Why transcript 1327C is a fraud

Paul Rigby · October 30, 2007

It is the last refuge of the Front Shot Faithful.

An outrage - it's the pub.

The moron at AP got it wrong, that's all. You solved it yourself in your first post when you reported correctly that after Perry pointed to his own throat and lied and said that the wound in the throat was an entrance bullet wound, a reporter asked, "Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?" If only you had stopped there!
Bell ran off to his typewriter to describe what he understood from the press conference to be a single head wound with a single entrance hole (in the throat) with a single exit hole (that he understood to be a gaping hole in the back of the head on the right side), and so idiotically shorthanded his description of this purported bullet shot that exploded the head by saying "the entrance wound was in the front of the head." And it can go even further: for all you or I know, all Bell actually wrote was "the entrance wound was in the front," and an editor at AP added "of the head" thinking he was clarifying the report, when in fact he was confusing it all to hell.

Then some local-yokel papers picked the the AP garbage and propagated it, as always happens.

All of which explains, why, three years after the event, and with the AP despatch in question nowhere to be seen in the work of the first generation critics (Lane, Weisberg, et al), Manchester returned to it in the manner he did. Or perhaps not.

Our old friend Dulles had a nifty little quote for precisely this eventuality, one cannily picked up on by David Lifton in Best Evidence, p.809: "little slips or oversights which [can] give the game away" (The Craft of Intelligence. Harper & Row, 1963). Quite.

As recently as 27 August 1998—long after the transcript was available—Ronald Coy Jones, M.D., Robert M. Mcclelland, M.D., Malcolm O. Perry, M.D., and Paul C. Peters, M.D.—all doctors who were there in Trauma Room One that day—were gathered for questioning as a group by Jeremy Gunn, general counsel of the Assassination Records Review Board. During that questioning, Paul Peters summated the exact frame of mind that was the consensus view at the time of the press conference (based on the patently false idea that there had been a bullet wound to the throat):

DR. PETERS:
I think most of us thought at first that day in the first few minutes that, boy, it might have one in through the neck and out the back of the head, which would have been a big exit wound and a small entrance wound.

That was the consensus. That is what was stated at the press conference.

Was it?

i) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. (‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.)
ii) Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

iv) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head" [Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4]

iii) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967 [Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2).

Paul

Paul Rigby · October 30, 2007

From Perry's testimony before the Warren Commission, bold emphasis added:

DR. PERRY:
I made an incision
right through the wound
which was present in the neck... .I made a transverse incision
right through this wound
... .

From Perry's testimony to Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), bold emphasis added:

DR. PERRY:
It was
bigger than I would make for an elective situation
. In a patient that's not in extremis where you're doing an elective tracheostomy you make a nice tiny skin line incision in order to minimize the subsequent scarring.

From Perry's initial interview with Specter, bold emphasis added:

DR. PERRY:
I...began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision
right through the wound in the neck
. ...Once the trachea had been exposed I took the knife and incised the windpipe
at the point of the...injury
. ...Since I had made the incision
directly through the wound in the neck
, it made it
difficult for them
[Humes and the autopsy personnel]
to ascertain the exact nature of this wound
.

Of course Perry is being inordinately modest when he says that it was "difficult...to ascertain the exact nature of this wound" as a result of his carving: the autopsy personnel didn't know there had been any throat wound at all until Humes called Perry the next morning!

That is incontrovertible fact, and if you feel an itch to argue it with me, it is a measure of my esteem that I adjure you to restudy the record with great care before succumbing to any such reckless urge.

Ashton

David Lifton's Best Evidence: Disguise & Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (NY: Signet, Nov 1992), p.325:

“In 1968, Where Death Delights was published, an authorized biography of Dr. Milton Halpern, the New York City Medical Examiner and a man known as the father of forensic medicine. Dr. Halpern said that Dr. Perry's tracheotomy incision should not have interfered with a proper determination of the wound, and took the Warren Commission to task for implying the bullet wound “was obliterated,” (46) that the tracheotomy had “completely eliminated that evidence” (47).
'The staff members who wrote that portion of the [Warren] Report simply did not understand their medical procedures.' said Halpern, who quoted the Bethesda autopsy that the wound was 'extended as a tracheotomy incision and thus its character is distorted at the time of autopsy' (48). 'The key word here is “extended,”' said Halpern (49). That bullet wound was not “eliminated” or “obliterated” at all. What Dr. Perry did was take his scalpel and cut a clean slit away from the wound. He didn't excise it, or cut away any huge amount of tissue, as the [Warren] Report writer would have you believe.”

(46) Marshal Houts. Where Death Delights (NY: Coward McCann, 1967), p.57.

(47) Warren Commission Report, edition unspecified, p.88.*

(48) Bethesda Autopsy Report, p.4.

(49) Marshal Houts. Where Death Delights (NY: Coward McCann, 1967), p.57.

*In the edition of this fabulous work of fiction I own:

”In the early stages of the autopsy, the surgeons…did not know that there had been a bullet hole in the front of the President’s neck when he arrived at Parkland Hospital because the tracheotomy incision had completely eliminated that evidence,”
The Warren Report: The Official Report on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Associated Press, 1964), p.36.

And Ashton Gray, of course, in this & other threads, 2007.

Ashton Gray · October 31, 2007

It is the last refuge of the Front Shot Faithful.

An outrage - it's the pub.

Of course. It stands to reason (witness this thread), so I stand corrected.

The moron at AP got it wrong, that's all. You solved it yourself in your first post when you reported correctly that after Perry pointed to his own throat and lied and said that the wound in the throat was an entrance bullet wound, a reporter asked, "Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?" If only you had stopped there!
Bell ran off to his typewriter to describe what he understood from the press conference to be a single head wound with a single entrance hole (in the throat) with a single exit hole (that he understood to be a gaping hole in the back of the head on the right side), and so idiotically shorthanded his description of this purported bullet shot that exploded the head by saying "the entrance wound was in the front of the head." And it can go even further: for all you or I know, all Bell actually wrote was "the entrance wound was in the front," and an editor at AP added "of the head" thinking he was clarifying the report, when in fact he was confusing it all to hell.

Then some local-yokel papers picked the the AP garbage and propagated it, as always happens.

All of which explains, why, three years after the event, and with the AP despatch in question nowhere to be seen in the work of the first generation critics (Lane, Weisberg, et al), Manchester returned to it in the manner he did. Or perhaps not.

Or perhaps not. Or perhaps so. Or perhaps I don't care if the Archangel Michael returned to it holding hands with Beelzebub, the entire construct of "a shot to the front of the head" is a myth of Brobdingnagian proportions, and you are using an educational forum to peddle this baseless mythology as though it were a fact, when you do not have one tiniest mote or sliver of valid evidence that Perry ever said any such thing.

As recently as 27 August 1998—long after the transcript was available—Ronald Coy Jones, M.D., Robert M. Mcclelland, M.D., Malcolm O. Perry, M.D., and Paul C. Peters, M.D.—all doctors who were there in Trauma Room One that day—were gathered for questioning as a group by Jeremy Gunn, general counsel of the Assassination Records Review Board. During that questioning, Paul Peters summated the exact frame of mind that was the consensus view at the time of the press conference (based on the patently false idea that there had been a bullet wound to the throat):

DR. PETERS:
I think most of us thought at first that day in the first few minutes that, boy, it might have one in through the neck and out the back of the head, which would have been a big exit wound and a small entrance wound.

That was the consensus. That is what was stated at the press conference.

Was it?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, it was the consensus, by the exact definition of "consensus." I'm glad you asked. It most assuredly and inarguably was. And Malcolm Perry never said anything at all at the press conference about any front shot to the head. But don't let me impede your swan dive onto the rocks. Do go on with your "proof" that it was otherwise:

i) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. (‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.)

How much time you been spending in that pub with the other Front Shot Faithful, Paul? You know, if you'd spend less time studying the heads on pints and more time studying the record about the head of John F. Kennedy, you might have gotten around to reading the exact cite I just gave you: Jeremy Gunn interviewing Ronald Coy Jones, M.D., Malcolm O. Perry, M.D., Paul C. Peters, M.D., and one more—oh, yeah! It was Robert M. Mcclelland, M.D. And here's what McClelland himself had to say in that interview about his "Admission Note," written 22 November 1963 at 4:45 p.m., that you're so busy waving around (my bold emphasis):

DR. McCLELLAND:

Dr. [Marion] Jenkins, when I came in the room [Trauma Room One], told me as I walked by to come up to the head of the table and he said, "Bob, there's a wound in the left temple there." And so I went to the table and I thought—you know, knowing nothing else about any of the circumstances—that's like that— (indicating).

MR. GUNN:

Just for the record, you're pointing in with your—

DR. McCLELLAND:

Yeah, the left temple—

MR. GUNN:

—finger at the left temple, and now the back of the head.

DR. McCLELLAND:

—came out the back. And there

was

a lot of blood on the left temple. There was blood everywhere, but there was a lot of blood on the left temple, so

I didn't question that

. ...But the upshot of it is what that led to was Mr. Garrison's case in New Orleans, and he put together a scenario where he thought someone—because of what I had said about the left temple bullet—was in the storm sewer on the left side of the car and fired this bullet that killed the President, another gunman. ...Garrison never contacted me until it was essentially time to have the case in court. ...And so I got a call one morning and it was from his office—one of the people in Garrison's office, and he wanted to know if I would come to New Orleans and testify. And I said, "Well, you know, it's odd that none of you had talked to me before this. I've been hearing something about it on television and whatnot."

And they said, "Well, we assumed that you still believed that the course of the bullet was as you said in your written testimony right after," and I said, "No."

And his voice went up about three octaves and he said, "What?" And

I said, "No."

And I explained to him that I had learned other things about the circumstances at the time, and that

Jenkins had told me; I didn't see any wound there. I was just stating what I had been told and that I wrote that down in my written statement right after the assassination.

And so that was—kind of took the wind out of the sails in that particular prosecution.

Would you like to order up another pint, Paul? Did you take note of the fact that Malcolm O. Perry was sitting right there at the table with Robert McClelland in August 1998 when McClelland described to Jeremy Gunn how he came to be deluded into a false belief that there had been a bullet entrance wound to the left temple of John F. Kennedy's head, and did you take note of the fact that Malcolm O. Perry didn't say a damned syllable to the contrary?

And did you take special note of the name of the doctor who was the source of the delusional false belief that there was an entrance wound in Kennedy's left temple? It's right in the first sentence of the indented section above: Dr. Marion Jenkins. And you might want to make that next pint a double, because I certainly have taken note of who you're trotting out next to "testify" about this mythological "entrance wound to the head."

Let's all have a peek at who it is—and I'm going to tidy up your cite just a bit with some bold emphasis:

ii) Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

:blink: :blink:

No wonder you Front Shot Faithful take refuge in the pub.

This is it? This is what you got? You come in here with a handful of guesswork and hearsay and utterly countermanded "evidence"—in McClelland's case—that has been specifically revoked and nullified by the very author of that so-called "evidence," and on no more foundation than air so rarified it would make the Denver atmosphere look like concrete, you make blatant declarative statements in an educational forum that "Perry said there was a frontal head wound," while not able to produce even a scrap of record of Perry ever having uttered any such thing?

You cannot possibly be doing any such reprehensibly irresponsible thing. Surely—surely—you have something of substance. Please...

iv) Dr. Robert Shaw: <SNIP!>

Now you're clutching at Shaws. He wasn't there! He was operating on Connally, for the love of Guy Fawkes! Who gives a damn what he claims? He didn't see Kennedy's head. He has no standing. What do you have of substance?

iii) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance."<SNIP!>

He wasn't there, and he's a damned xxxx! It was not remotely "the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance" <SPIT!>.

Why are you peddling such swill?

Put down that pint and look at me: how many fingers am I holding up? Did you say "six"? Try again. "Nine"? Try again. "Four"? No!

It's TWO. Got it? One, TWO.

That's how many "physician's who were in attendance" mistakenly thought there might have been a wound in the left temple, and one of those recanted his statement to that effect, acknowledging that he never saw any such wound!

I think I want to propose that the name of this place be changed from "The Education Forum" to "The Remedial Education Forum," since it's beginning to seem that an inordinate percentage of its population not only cannot read and comprehend the record, but apparently cannot even count to two.

Ashton Gray

Edited October 31, 2007 by Ashton Gray

Paul Rigby · October 31, 2007

The moron at AP got it wrong, that's all.

Oh, I don't know:

Post-Dispatch News Services, “Priest Who Gave Last Rites ‘Didn’t See Any Sign of Life,’” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 24 November 1963, p.23A: “When asked to specify the nature of the wound, Dr. Perry said that the entrance wound was in the front of the head.”

And you forgot to mention the "moron" had other, equally heretical, form:

Jack Bell, “Eyewitnesses describe scene of assassination: Sounds of shooting brought car to a halt,” NYT, 23 November 1963, p.5:"Alan Smith...'The car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead…the car went about five feet and stopped.”

Paul

Bernice Moore · November 1, 2007

Wounds to the Left of JFK's Head?

When I first became interested in the JFK assassination, I thought that I would be able to fully understand at least one aspect of the case - the medical evidence. I now realise how naive that thought really was. There can't be many parts of the case that are more confusing, contentious or crucial.

Initially I wanted to illustrate how confusing the medical evidence can be and how easy it is to paint different versions of what really happened - this article presents the evidence for wounds to the left of JFK's head. However, while writing this article, I have to say that it might support some startling conclusions.

Most of the available evidence points to wounding in the right rear (occipito-parietal) of the head:

The Zapruder film shows wounding in the right

Most of the reports from the Parkland Memorial Hospital doctors mention wounding in the right rear (1).

Most of the eye-witnesses report wounding in the right rear (2).

The major wounds disclosed in the autopsy photographs and x-rays were in the right of the skull.

So where does the evidence for wounds in the left come from?

What's the Evidence?

Remarkably, the evidence comes form several doctors, a priest, a Secret Service agent and JFK's press secretary.

Dr. Jenkins

Dr. Marion T Jenkins was Professor and Chairman of Anaesthetics. His natural position in the trauma room would be at the head of the patient monitoring and administering anaesthetics or, as with JFK, oxygen. He would have had a good chance to study the head wound carefully. Bearing this in mind, part of Jenkins' testimony to the Warren Commission is extraordinary:

"Dr. JENKINS. I do not know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.

Mr. SPECTER. The autopsy report disclose no such development, Dr Jenkins.

Dr. JENKINS. Well, I was feeling for - I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also." (3)

Notice that Specter, very carefully, does not say that there was no wound in the left temporal area, rather he says that the autopsy report doesn't disclose such a wound. We know that the autopsy report failed to disclose many things which were apparent - the atrophied adrenal glands, for example (4) Was a wound in the left side of the head omitted too?

Two pages after this remarkable testimony, Jenkins asks to go o ff the record for a discussion with Specter. One page later, the questioning continues:

"Mr. SPECTER: Aside from that opinion [that one bullet must have traversed the President's pleura], have any of your other opinions about the nature of his wounds or the sources of the wounds been changed in any way?

Dr. JENKINS. No; one other. I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating).

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the left temporal area?

Dr. JENKINS. Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating), but you have answered that for me. This was my only other question about it." (5)

Jenkins was obviously bothered by his recollection of a left wound and he is very specific about its location. It is particularly suspicious that Specter seems to have "answered that" after an off the record discussion.

Dr. McClelland

Dr. Robert N McClelland attended JFK in Parkland Memorial Hospital. He testified to the Warren Commission and they reproduced his admission note for JFK written at 16:45 22/11/63 regarding the treatment the President received. McClelland wrote, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" (6).

At this time he was Assistant Professor of Surgery, he would not be expected to mistake the site of a wound in any patient. But JFK was not just any patient, he was the President. I suggest that McClelland would have written a very carefully considered admission note for this patient.

In a short admission note, this divergence from the "official" line is easily spotted. Yet Specter did not ask McClelland to clarify this statement, he directed McClelland away from re-reading his report by asking him to check his signature. Specter then asked whether McClelland would stand by his report before bringing questioning to a speedy halt (7).

In an interview with Gerald Posner, Jenkins claims that McClellands's impression of a wound to the left temple is mistaken and stems from a short exchange between the pair when McClelland entered Trauma Room 1. Jenkins claims that McClelland asked where JFK was hit. Jenkins claims that he was searching for a temporal pulse at this time and that McClelland assumed that Jenkins was pointing out a wound. As we can see previously from Jenkins' own testimony, however, it is quite likely that Jenkins was indeed pointing to an area he thought was wounded (8).

Dr. Giesecke

Dr. Adolf H Giesecke, an anaesthetist, would also have been at JFK's head - the best place to get a good look at the head wounds. Once again, he too mentions damage to the left of JFK's head when giving testimony to the Warren Commission:

"Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed to me that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing.

Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the right-hand side of the head?

Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my memory of it." (9)

Why didn't Specter pursue this? With Jenkins he was keen to have the doctor change his recollections or to add a note of doubt ("The autopsy report disclose no such development . . ."), but with Giesecke he allows it to pass without comment. Perhaps Specter was worried that getting Giesecke to think carefully about the site of the exit wound he saw would lead to a discussion of a frontal entrance wound.

Dr. Stewart

Dr. David Stewart was in attendance in Parkland Memorial Hospital when the President and Governor Connally were brought in for emergency treatment. He spent most of his time with Governor Connally. He was interviewed on KNEW television by John Dolan in 1967.

"Dolan said he was particularly concerned with the statement about the shot that killed the President coming from the front'. Stewart said, " Yes, sir. This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President's head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right backside of the head and it was felt by all of the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front". (10)

Father Huber

Father Oscar L Huber was one of the priests that gave the last rites to the already dead JFK (11). Part of the ceremony included tracing a cross on the President's forehead using holy oil. Obviously, Father Huber would have been in an excellent position to look at JFK's head wounds. Father Huber was quoted in the press the weekend that the President died saying that he had seen a terrible wound over the President's left eye (12).

Malcolm Kilduff

In 1963, Malcolm Kilduff was JFK's Press Secretary. In a 1991 interview with Harrison Livingtsone, Kilduff gives this remarkable response:

"Livingstone: As you know, the face was not damaged at all. No witness saw any damage to the head past the midline of the skull, forward of the right ear.

Kilduff: Forward of the right ear? No! Forward of the left ear, they did. I did. The bullet came in on the right side and exited the left side." (13)

SSA William Greer

Secret Service Agent William Greer drove the Presidential limousine through Dallas on November 22nd 1963 and must have got a look at JFK's head when they arrived at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

Greer described to author David Lifton how JFK's head "looked like a hard-boiled egg with the top chopped off" (14). This would mean damage to the left as well as the right.

Dr. Boswell

Dr. J Thornton Boswell, one of the Bethesda Naval Hospital autopsists, described much damage to the left of JFK's skull and brain (15):

Explaining a 10cm area marked on the left of the skull diagram, Boswell said, "This was a piece of 10 centimetre bone that was fractured off the skull and was attached to the under surface of the skull." (16)

On the front of the autopsy face sheet prepared by Boswell there is a small dot at left eye labelled "0.4cm" (17).

On the back of the autopsy face sheet prepared by Boswell an arrow at the presumed wound of entry points to the front and left (18).

On Boswell's drawing of JFK's skull there is a 3cm rectangle at the site of the left eye with a ragged margin seemingly indicating a fracture or missing bone (19).

Dr. Humes

Dr. James J Humes, the lead autopsist at JFK's autopsy, described massive wounds in the left of JFK's head and brain (20):

In the scalp, Humes described two enormous tears "c = From the left margin of the main defect across the midline antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8cm." and "d = From same starting point as c 10cm posterio-laterally"(21).

In the skull, Humes described "complete fracture lines" meaning that the skull bone was broken right through (22):

". . . multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound in the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm." (23). The word "radiate" implies damage to the left of the skull. This is supported by the phrase, "vary greatly in length and direction".

In the brain, Humes described a "1.5cm tear through the left cerebral peduncle" deep in the brain (24).

Summary

The evidence for wounding in the left of JFK's head comes from the following sources:

Four Parkland doctors (two who would have been at JFK's head) - admittedly, one was hearsay

Two autopsy surgeons

A priest

A Secret Service Agent

JFK's press secretary.

Conclusion

I recently had the chance to walk around Dealey Plaza several times, slowly and thoughtfully. I have heard it said that an assassin could have hit JFK with a rock thrown from anywhere in the plaza, but had previously dismissed this as flippant. Having walked round there myself, it does not seem to me that a shot from just about anywhere would be difficult - including a shot from JFK's left, from the other grassy knoll.

On the other hand, Dr. Kemp Clark (the only Parkland doctor we can trust to have had a good look at JFK's head) did not describe the extent of damage noted at the autopsy. David Lifton has more than raised the mere possibility that JFK's body could have been tampered with prior to the autopsy in Washington DC.

Notes

(1) Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, Commission Exhibit 392, cited hereafter in format CE 392.

(2) Robert Groden, "The Killing of a President", p86 - 88.

(3) Testimony of Dr. Marion T Jenkins, WC 6H48 (page 48 of the sixth volume Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits).

(4) Harrison Livingstone, "High Treason 2", New York, Carroll & Graf, 1992 p179

(5) Testimony of Dr. Marion T Jenkins, WC 6H51.

(6) Dr. McClelland's Parkland Memorial Hospital Admission Note , CE 392.

(7) Testimony of Dr. Robert N McClelland, WC 6H35.

(8) Gerald Posner, "Case Closed"

(9) Testimony of Dr. Adolf H Giesecke, WC 6H74

(10) Harold Weisberg, "Post Mortem", self published, 1975 p60 -61

(11) William Manchester, "The Death of a President", p258

(12) Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, November 24 1963

(13) Harrison Livingstone, "High Treason 2", New York, Carroll & Graf, 1992 p447

(14) David Lifton, "Best Evidence", New York, Carroll & Graf, 1988 p448

(15) Autopsy Face Sheet completed by Dr. J Thornton Boswell (CE 397) and discussion in "Best Evidence" chapter 18

(16) Testimony of Dr. J Thornton Boswell to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, HSCA 7 p253 (page 253 of the seventh volume of hearings)

(17) CE 397 (WC 17E45)

(18) Sylvia Meagher, "Accessories After The Fact", Vintage Booke Edition, June 1992 p161

(19) CE 397 (WC 17E46)

(20) Autopsy Report, Kennedy, John F., CE 387 & Supplementary Report, CE 391

(21) CE 387

(22) Ibid

(23) Ibid

(24) CE 391

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Ian Griggs for generous access to his copy of the Warren Commission 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits.

http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/JFK%20Wounds.htm

B........

Edited November 1, 2007 by Bernice Moore

Paul Rigby · November 1, 2007

Wounds to the Left of JFK's Head?
Copyright © Russell Kent, April 15 1996

Bernice,

Thanks for reminding me of Kent’s very interesting piece. He couldn’t be more right:

When I first became interested in the JFK assassination, I thought that I would be able to fully understand at least one aspect of the case - the medical evidence. I now realise how naive that thought really was. There can't be many parts of the case that are more confusing, contentious or crucial.

Baffling it unquestionably appears to be. But there is a way out of the Wild Wood.

At the end of his thought-provoking essay, Kent refers to David Lifton. I was from the first, and remain to this day, a great admirer of Best Evidence, even though I have never been convinced by the validity the book’s conceptual denouement, the Clandestine Intermission Hypothesis (CIH). Why the rejection?

Because the CIH rests upon the mistaken belief that the Bethesda autopsy duo, Humes and Boswell, were as much the innocent dupes of external forces as their Parkland medical compatriots: Wound patterns 1 & 2, representing those observed at Parkland and Bethesda respectively, are not the geographically discrete entities he believes them to be. Pattern 1 – the real pattern 1, not the doctored version Lifton erroneously embraces, a mistake due in no small measure to his uncritical embrace of the fraudulent transcript that is the subject of this thread – is demonstrably present at Bethesda, too. And what we find is Humes and Boswell working on the classic counter-pattern, an aborted precursor to the final agreed lie.

To explain what I’m getting at, I can think of no better place to begin than Sylvia Meagher’s 1967 classic, Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY, Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), pp.161-2:

“The autopsy documents also provide some cryptic indications of damage to the left side of the head. The notorious face-sheet on which Dr. J. Thornton Boswell committed his unfortunate 'diagram error' consists of front and back outlines of a male figure. On the front figure, the autopsy surgeons entered the tracheotomy incision (6.5 cm), the four cut-downs made in the Parkland emergency room for administration of infusions (2 cms. Each), and a small circle at the right eye, with the marginal notation '0.8 cm,' apparently representing damage produced by the two bullet fragments that lodged there. Dr. Humes testified that the fragments measured 7 by 2 mm and 3 by 1 mm respectively (2H354). Although he said nothing about the damage at the left eye, the diagram shows a small dot at that site, labeled '0.4 cm' (CE 397, Vol XVII, p.45). Neither Arlen Specter, who conducted the questioning of the autopsy surgeons, nor the Commission members and lawyers present asked any questions about this indication on the diagram of damage at the left eye.
Turning back to the male outline of the figure – the one Dr. Boswell did not realize would become a public document even though it had to be assumed at the time of the autopsy that findings would become evidence at the trial of the accused assassin – we find a small circle at the back of the head about equidistant from the ears and level with the top of the ears. Apparently this represents the small entrance wound which the autopsy surgeons and the Warren Commission say entered the back of the head and exploded out through the right side, carrying large segments of the skull. but an arrow at the wound on the diagram points to the front and left and not to the front and right.

A forensic pathologist who was asked to interpret this feature said that it signified that a missile had entered the back of the head traveling to the left and front. As if in confirmation, an autopsy diagram of the skull (CE 397, Vol XVII, p.46) shows a large rectangle marked '3 cm' at the site of the left eye, with a ragged lateral margin, seemingly to indicate fracture or missing bone.

The autopsy surgeons were not questioned about any of the three diagram indications of bullet damage at the left eye or left temple. Nevertheless, when Dr. Jenkins testified that he thought there was a wound in the left temporal area, Arlen Specter replied, 'The autopsy report disclosed no such developments.'”

Meagher was unquestionably alive to the possibility of body alteration – in a tantalising footnote, she refers readers to a December 1964 special issue of Ramparts detailing “the falsification of autopsy findings in the case of James Chaney”* - but insufficiently certain of the actual wounds and their locations to pursue the issue in the main body of her text. Had she been, I suspect the outcome would have been very interesting, for this was one very acute mind at work.

Had Meagher fixed upon the correct three wounds – a small, left temple entrance, with corresponding large, right-rear head exit; and a small entrance wound in the throat – she would assuredly have grasped the correct chronology of the left temple wound notations made by Humes and Boswell.

The order is deliberate. Humes’ “0.4 cm” represents the unaltered left temple entrance wound observed at Parkland. The second measurement offered, by Boswell, represents the early stage of that entrance wound’s subsequent expansion en route to becoming an exit wound. Hence the arrow described by Meagher.

In summary, then, at the time during the evening of 22 November when Boswell made that notation, there was work in progress to reverse the wound pairing. This was a logical response: The appointed patsy, after all, was alleged to have been firing from the right-rear of Kennedy.

* Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY, Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p.138, footnote 20: “Those who dismiss as preposterous, if not sacrilegious, the very notion that an autopsy report might be adjusted to serve police or political imperatives should consult David M. Spain’s article, ‘Mississippi Autopsy’ in Ramparts’ special issue ‘Mississippi Eyewitness’ (December 1964, pp.43-49). They will find incontrovertible proof of the falsification of autopsy findings in the case of James Chaney, who was murdered with Andrew Goodman and Michael Swerner in the summer of 1964 in Philadelphia, Mississippi.”

Ashton Gray · November 2, 2007

The moron at AP got it wrong, that's all.

Oh, I don't know

Well, that's the first step to recovery, so I'm glad to see you've finally come to realize that you don't know.

And when I'm finished with this post you probably still won't know—not because of any deficiency of the facts but because of your own repeatedly demonstrated inability to comprehend them. Frankly, though, after your loathsome, petulant recent attempt to hijack the thread I started, There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat, in order to drench it with the same defiled muck you've filled this thread with, I don't give a damn what you know or don't know.

What I know is that after I'm through here, nobody with the cognitive spark of a pissant will waste another second of their time listening to your spinning of delusional fairy tales about an entirely mythological "bullet entrance wound to the front of the head" (or left temple—you can't even seem to make up your own mind where your mythological hole should be placed) of John F. Kennedy. So as of the end of this paragraph, I'm not addressing you at all. You can sit on your thumb massaging your brain as far as I'm concerned. I'm addressing the rest of this message to the sentient:

To those who've followed this thread or are just jumping in, Paul Rigby has subjected the Queen's English to unspeakable persecution and mutilation in an agonizing attempt to sell the world on an airy-fairy fable that on the afternoon of the day John F. Kennedy was murdered Dr. Malcolm O. Perry said at the news conference that "the entrance wound was in the front of the head."

Now, I use the word "fable" advisedly, because Rigby does not have a single scrap of first-hand verifiable record of Malcolm O. Perry ever having said any such thing. How, then, you might reasonably ask, could Rigby possibly manufacture such a boneheaded fiction?

Well, Rigby's droning, colorless cant is that there once was a record of Perry having said that, but then somebody twiddled with the transcript of the press conference and edited that out! Doncha' know.

Oooooooooooooooooo!

It's fiction and nothing but. Malcolm O. Perry never said there was a bullet entrance wound in the front of the head or anything remotely like it. In fact, if Rigby ever had possessed the thinnest shaving of integrity in this matter, this is the very first statement—from the sworn testimony of Malcolm O. Perry himself—that Rigby would have put right at the beginning of this nonsense thread he started (my bold emphasis added):

DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY:

[T]here was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly.

I did not see any other wounds.

:huh:

I'm sorry, Dr. Perry: would you repeat that—just for those with IQs not quite equal to their age? And could you speak up just a bit?

DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY:

I did not see any other wounds.

:huh:

Oh.

Well, then, I guess that if Rigby ever had been in possession of enough integrity to put that at the top of his thread, there wouldn't have been any thread at all, would there.

But if there weren't any thread at all, then Rigby wouldn't have provided himself the opportunity of subjecting us all to page after page of syntax that reads like teeth scraping across a blackboard while he parades out one secondary or tertiary "source" <SPIT!> after another, trying desperately to prove that Perry, in saying under oath what I just quoted, is a damned xxxx.

:blink:

Well, now, wait just a minute—here's a fine conundrum: you, gentle reader, must be asking yourself, "Is Rigby actually trying to impeach his own star witness?"

Why, yes: believe it or not, he is. I absolutely am not saying that Rigby is dumb as a rutabaga, because I don't talk about rutabagas that way, but I am saying that he has been just as busy as a ten-tick dawg digging up every little scrap of newspaper clipping and quotes from wannabe second-guessers that he can get his stumpy little fingers on, peering at them myopically, sorting through them like Scrooge McDuck ["QUACK!"] counting wooden nickels, just so he can prove that Malcolm O. Perry is a conscienceless xxxx under oath, and that Perry did see another wound—damn it!—and that it just had to be an entrance wound in the front of John F. Kennedy's head! The Associated Press said so! Quack! Wok!

Or...

No, hang on minute: Rigby then turns right around and says that this alleged entrance wound actually was in John F. Kennedy's left temple—which, if you've reached kindergarten, you know is on the side of the head, not the front.

Well, which is it? Does Rigby know? No, he does not. He keeps moving the mythological hole from the front to the left side and then back to the front again and then back to the left side and then...

You think I'm just making this up, don't you? You think I'm joking now or something.

If only I were.

Have you read Rigby's thread? Let's have a refresher course on Rigby's "evidence" that Perry must have lied when Perry said under oath:

DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY:

I did not see any other wounds.

Rigby won't stand for it! He won't stand for it, do you hear! Here's what Rigby wants you to believe instead, and I swear these are the actual quotes from all kinds of so-called "sources" that Rigby has thrown into the pile like junk into a utility drawer to try to make his "case"—whatever it is. Don't take my word for it, though—go back and read through this thread, which is where I got them from, if you doubt me:

The Associated Press reported, shortly after 2 pm, CST, that "Dr. Perry said the entrance wound—which is the medical description—the entrance wound was in the front of the head"...
Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region..."

Paul Rigby: "[T]here was, in addition to the entrance wound just below the Adam's apple on the front of the throat, also an entrance wound 'in the front of the head'..."

Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple..." [McClelland has completely recanted this false statement. —AG]

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 24 November 1963: "When asked to specify the nature of the wound, Dr. Perry said that the entrance wound was in the front of the head...."

Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area..."

Paul Rigby: "With regard to the entrance wound 'in the front of the head' described by Perry..."

Paul Rigby: "Had Meagher fixed upon the correct three wounds - a small, left temple entrance..."

Dr. David Stewart: "There was a small wound in the left front of the President's head..."

Oh, for chrissake, make up your flaming mind!

Jeeeeeeeez!

Okay, if you've managed to make it this far through The Fabulous Fable of the Incredible Moving Head-Hole and haven't either choked the cat to death or scared it to death from laughing, let's regroup for a moment, and then start to find out just how ludicrous this entire farce really is. Because you ain't heard nothin' yet, I promise you.

First, let's try to dig out of this mound of madness something at least resembling Rigby's major premise (assuming, arguendo, that he has one). Essentially, it is this, edited down for readability from Rigby's death-by-paper-cuts prolixity, and please allow me to emphasize a few items in boldface:

According to 1327C [the transcript of the news conference], Perry and Clark described only two wounds, the entrance wound in the front of the throat, and "a large, gaping loss of tissue" at "the back of his head," "principally on his right side" ...The Associated Press reported, shortly after 2 pm, CST, that "Dr. Perry said the entrance wound—which is the medical description—the entrance wound was in the front of the head.'"

Got it? This is Rigby's big nuclear issue and the entire foundation on which he builds his Mad Hatter mythology: the Associated Press (AP) mangling of "the front of the throat" and alteration of it to "the front of the head." And Rigby's entire premise is that the AP got it right, and the transcript is wrong.

Of course this is the same AP that falsely reported, e.g., that Valerie Plame was no longer in an undercover job when Robert Novak leaked her identity. But this doesn't give Rigby a moment's pause. Oh, no: the transcript of the press conference is wrong, the Associated Press goof is the gospel.

But wait: let's just do the one thing that Rigby—if he'd had even a whiff of integrity—would have done at the outset, before he rigged up his tools of syntactical torture, and let's compare Perry's own sworn testimony to what Rigby himself admits that the transcript of the press conference says. Here's Perry again:

DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY:

[T]here was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly.

I did not see any other wounds.

Count with me now: Perry said under sworn testimony that he saw two and only two wounds: a "large avulsive wound" on the right back of the head, and a "small, roughly circular wound" in the lower part of the throat.

Well, then what does Rigby say is in the news conference transcript—which he claims has been monkeyed with? Let me quote Rigby again:

According to 1327C [the transcript of the news conference], Perry and Clark described only two wounds, the entrance wound in the front of the throat, and "a large, gaping loss of tissue" at "the back of his head," "principally on his right side"

:blink:

Well... But...

Yes: they are exactly consistent. The news conference transcript reports exactly what Perry said under oath that he saw: two wounds.

What else was it again that Perry said under oath—which Rigby has carefully omitted from his entire screeching screed?

DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY:

I did not see any other wounds.

That's right. I remember now.

Oh, but this won't do for Rigby. Oh, no. You see, the Associated Press reported otherwise, and therefore Paul Rigby has devoted a rather unseemly portion of his existence, apparently, to trying to prove that some likely-hung-over reporter from the Associated Press got it right and that Perry himself is not just a damned xxxx, but a knowing perjurer.

"No, no, no," you must be screaming, "there has to be more to it than that!"

No. There isn't. That's it.

That's Rigby's entire "case". Because every other so-called "source" <SPIT!> that Rigby trots across the stage like ghoulish, skeletal Rockettes dancing the same high-stepping dance falls into one of the following completely absurd categories:

Rehash/repeat of the AP garbage
Vague, uncertain, unsubstantiated guesswork (Dr. Jenkins)
Retracted and recanted false report (Dr. McClelland, from Jenkins)
Rehash/repeat of the recanted Jenkins/McClelland garbage

I already proved earlier in this thread just how ridiculous the Jenkins/McClelland garbage is, but here it is again for those who missed it or were too dense or prejudiced to get it the first time (not that I think that class will get it a second time). Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) interviewing Ronald Coy Jones, M.D., Malcolm O. Perry, M.D., Paul C. Peters, M.D., and Robert M. Mcclelland, M.D:

DR. McCLELLAND:

Dr. [Marion] Jenkins, when I came in the room [Trauma Room One], told me as I walked by to come up to the head of the table and he said, "Bob, there's a wound in the left temple there." And so I went to the table and I thought—you know, knowing nothing else about any of the circumstances—that's like that— (indicating).

MR. GUNN:

Just for the record, you're pointing in with your—

DR. McCLELLAND:

Yeah, the left temple—

MR. GUNN:

—finger at the left temple, and now the back of the head.

DR. McCLELLAND:

—came out the back. And there

was

a lot of blood on the left temple. There was blood everywhere, but there was a lot of blood on the left temple, so

I didn't question that

. ...But the upshot of it is what that led to was Mr. Garrison's case in New Orleans, and he put together a scenario where he thought someone—because of what I had said about the left temple bullet—was in the storm sewer on the left side of the car and fired this bullet that killed the President, another gunman. ...Garrison never contacted me until it was essentially time to have the case in court. ...And so I got a call one morning and it was from his office—one of the people in Garrison's office, and he wanted to know if I would come to New Orleans and testify. And I said, "Well, you know, it's odd that none of you had talked to me before this. I've been hearing something about it on television and whatnot."

And they said, "Well, we assumed that you still believed that the course of the bullet was as you said in your written testimony right after," and I said, "No."

And his voice went up about three octaves and he said, "What?" And

I said, "No."

And I explained to him that I had learned other things about the circumstances at the time, and that

Jenkins had told me; I didn't see any wound there. I was just stating what I had been told and that I wrote that down in my written statement right after the assassination.

And so that was—kind of took the wind out of the sails in that particular prosecution.

McClelland's "report" was never anything at all but sheer useless hearsay, and the man can only be marvelled at for having the guts finally to admit his unspeakable irresponsibility. As I've also pointed out earlier in this thread, Malcolm Perry was sitting right there with McClelland during the above statements by McClelland, and Perry never once opened his mouth in protest or to correct the record that McClelland was making.

And what ephemeral hocus-pocus of hearsay was it that McClelland originally based his baseless report on? It was this gem of forensic genius that gassed forth out of the mouth of Dr. Marion Jenkins:

DR. JENKINS:

I don't know whether this is right or not

, but

I thought

there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.

MR. SPECTER:

The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.

DR. JENKINS:

Well, I was feeling for— I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and

this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also

.

And what of the other "reliable source" doctors, like Shaw and Stewart, who Rigby takes great pains to selectively quote? They weren't there! They have no foundation whatsoever to have opened their traps at all, and in every case, their baseless bloviating statements were made after the fact of McClelland's report and the idiotic AP perversion of the truth.

And the single source of McClelland's false report was Marion Jenkins.

Does Rigby even notice that his so-called "sources" <SPIT!> are just recycling the same slop, like some closed, circular sewage pump system?

Apparently not.

Does he care?

Apparently not.

He's too caught up in his own blind-faith belief in a no-see-um front shooter ever to see anything except little scraps and snippets of wishful thinking and third-hand barren sentence fragments that might somehow give him the momentary fleeting illusion of substance for a shooter that never existed shooting a gun that never existed from some unlocated location that utterly is impossible in order to make an entrance wound that never existed.

Hell, he can't even decide if he wants this mythological "entrance wound" in the front of the head or on the left side of the head.

This is called "research" in some circles. <SPIT!>

And even if Rigby could scrape together enough third-hand so-called "evidence"—like the laughable newspaper report of a priest purportedly saying "left," without reporter or anyone bothering to ask the obvious question, "whose left?"—to seduce the not-quite-bright into his world of make-believe, what will he have accomplished?

Well, he will have accomplished nothing but impeaching Malcolm O. Perry—the very person who he simultaneously is trying to convince you told "the suppressed truth" about having seen an "entrance wound at the front of the head" during the press conference.

Because what did Perry say under oath?

DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY:

I did not see any other wounds.

That's right. I remember now.

Maybe you, gentle reader, will want to ask Rigby: Did Perry lie then, under oath, or did Perry lie at the press conference when he purportedly said he had seen an "entrance wound at the front of the head" (which he never said). I won't be bothering to ask.

You might also want to ask Rigby why Perry didn't say it was "an entrance wound on the left side at the temple." I won't be bothering.

Rigby's entire fantastic fable is as circular and profitless as the endless recyling of the AP and Jenkins/McClelland sewage: round and round and round and round, endlessly going nowhere at all.

Enjoy the ride.

Ashton Gray

November 2, 2007

Ashton,

When you;ve time could you kindly deal with the other wounds Dr Perry saw - I can't see any reference in your previous post.

I found this interesting for timeline and some of the things stated re: Kennedys condition by some Doctors at Parkland interviewed by Larry King - I'm not sure which thread it was most appropriate to (if any)

Thanks

Gary

Edited November 2, 2007 by Gary Loughran

Paul Rigby · November 4, 2007

Have you read Rigby's thread?

Several times. I find it more richly rewarding by the visit. But to business.

In your classic disinformationist thread, There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat, Heresy at High-Noon-Thirty: Ghosthunters' Bane, we witness a sustained attempt to shift suspicion from the Secret Service to the Parkland medical staff:

“I consider it highly unlikely that the throat wound was inflicted in the limo en route to Parkland hospital, and unless and until some evidence emerges to support such an unlikely event, I consider it eliminated. That leaves only a relatively small window of opportunity for the inflicting of such a wound: between the time Kennedy was removed from the limousine and the time that Perry made the tracheostomy incision” (Oct 30 2007, 09:25 PM Post #95).

Such good men, those SS types. “Eliminated.” Yes, their charge surely was. A long time before he reached Parkland.

Among the real perps, those terribly suspicious Parklanders, we find that very bad man Dr. Perry, who you do not accuse, perish the thought, of anything – you merely lay out “relevant incontrovertible facts about the statements and actions” about him “among others”(Oct 30 2007, 09:25 PM Post #95) and generously permit us reach our own conclusions - even as you insist in the same thread that he:

a) was “the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound” (Oct 22 2007, 03:18 PM Post #28) by making an “unusually large tracheostomy directly through the throat wound which electively-placed slice very thoroughly destroyed the evidence of the throat wound” (Oct 25 2007, 04:09 AM Post #80);
“lied about the source of the hydrocortisone, about the source of the information concerning the reason for its introduction, and about who determined that it should be administered” (Oct 25 2007, 04:09 AM Post #80);

c) and who was – wait for it, it’s the clinching absurdity – in San Francisco in 1962, the same year as George Hunter White, arch CIA mind-messer, was running there a “black operation called ‘Operation Midnight Climax’” (Nov 2 2007, 05:18 PM Post #132). Now that’s what I call evidence.

On the credit side, however, we find the man you are not accusing of anything is ruled out of the crime that no one saw and for which no evidence whatever exists: “Perry is very unlikely for having created the piercing wound and the evidence strongly suggests that he can be eliminated as having created the wound” (Oct 30 2007, 09:25 PM Post #95).” Nice. That’s a relief. But, no, you can’t quite absolve him entirely here, either. It’s back to the original baseless charge: “At the same time there is no question whatsoever that he is the one who destroyed all evidenciary [sic] value of the wound and thereby precluded any chance of anyone ever determining how it had been created (Ibid.).”

We now turn to this thread.

Here, a contributor calling himself Ashton Gray, a man who is neither inconsistent nor a dissembler, and does not attempt to hijack the thread – see post #3: “My rather comprehensive response to at least the throat-shot aspect of this is not a response, per se, but an article that I have just posted in a veritable miracle of synchronicity, There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat” (Oct 21 2007, 06:09 PM) - but instead, much more constructively, introduces a paragon of evidentiary virtue called…er, Dr Perry, the man who would stoop, according to the original Ashton Gary, to destroying evidence of a throat entrance wound, but would never, Heaven forefend, dream of lying under oath: “What else was it again that Perry said under oath—which Rigby has carefully omitted from his entire screeching screed? ‘I did not see any other wounds.’”

Can’t think why I ever a) thought Perry shifted with the establishment wind (and who can blame him); or doubted the logic and veracity of Ashton Gray. Can you?

Paul Rigby · November 6, 2007

As Newcomb and Adams noted in Murder From Within’s fifth chapter, Parkland, citing among other sources, William Manchester’s Death of a President, the Associated Press was reporting Perry’s press conference remarks “just after two o’clock” (CST); and NBC, as confirmed in the company’s own log, no later than 2:36 (CST)

The obvious question: How did the Associated Press produce a report on the Perry-Clark press conference at “just after two o’clock” (CST) when said press conference didn’t begin until a) 3:16 pm (transcript 1327C); or, at earliest, at 2:18 pm (photographic section of Lifton’s Best Evidence*)?

An obvious solution suggests itself: The press conference began before 2 pm (CST), and was still going on – perhaps winding up - at 2:18 pm when the photo reproduced in Best Evidence was taken. So much for the hypothesis. Any evidence to support it?

So far, only one piece that I can find.

In the second section, p. 3, of the evening edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram of Saturday, 23 November, a similar or identical photograph of Perry and Clark to that found in Best Evidence is reproduced. The caption beneath it runs as follows:

“DOCTORS DESCRIBE DEATH: Drs. Kemp Clark, left, and Malcolm Perry, right, told newsmen at 1:45 pm Friday of what they and others at Parkland Hospital in Dallas did to try to save President Kennedy’s life. Man at center is White House aide.”

*Photographic evidence corroborates the earlier start time offered by the Parkland doctors before the Warren Commission. In the unpaginated photographic section at the heart of Lifton’s Best Evidence, we find snap 14, capturing Clark and Perry – together with White House staff members Wayne Hawkes and “Chick” Reynolds (stenographer) – in the course of the first press conference above a caption-commentary that concluded: “Watch on Perry’s left hand indicates 2:18 P.M.”

Paul Rigby · November 7, 2007

An obvious solution suggests itself...

Elsewhere, too.

Oct 24 2007, 09:00 PM Post #6: The history of the cover-up is, at one level, a series of sustained and inter-connected assaults upon certain key chains of causality. Fraudulent chronologies – filmic, text-narrative, and the tabular - are, like denied or decontextualised attributions, weapons to be wielded in the war against popular comprehension of what really happened and when.

There is, also, an answer staring us in the face as to the discrepancy between Clark’s recollection of when the press conference began, and Perry’s. First, to recap the difference:

Oct 21 2007, 03:55 PM Post #1: The transcript bore the commencement time, near the head of its first page, of “3:16 P.M. CST.” That timing should have attracted scepticism from the outset because, according to Clark’s testimony before the Presidential Commission, the same first press conference had actually begun at least 45 minutes earlier at “approximately 2.30” (3); while Perry made offered an even earlier starting point, telling Specter that it “must have been within the hour” of the President’s death (4).

Manchester provides the explanation: Perry began the press conference unaccompanied by Clark. Here’s the relevant extract:

Oct 24 2007, 09:00 PM Post #5: William Manchester. The Death of a President: November 20-November 25, 1963 (London: Pan Books Ltd., 1968), p.320: “Three other physicians later joined Perry in 101-102, but he bore the brunt of the briefing…

Useful, at this stage, to reacquaint ourselves with the transcript 1327C’s version of how the press conference began:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

Nor would it appear to be true, when one examines the above version of the press conference, that Perry bore a markedly greater burden of the questioning than Clark.

Paul

Paul Rigby · November 14, 2007

Paul Rigby: Oct 21 2007, 03:55 PM Post #1: 1) David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (NY: Signet, Nov 1992), pp.70-71: Cronkite’s narration in the CBS assassination four-parter, shown in June 1967, revealed the existence of a transcript. The script claimed the manuscript refuted claims that Perry had stated the throat wound was one of entry. For subsequent developments & further background on Lifton’s part in the emergence of 1327C, together with that of CBS researcher Roger Feinman, follow this link: http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/the_critics/fei...Feinmanbio.html

Contrary to the impression left by Lifton in Best Evidence, CBS claimed to have rather more than just the transcript. Below, a clipping I printed from Denis Morissette’s website in March 2003. Part of the text, unfortunately, was cut off by the right margin. Since then, the link to this particular clip seems to have gone down, but the rest of the clippings appear to be available still, & are well worth a look:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senat...Newspapers.html

New Mystery in JFK Assassination: What Happened to Dr. Perry's Tapes?
June 29, 1967

Reprinted from: Variety

What happened to the many film, video and audio tape records made of the nationwide broadcast debut of Dr. Malcolm Perry? CBS News, among others, would surely like to know.

Dr. Perry was one of the two main surgeons who operated on President John F. Kennedy after he was shot in Dallas. Perry was filmed and taped extensively at a press conference held at Parkland Memorial Hospital when attempts to save the President's life had failed. During that conference Perry reportedly stated that the throat wound suffered by Kennedy was an entrance wound – a statement in sharp contrast to the findings of the Warren Commission Report on the assassination.

Preparing its three-hour “CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report,” scheduled for the 10 to 11 pm time periods June 25, 26, and 27, CBS News had scoured network archives and several local stations for either visual-audio or audio records of Perry's interview, but all traces of it seem to have vanished. Les Midgley, producer of the inquiry, says CBS archives (with more than 80 hours of footage on the assassination and its aftermath) contain a visual version of the interview sans sound (it seems technicians covering for CBS misplugged the sound equipment).

Midgley says CBS had figured on getting that interview from the network affiliate in Ft. Worth, but the footage disappeared from the station's library. And neither NBC or ABC can locate the interview in their libraries.

CBS news went so far as to ask Emile de Antonio, producer of Mark Lane's “Rush to Judgment” now running theatrically, for a copy of the interview (it was a somewhat far-fetched request, since, as reported some weeks ago in Variety, CBS had first invited de Antonio to screen and buy footage from its assassination library and then refused his use of the bulk of it on the premise the web (?) was doing its own show).

I wonder if CBS still has the soundless recording it claimed to have in 1967? I suspect a native enquirer would fair better than a perfidious Brit, so if any American reader has a spare half hour or so, fancy emailing or writing CBS to find out?

PS: Denis, if you read this, please restore the clipping in full.

(17) David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (NY: Signet, Nov 1992), p.70: “During the Warren Commission investigation, Arlen Specter requested the Secret Service to obtain videotapes and transcripts of the Parkland press conference. Secret Service Chief James Rowley reported back that after reviewing the material at all the Dallas radio and TV stations, as well as the records of NBC, ABC, and CBS in New York City, ‘no video tape or transcript could be found of a television interview with Doctor Malcolm Perry.” If only he had looked in his own in-tray.
(18) David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (NY: Signet, Nov 1992), p.72, footnote: “Although Secret Service Chief James Rowley claimed that he could locate no tape or transcript of the Parkland Memorial Hospital press conference, Marvin Garson, a researched assisting Mark Lane in preparing Rush to Judgment, was told Dallas television executive Joe Long, of radio station KLIF, that the original recordings had been seized by Secret Service agents.”

Paul Rigby · November 21, 2007

The obvious question: How did the Associated Press produce a report on the Perry-Clark press conference at “just after two o’clock” (CST) when said press conference didn’t begin until a) 3:16 pm (transcript 1327C); or, at earliest, at 2:18 pm (photographic section of Lifton’s Best Evidence*)?
An obvious solution suggests itself: The press conference began before 2 pm (CST), and was still going on – perhaps winding up - at 2:18 pm when the photo reproduced in Best Evidence was taken. So much for the hypothesis. Any evidence to support it?

So far, only one piece that I can find.

In the second section, p. 3, of the evening edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram of Saturday, 23 November, a similar or identical photograph of Perry and Clark to that found in Best Evidence is reproduced. The caption beneath it runs as follows:

“DOCTORS DESCRIBE DEATH: Drs. Kemp Clark, left, and Malcolm Perry, right, told newsmen at 1:45 pm Friday of what they and others at Parkland Hospital in Dallas did to try to save President Kennedy’s life. Man at center is White House aide.”

And then there were two.

I had forgotten that Hearst journalist Jim Bishop’s The Day Kennedy Was Shot - first published by Funk & Wagnalls in 1968, edition cited here the HarperPerennial reprint of 1992 – is arranged hour by hour, from 0700hrs on 22 November until 0300hrs 23 November, a chapter per hour. In the chapter devoted to events between 1300hrs and 1400hrs, we find the following:

“A communications mob scene began at 1:40 pm Central Standard Time.
On the stage in the nurses classroom stood Dr. Kemp Clark, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Dr. Charles Baxter, and Dr. McClelland. One hundred journalists with deadlines and no time for tact began firing questions. It was agreed that they would be answered by Dr. Clark and Dr. Perry,” p.282.

Bishop’s version of how many doctors were present at the press conference’s commencement is plainly different from Manchester’s – see earlier in the thread: Manchester has Perry starting solo – but does have the virtue of identifying all four doctors who present either from the outset, or at some point during, the press conference.

The addition of McClelland is significant, and provides one important explanation of why footage and recordings of the press conference were seized and suppressed by the Secret Service; and why transcript 1327C was fabricated.

McClelland, after all, was the doctor who was shortly to state unequivocally in his written report that Kennedy had been killed by a bullet which entered the left temple. His presence makes it all the more likely that Perry did indeed describe a bullet entrance in the front of the dead President’s head, as reported by the Associated Press at a little after 2 pm, CST; and that this was the consensus among the Parkland medical team on the afternoon of 22 November.

A further reflection.

If the Fort Worth newspaper-Jim Bishop start time is correct, give or take a few minutes either way, and the photograph in Lifton's Best Evidence is undoctored, we would appear to have a basic duration of the press conference to work with - from circa 1345hrs to at least 1418hrs, CST. Roughly, then, a half hour or so. Transcript 1327C is, at most generous, by my admittedly crude re-enactment, no longer than 10-12 minutes at the outside.

This all assumes, it almost goes without noting, that the conference was uninterrupted; or not hastily reconvened - for purposes of "clarification," or somesuch - at or just before 1418hrs.

Paul Rigby · June 6, 2008

“As the official solution to Dallas was being assembled over the first weekend after the assassination, one major snag required immediate attention. An inconvenient obstacle to Katzenbach’s November 24 imperative that the public be satisfied that Dallas was the act of a lone assassin was the fast-breaking news stories. The one that captured the most national attention was the televised news conference with Drs. Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark at Dallas’s Parkland Memorial Hospital that took place several hours after Kennedy was pronounced dead,”
Gerald D. McKnight. Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (University of Kansas Press, 2005), p.166.

It emerged, ostensibly, from the LBJ presidential library, in 1976 (1), and was received by pro-conspiratorialists like manna from heaven. It is not hard to see why. The hitherto elusive transcript, running to nine pages, of the first press conference conducted by Drs. Perry and Clark (2) – the former the attending surgeon responsible for the tracheotomy, the latter Parkland’s chief neurosurgeon - offered first-hand, expert evidence that the anterior, non-fatal throat wound was indeed a wound of entrance.

Question: Can you describe his neck wound?...
Perry: The neck wound, as visible on the patient, revealed a bullet hole almost in the mid-line (p.4).

Question: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At Him?

Perry: It appeared to be coming at him (p.5).

Question: Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?

Perry: The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct (p.6).

Amid the widespread conspiratorialist delight at finding confirmation of what much of the US electronic media had reported at the time – and thus confirming their belief in one (or more) frontal shooter(s) - two inconvenient details were ignored and/or overlooked.

The first and least important of the pair concerned timing. The transcript bore the commencement time, near the head of its first page, of “3:16 P.M. CST.” That timing should have attracted scepticism from the outset because, according to Clark’s testimony before the Presidential Commission, the same first press conference had actually begun at least 45 minutes earlier at “approximately 2.30” (3); while Perry made offered an even earlier starting point, telling Specter that it “must have been within the hour” of the President’s death (4). The doctors, it turns out, were right: The transcript commencement time is at best a mistake, and at worst the product of intentional deceit. The utility of such an “apparent error”(5) to the conspirators is self-evident: It created doubt about the direct correlation between the press conference and the contemporaneous media reports of it, accounts which contained Perry’s repeated insistence that the wound in the front of Kennedy’s throat was one of entrance.

Photographic evidence corroborates the earlier start time offered by the Parkland doctors before the Warren Commission. In the unpaginated photographic section at the heart of Lifton’s Best Evidence, we find snap 14, capturing Clark and Perry – together with White House staff members Wayne Hawkes and “Chick” Reynolds (stenographer) – in the course of the first press conference above a caption-commentary that concluded: “Watch on Perry’s left hand indicates 2:18 P.M.” In the main body of Best Evidence’s text, though not in the Chronology at the book’s rear (6), Lifton was unable – or unwilling – to follow the logic of the evidence he had mustered. We need not be so timid.

The clincher, however, lies in the contemporaneous news reports. As Newcomb and Adams noted in Murder From Within’s fifth chapter, Parkland, citing among other sources, William Manchester’s Death of a President, the Associated Press was reporting Perry’s press conference remarks “just after two o’clock” (CST); and NBC, as confirmed in the company’s own log, no later than 2:36 (CST) (7).

So much, then, for the first, and least serious, of the pair of problems attending transcript 1327C. The second is much more fundamental in nature: It is not a true and accurate record of what Perry had to say. More specifically, it entirely misrepresents what Perry and Clark said at the press conference about the number and locations of the wounds.

According to 1327C, Perry and Clark described only two wounds, the entrance wound in the front of the throat (8), and “a large, gaping loss of tissue” (9) at “the back of his head” (10), “principally on his right side” (11). The questions attributed to the unnamed reporters present reinforces this two-wound scenario, for example, when one of them supposedly asked of Perry, following his pointing to this own throat to show where the bullet had entered, “Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?” (12). So much for 1327C. Now let us turn to the contemporaneous news reports.

Here we find something very different. The Associated Press reported, shortly after 2 pm, CST, that ‘Dr. Perry said the entrance wound—which is the medical description—the entrance wound was in the front of the head’” (13); while WOR Radio, New York, quoted Perry to this effect at 2:43 pm, CST, (14). So, instead of just two wounds, the Parkland duo actually described three – there was, in addition to the entrance wound just below the Adam’s apple on the front of the throat, also an entrance wound “in the front of the head” (15). It is thus not merely a matter of altering a word or two, but, necessarily, considerable portions of transcript 1327C, including the questions attributed to the anonymous reporters.

The mistiming of the press conference’s commencement, together with the removal of the wound in the front of the head, are not the only examples of conspiratorial jiggery pokery with respect to 1327C. Visitors to Rex Bradford’s History Matters website may perhaps be surprised to find that the version of the transcript offered there comprises not nine pages, but ten. And what an interesting tenth page it is, too. It is blank except for an official-looking stamp purportedly representing the Office of the Chief of the U.S. Secret Service, and “1963 Nov 25 AM 11 40” (16). The addition of this tenth page and the stamp it bears is plainly intended to provide legitimacy to the fraudulent 1327C, by dating its production to near the time of the assassination.

An additional measure of the stamp’s legitimacy can be gauged from the failure of the Secret Service to furnish a copy to the Presidential Commission (17). The same organisation, of course, also failed to find a single newsreel or sound recording from among the many cameras and news organisations present in rooms 101-2 at the time of the press conference. This was particularly odd for according to one Dallas source, it was the Secret Service that rounded up as much of that footage as it could find (18).

(1) David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (NY: Signet, Nov 1992), pp.70-71: Cronkite’s narration in the CBS assassination four-parter, shown in June 1967, revealed the existence of a transcript. The script claimed the manuscript refuted claims that Perry had stated the throat wound was one of entry. For subsequent developments & further background on Lifton’s part in the emergence of 1327C, together with that of CBS researcher Roger Feinman, follow this link: http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/the_critics/fei...Feinmanbio.html
(2) According to Perry’s comments to the Presidential Commission, another Parkland doctor, Baxter, entered the combined classrooms 101-2, the scene of the press conference, but did not participate (6WCH12).

(3) 6WCH20: 21 March 1964.

(4) 6WCH12: 25 March 1964.

(5) The phrase is from McAdam’s website, where the transcript of the press conference is offered with the correct timing, accompanied by the following explanation: “This transcript was typed by former JFK researcher Kathleen Cunningham and given to Barb Junkkarinen in late 1994. It is posted here courtesy of Barb Junkkarinen. An apparent error regarding the time of the news conference has been corrected in the version published above.” The new commencement time of the press conference is held to have been “2:16 P.M. CST.”

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

(6) Lifton follows the erroneous official timing of 3:16 pm in the main text - see p.71 (“shortly after 3 pm”) in the Signet paperback, first edition, 1992 – but follows the evidence in the Chronology at the book’s rear (p.828: 2:20 approx).

(7) Fred T. Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974), p.153 n54, citing NBC Log, Nov. 22, 1963, p. 8, 2:36 p.m., CST.

Sylvia Meagher, by contrast, times the NBC report to 2:40 (CST) – see Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities and The Report (NY: Vintage Books, June 1992 reprint), pp.153-4: “…the edited transcript of television broadcasts from November 22 to 26, 1963, issued by NBC nearly two years after the Warren Report in the book Seventy Hours and Thirty Minutes*…contains a telephone report from NBC newsman Robert MacNeil at about 2:40pm Dallas time on November 22: ‘Dr. Malcolm Perry reported that the President arrived at Parkland Hospital in critical condition with neck and head injuries…A bullet struck him in the front as he faced the assailant…’” [*NBC News, Seventy Hours and Thirty Minutes (NY: Random House, 1966).]

(8) According to 1327C, Perry stated there were just two wounds on p.1.

(9) Ibid., Clark, p.5.

(10) Ibid., Clark, p.3.

(11) Ibid, Clark, p.4.

(12) Ibid., p.4.

(13) Fred T. Newcomb and Perry Adams, “Did Someone Alter the Medical Evidence?,” Skeptic, Issue No. 9, September/October 1975, pages 24 ff:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/issues_and_ev...perry_text.html

See also Vince Palamara’s The Earliest Reports (The Medical Evidence), excepted from JFK: The Medical Evidence (1998), entry 2b:

http://www.jfk-assassination.net/palamara/excerpt_book2.html

(14) Fred T. Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974), p.154. WOR Radio: Predominantly talk station: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOR_(AM)

(15) This is very close to the location offered by James Chaney, the Dallas police motorcycle outrider, who insisted in interviews given to reporters immediately after the event, that Kennedy had been hit “in the face.” (See Anthony Summers’ The Kennedy Conspiracy (London: Sphere, 1992), p.23 – “when the second shot came, I looked back in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet” – citing, p.543, an “unidentified film interview in police station and taped interview for KLIF, Dallas, on record ‘The Fateful Hours,’ Capitol Records.”)

(16) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...et/contents.htm

(17) David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (NY: Signet, Nov 1992), p.70: “During the Warren Commission investigation, Arlen Specter requested the Secret Service to obtain videotapes and transcripts of the Parkland press conference. Secret Service Chief James Rowley reported back that after reviewing the material at all the Dallas radio and TV stations, as well as the records of NBC, ABC, and CBS in New York City, ‘no video tape or transcript could be found of a television interview with Doctor Malcolm Perry.” If only he had looked in his own in-tray.

(18) David Lifton. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (NY: Signet, Nov 1992), p.72, footnote: “Although Secret Service Chief James Rowley claimed that he could locate no tape or transcript of the Parkland Memorial Hospital press conference, Marvin Garson, a researched assisting Mark Lane in preparing Rush to Judgment, was told Dallas television executive Joe Long, of radio station KLIF, that the original recordings had been seized by Secret Service agents.”

Bill Miller today posted the following papal bull from the Pope of Dealey Plaza in the thread Towner vs. Zapruder. I think it should be taken as the official response to such heretical outpourings as the following:

Here is some more information that I solicited from Gary Mack that may be of interest to the readers ...
"Bill,

The serial number of Zapruder's camera is AS13486, which means it was manufactured after the test camera Chris used; it is likely that Chris' older model ran at 16fps but the newer Zapruder camera, according to all tests by the FBI and Bell & Howell, had the new speed standard of 18fps.

Furthermore, I fail to comprehend the significance of using a Zapruder camera to determine the speed of a Towner camera! While they were manufactured by the same company, Bell & Howell, there's no documentation for when they were manufactured and which one(s) were the latest versions with the new 18 fps speed standard.

As for the doctors' press conference, there are no, and were no, films, videos or audio recordings of their remarks. I spent a lot of time on this issue, as have others, and here is what is known at this point in time:

Drs. Kemp Clark and Malcolm Perry spoke with the news media at around 2:15pm following JFK's death. They made comments saying they believed the throat wound was likely an entry wound. A contemporaneous transcript was made by a White House stenographer and the document is formally listed as the very first press conference of the Lyndon Johnson presidency, according to David Lifton's Best Evidence.

Although the Secret Service canvassed all local TV and radio stations and national networks in 1963/1964 looking for a sound recording on any format, none were located. There's a very good reason. It seems that none were made.

Although unavailable to the general public for several decades, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram photo collection is available for study at the University of Texas at Arlington. Nearly ten years ago I examined that collection of several thousand original negatives, prints and contact sheets. One of the packets contained negative strips from the Star-Telegram's photo coverage of the doctors' press conference.

What I found was astonishing. There were perhaps 20 to 25 or so images in all, but none were close-ups - they were medium or wide angle views of Clark, Perry, and White House staffers Wayne Hawkes and Chick Chandler, who typed the transcript. The photographer stood near the back of the small Parkland room and his pictures show no evidence of microphones, TV film cameras or video cameras.

In fact, there were very few reporters at all. I can remember seeing perhaps ten or twelve, all with notepads in hand or propped up on the classroom desk they were sitting on. No microphones were on the table behind which Clark and Perry made their comments, and no microphones were above their heads or pinned to their lapels.

About 2 seconds of WFAA-TV news film exists, but it does not have a soundtrack, since all but one or two of the station's film cameras were silent models. That footage shows Hawkes and Perry entering the room and Perry briefly speaking a few words.

Where were the TV cameras Perry told the Warren Commission about? Well, they may have been in the room against the back wall, but they certainly were not hooked up. How do I know? The original videotapes still exist. KTVT's remote truck arrived outside Parkland just minutes before the hearse left at 2:06pm, as shown in their earliest video tape. From interviews with the camera operator on the truck, it took them a long time to get their sole camera set up inside that hospital room. The first recording they made was a press briefing by Governor Connally's spokesperson, which was the fourth press conference that day (Mac Kilduff's announcement of JFK's death was the first).

The CBS and ABC affiliates each put a video camera in that room and both recorded the press conference that followed the one given by Perry and Clark (Connally's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw). The NBC affiliate wasn't there at all because their remote truck's engine blew on the way from Fort Worth.

No radio tapes of Clark and Perry exist, either. Original tapes still exist for KLIF, KRLD, WFAA, KBOX and WRR and none had the doctors' press conference.

Consequently, any claim that that there were recordings will need some strong proof, for there is just no evidence that confirms their existence.

Gary Mack"

Who said the cover-up was inactive?

Paul Rigby · July 27, 2008

According to 1327C, Perry and Clark described only two wounds, the entrance wound in the front of the throat (8), and “a large, gaping loss of tissue” (9) at “the back of his head” (10), “principally on his right side” (11). The questions attributed to the unnamed reporters present reinforces this two-wound scenario, for example, when one of them supposedly asked of Perry, following his pointing to this own throat to show where the bullet had entered, “Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?” (12). So much for 1327C. Now let us turn to the contemporaneous news reports.
Here we find something very different. The Associated Press reported, shortly after 2 pm, CST, that ‘Dr. Perry said the entrance wound—which is the medical description—the entrance wound was in the front of the head’” (13); while WOR Radio, New York, quoted Perry to this effect at 2:43 pm, CST, (14). So, instead of just two wounds, the Parkland duo actually described three – there was, in addition to the entrance wound just below the Adam’s apple on the front of the throat, also an entrance wound “in the front of the head” (15). It is thus not merely a matter of altering a word or two, but, necessarily, considerable portions of transcript 1327C, including the questions attributed to the anonymous reporters.

To my surprise, the AP report of a frontal head entrance wound did make it into at least one newspaper on November 22:

"When asked to specify, Perry said the entrance wound was in the front of the head,"
AP, "Treatment Described," Albuquerque Tribune, 22 November 1963, p.58

Why transcript 1327C is a fraud

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements