oh, they might. They might," replied Professor McClelland. "You just make whatever's necessary to get into the neck. And it's conceivable that in certain people with rather short stocky necks, that you might have to make an incision that large a size."8 Try as I might, I found it difficult to imagine having to make a tracheotomy incision nearly five inches long to get into someone's neck. I concluded that Dr. McClelland, whose statements about the throat wound being an entry had received such widespread publicity, did not wish to become further embroiled in the assassination controversy. Dr. Jones was the only other doctor who gave me an answer that agreed with Humes' testimony: "Probably two and a half or three inches, somewhere along in there. . . "9 He also told me that Dr. McClelland had told him I had called and asked about the length of the incision. During these interviews, another criterion for estimating the incision length arose. Dr. Carrico explained that a tracheotomy tube had a flange—a piece of material perpendicular to the tube, that permits the tube to "sit" on the patient's neck. To keep the tube in place, straps from the flange are often tied around the neck. Carrico suggested that I determine what kind of tracheotomy tube was used and measure the flange. If the incision didn't extend beyond the flange, that would provide at least an upper limit. Dr. Carrico said he had no recollection of whether this particular incision extended beyond the flanges, but that normally it didn't. I decided to ask this question of the remaining doctors on my list. Dr. Baxter said he didn't think the incision could be seen beyond the flange, whose width he estimated at 1 1/4 inches, at most."10 Jenkins didn't know.11 McClelland said the incision did extend from the flange.12 Jones, who had talked with McClelland, said the same thing.13 Dr. Akin, who had given me a 2 1/2-inch incision estimate, was nevertheless emphatic that the incision would not show beyond the flange. "Tracheotomy tubes are far too wide for an incision to be showing beyond that, unless an unreasonably large incision has been made."14 What, then, was the flange size on the tracheotomy tube used on President Kennedy? The tube was not saved, but Dr. Baxter told me it was definitely a plastic one, and it was either a number seven, eight, or nine. I checked a medical catalog and found the maximum width was 4cm. * My flange-length research corroborated the estimates I received from Drs. Perry and Carrico that the tracheotomy incision was "2-3cm" long. [...] * In 1973, Parkland Memorial Hospital was renovating the emergency room area, and offered to sell the National Archives implements used in the emergency room—not the implements used on November 22, 1963. One item provided was a plastic tracheotomy tube. At my request, the Archivist measured the flange length. It was 1 1/4 inches long (1 1/4 inches is 3.1 centimeters). [...] Dr. McClelland goaded me into asking the question with his talk of a 7-8cm incision as being “usual.” I asked him about the edges: LIFTON: . . . Could you tell me, if you were going to describe the edges of the incision, do you have any idea . . . were they smooth edges? Was it a smooth incision? MCCLELLAND: Well ... as I say, when I got there, the incision had been made; and according to Dr. Perry's statement to me as I walked in the room, the first thing he said to me was that there was a wound in the neck, through which he had made the incision. Just as an extension of this wound . . . So I actually did not see the edges of the tracheotomy where it had extended it. And it was smooth, uh, since it was made, of course, with a knife [emphasis added].17 A few days later, I talked with Dr. Peters: LIFTON: In what words would you best describe the edges of that incision? PETERS: Oh, I guess "sharp." LIFTON: Sharp? PETERS: Yeah. LIFTON: In other words, because it was made with a knife by a surgeon? PETERS: That's right. It was a fairly neat incision, pretty close to the midline.18 Dr. Jones used the same word: “sharp.”19

I need more context to the McClelland statement about Perry being intimidated. Did he say that Perry said that, or that somebody else said Perry said that?