Jump to content
The Education Forum

There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat


Recommended Posts

...the visual evidence in the first post in this thread is dispositive: No matter what any of them say, whether by origination or by being led, it is categorically impossible for there ever to have been an entrance wound visible above JFK's collar and tie. If there had been, it would be visible right this minute to anyone looking at the death photos

Ashton,

By no means do I discount your opening post or your animation.

However, there are questionable aspects to photos, x-rays, testimony and other evidence.

Brief examples:

TESTIMONY: questions were poorly phrased and the WC frequently led witnesses

many witnesses have stated that their statements were altered

Q&As have been misinterpreted and/or taken out of context

PHOTOS: many photos appear to have been touched up: e.g. the intact back of the head at autopsy

the 'gash' in JFK's throat appears to many to have been enhanced

X-RAYS: David Mantik's optical density is STRONG evidence of alteration

the original chest x-rays are missing

There is a statement that the multitude of spots on the lungs "that appear to be metallic" are dirt particles

Any testimony, photos, x-rays and other evidence has to be scrutinized for any signs of alteration.

Therefore, investigating the testimony is still important. e.g. IF Margaret Henchliffe, Diana Bowron and James Carrico all testified that they saw the "neck wound" prior to the removal of JFK's clothing then that is strong evidence that the neck wound is higher than it appears in the photos. This is why I pointed out that per her testimony to the WC, Bowron did not see the wound until AFTER the trach tube was removed. Per a 1997 interview Carrico states that he did not observe JFK's neck until AFTER his clothes were removed. That leaves Henchliffe and it is NOT known whether she saw the throat before she removed JFK's clothing, although she states that she saw it before the trach.

IMO it is STILL worth investigating ALL the evidence for comparison and degree of validity. Other evidence may lead towards the answer as to WHAT caused the "puncture" in JFK's throat. e.g. IF the nurses used scissors rather than scalpels to remove clothing, then what caused the slit in JFK's shirt? A projectile? If a piece of bone caused the throat wound and the wound was covered by the shirt and/or tie then it had to have inflicted clothing damage. Did it cause the slits in the shirt?

Thus, there are still numerous questions to be investigated regarding the "throat wound."

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tom Neal,

Your post #206 goes to the heart of the Warren Commission.

Despite the words of the Warren Report, the Warren Commission never gathered testimonial evidence. Sure, it gathered testimony. But the testimony was never tested on cross-examination. Further, as Robert Prudhomme has suggested, the failure to allow cross-exam may have have allowed fabrication of witness statements.

IMO, Warren Commission witness statements are completely, totally unreliable.

A famous judge once wrote essentially this: cross-examination is the greatest means for producing truth known to human beings.

Jon,

I agree 100%.

Oswald's mother and Mark Lane insisted that a lawyer, preferably Lane, be present precisely for the reasons you state. The WC found Lane unacceptable, and agreed to assign someone who's name I don't recall. Unsurprisingly, there is no record that he was present at any time, and he certainly did NOT participate.

It would have been "interesting" to see how many witness statements would have been tossed out due to leading questions, etc.

But, if we ignore EVERY piece of evidence that may be false, what is left to work with?

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted earlier in this thread, I have theorized that a fragment from the nose of a frangible bullet may have made the throat wound. The reason it did not go through the shirt collar and tie was that its energy was expended by the time it pierced the skin.

I cannot recall which doctor said it, or when he said it but, one of the Parkland physicians described the throat wound as being made by a bullet with an extremely reduced velocity.

Lt Richard Lipsey, in his deposition to the HSCA, related what he heard while observing the autopsy. It seems the autopsy doctors were convinced one shot had entered the back and ranged downward, either into the chest or the abdomen, and a great deal of their time was spent dissecting organs looking for this bullet or fragments of it. They also believed one bullet either entered low on the back of the skull or grazed the base of the skull, and the throat wound was a result of a fragment of this bullet either passing through the base of the skull or under the base of the skull. Considering the downward angle of most of the shots, this is not that farfetched.

This idea of the throat wound being the result of a bullet hitting near the base of the skull is further supported by the deposition of the x-ray technician Jerrol Custer, who took all of JFK's x-rays that night. In his deposition to the HSCA, he claimed the x-ray of JFK's neck was not the one he recalled, and that the one he took showed many fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

Looking at this diagram, it is possible to see how all of this would line up with the throat wound.

Cervical_vertebrae_lateral2.png

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to post
Share on other sites

Based solely on the statement below, did Carrico observe the "neck wound" before JFK's shirt and tie were removed?

C. JAMES CARRICO TESTIMONY PARKLAND HOSPITAL 03-25-1964 0930:

Dr. CARRICO: We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck...

IMO Carrico is stating that only after opening JFK's shirt and tie did he observe a "small wound" in the neck. i.e. Prior to opening the shirt and tie he had not previously observed the neck wound.

Does anyone disagree, or feel that his statement is ambiguous?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted earlier in this thread, I have theorized that a fragment from the nose of a frangible bullet may have made the throat wound. The reason it did not go through the shirt collar and tie was that its energy was expended by the time it pierced the skin.

Robert,

If a bullet fragment did cause this 'puncture' in JFK's neck then it either lodged in the puncture hole or exited the body completely. If it lodged in the hole then Perry would have encountered it so this doesn't seem likely. If it exited the body it doesn't seem reasonable that it would make that long slit in the shirt where the cloth overlaps when the shirt is buttoned. A nick in the knot of the necktie has been reported, do you know its actual location?

Also, from the anatomical location of the wound as described by the doctors do you believe the wound was as low as it appears in the Bethesda photos that show a "gash" in the neck area?

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based solely on the statement below, did Carrico observe the "neck wound" before JFK's shirt and tie were removed?

C. JAMES CARRICO TESTIMONY PARKLAND HOSPITAL 03-25-1964 0930:

Dr. CARRICO: We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck...

IMO Carrico is stating that only after opening JFK's shirt and tie did he observe a "small wound" in the neck. i.e. Prior to opening the shirt and tie he had not previously observed the neck wound.

Does anyone disagree, or feel that his statement is ambiguous?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

No, I don't disagree or feel it is at all ambiguous. Although I haven't revisited a cross-analysis of the testimony in some time, my recollection is that Carrico initially was with Connally, across the hall, very briefly, and Dr. Burkley was in Trauma Room 1 standing next to JFK—the only doctor in the room for a brief period—purportedly doing some unspecified inspection of the wounds. Henchliffe was busy setting up the IVs when Carrico came in, followed by Curtis and White.

Burkley backed away from JFK when Carrico came in. Carrico took approximately the same position where Burkley had been, near JFK's head.

I believe that's when the clothing was removed, with Henchliffe and Bowron. That's when Carrico saw the throat wound. (And no bullet fragment, by the way, in the throat or clothing.)

Henchliffe then left Trauma Room 1 to go get blood.

If—and please note the size of that "if"—someone might have slipped a large-bore needle coup de grace into the throat of Kennedy, Burkley had the skills and access at relevant times prior to the removal of the clothing. The act could have been covered, in the confusion, by his appearing to "inspect" the visible wounds. It would have been a matter of slipping it underneath the tie knot and between the button plackets below the top button. In fact, such a delivery would have created a wound exactly where the hole was found. It also even could account for nicks in the fabric of the shirt or tie.

Ashton

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is a joke, right?

Several medicos observed a 5-6 mm puncture (a little less than a quarter inch, like a .223 Remington bullet would make) in the lower right side of the president's larynx. Some observed a nick in the top of the tie knot. The tie is worn UNDER the Adam's Apple, despite how many cartoons you can manufacture showing it differently. The Parkland doctors performed a tracheotomy, using that hole as part of it.

The missile that made that wound came from the SOUTH Knoll, probably from a team of French-Corsican assassins, probably led by Lucien Sarti and/or Jean Souetre. (See Sandy Larsen's topic, "Any prevailing theories on the back wound?") The slug was traveling down at a 15-20* angle through JFK's body rightward. It avulsed the top of the right lung and exited his back between spine and scapula (closer to shoulder blade) at the T3-4 level.

That relatively early shot, as early as Z-200 and no later than Z-220 when he was obscured by the "moved" Stemmons sign, was the first of 6 to hit inside the presidential car. At least 3 others hit outside the limo, maybe 5. For a total of 9-11 shots.

Edited by Roy Wieselquist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashton, thank you for your response to my question.

...my recollection is that Carrico initially was with Connally, across the hall, very briefly,

It's been a while for me, but my recollection agrees with yours. Connally was brought in first and was attended by Carrico and Dr. Richard Dulaney/Delaney(sp) in Trauma Room 2. When JFK was brought into TR-1, Carrico headed there and Bowron and Henchliffe agree that he was the "first doctor" to arrive.

and Dr. Burkley was in Trauma Room 1 standing next to JFKthe only doctor in the room for a brief periodpurportedly doing some unspecified inspection of the wounds.

This I did not know. Or I did know, but have forgotten. Burkley was quite a way back in the motorcade so he must have arrived after JFK's limo. But it did take a while to remove the Governor, and Jackie did not want to let go of her husband, so Burkley certainly could have arrived in the TR ahead of JFK. The nurses assumed all the "suits" were Secret Service and did not know he was a doctor. Presumably Burkley identified himself to the doctors as JFK's personal physician when he handed over JFK's "special" meds.

Do you recall your source for Burkley's arrival time in the TR ahead of Carrico?

Ifand please note the size of that "if"

Noted.

someone might have slipped a large-bore needle coup de grace into the throat of Kennedy, Burkley had the skills and access at relevant times prior to the removal of the clothing. The act could have been covered, in the confusion, by his appearing to "inspect" the visible wounds. It would have been a matter of slipping it underneath the tie knot and between the button plackets below the top button. In fact, such a delivery would have created a wound exactly where the hole was found. It also even could account for nicks in the fabric of the shirt or tie.

The Personal Physician in the Trauma Room with a Large-Bore Needle...while the Palace Guards looked on.

Tom

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions for Ashton Gray (or anyone else who wants to explain this all for me):

1. Why use a "large bore" needle (+4 mm) to administer a poison that could have been injected I.M. with a tiny needle on some other part of the body?

2. This was obviously not an I.V. injection. Why choose the location of the throat, when the trachea would obviously become damaged as well?

3. Why inject this large bore needle into the throat, when it seems quite likely the conspirators wanted all shots to be seen as coming from the rear?

4. How did Malcolm Perry "obliterate" the throat wound by merely making scalpel incisions leading from the left and right side of this wound? Was the wound not still there and quite visible? Was the wound to the right side of the trachea also not still there, and quite visible as well?

5. If you believe Malcolm Perry was part of the conspiracy, and deliberately "obliterated" the throat wound, in an attempt to hide the administration of poison through this wound, why does Dr. Perry, 3.5 hours later, report both the entrance wound in JFK's throat PLUS the wound in the right side of JFK's trachea in his medical report?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

"At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.

Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg.

At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired.

Malcolm O. Perry, M.D.
1630 hr 22 Nov 1963"

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is a joke, right?

Several medicos observed a 5-6 mm puncture (a little less than a quarter inch, like a .223 Remington bullet would make) in the lower right side of the president's larynx. Some observed a nick in the top of the tie knot. The tie is worn UNDER the Adam's Apple, despite how many cartoons you can manufacture showing it differently. The Parkland doctors performed a tracheotomy, using that hole as part of it.

The missile that made that wound came from the SOUTH Knoll, probably from a team of French-Corsican assassins, probably led by Lucien Sarti and/or Jean Souetre. (See Sandy Larsen's topic, "Any prevailing theories on the back wound?") The slug was traveling down at a 15-20* angle through JFK's body rightward. It avulsed the top of the right lung and exited his back between spine and scapula (closer to shoulder blade) at the T3-4 level.

That relatively early shot, as early as Z-200 and no later than Z-220 when he was obscured by the "moved" Stemmons sign, was the first of 6 to hit inside the presidential car. At least 3 others hit outside the limo, maybe 5. For a total of 9-11 shots.

Well said, Roy. These guys are moving in to Cinqueland.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based solely on the statement below, did Carrico observe the "neck wound" before JFK's shirt and tie were removed?

C. JAMES CARRICO TESTIMONY PARKLAND HOSPITAL 03-25-1964 0930:

Dr. CARRICO: We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck...

IMO Carrico is stating that only after opening JFK's shirt and tie did he observe a "small wound" in the neck. i.e. Prior to opening the shirt and tie he had not previously observed the neck wound.

Does anyone disagree, or feel that his statement is ambiguous?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

Tom, I agree that Carrico's testimony could be ambiguous. Do you agree that Nurse Hinchcliffe's testimony isn't in any way?

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see him actually wheeled into the emergency room?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes; in fact, I helped wheel him on into trauma room 1.

Mr. SPECTER - And, where was he when you first saw him?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - He was between trauma rooms 1 and 2.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see him when he was brought into the hospital itself?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - At the emergency entrance---no. It was after he came into the emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER - He came into the emergency area?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And then you saw him and helped wheel him, you say, into the emergency room No. 1?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And who else was present at the time you first saw him when he had just come into the emergency area?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Let me see, I think Dr. Carrico was there-he was there very shortly after--afterwards.

Mr. SPECTER - He was there when you arrived? Or arrived shortly after you did?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Well, actually I went in ahead of the cart with him and I was the first one in with him, and just in a minute, or seconds, Dr. Carrico came in.

Mr. SPECTER - And what other doctors arrived, if any?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Oh, gee. Let's see---there was Dr. Baxter, Dr. Perry, and you want all of them that were in the room?

Mr. SPECTER - If you can remember them.

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Dr. Kemp Clark, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Peters, Dr. Crenshaw, and there was some woman anesthetist that I don't know which--who it was.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe to be the President's condition when you first saw him?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - I saw him breathe a couple of times and that was all.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see any wound anywhere on his body?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes; he was very bloody, his head was very bloody when I saw him at the time.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you ever see any wound in any other part of his body?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - When I first saw him---except his head.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see any wound on any other part of his body?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes; in the neck.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe it, please?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck.

Mr. SPECTER - About how big a hole was it?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - About as big around as the end of my little finger.

(My bolding)

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites

The missile that made that wound came from the SOUTH Knoll, probably from a team of French-Corsican assassins, probably led by Lucien Sarti and/or Jean Souetre. (See Sandy Larsen's topic, "Any prevailing theories on the back wound?") The slug was traveling down at a 15-20* angle through JFK's body rightward. It avulsed the top of the right lung and exited his back between spine and scapula (closer to shoulder blade) at the T3-4 level.

Roy,

Those who advocate that shots came from the South Knoll, have ignored trajectory analysis.

If shooting from the North knoll then JFK is open to a direct shot from the shooter. There is no-one blocking a shot towards him.

That is not the case from the South Knoll. Jackie is now directly in front of JFK. Essentially a successful shot requires to pass through her. If firing from the Triple Underpass you are requiring to finding a a route past the Secret Service as well as John and Nellie Connally. Any shot from the South Knoll has a major increase in difficulty factor.

It may seem enticing, but actually it is full of obstacles not present for a shot from the North Plaza.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you recall your source for Burkley's arrival time in the TR ahead of Carrico?

Here's this from Carrico himself:

From Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico

SPECTER: You have described a number of doctors in the course of your testimony up to this point. Would you state what other doctors were present during the time the President was treated, to the best of your recollection?
DR. CARRICO: ...Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital.

The phrase "as soon as he got to the hospital" must be referring to "as soon as JFK got the the hospital," because it would be too stupid for words for Carrico to say Burkley "was there as soon as Burkley got to the hospital."

Here's how Burkley told it at various times:

======================

Oral History Interview with ADMIRAL GEORGE G. BURKLEY October 17. 1967 Washington, D.C., By William McHugh For the John F. Kennedy Library
BURKLEY: I got to the scene by securing a car through one of the Secret Service, Andy Berger, and an escort of a policeman. I was there probably within three to five minutes of the time the President arrived. I went immediately in to see the President, and went to the table on which he was being treated, and immediately saw for all intents and purposes life did not exist, or could not be sustained.
======================
George G. Burkley. "Report of my participation in the activities surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. 27 November 1963, 8:45 a.m.
Agent Roger commandeered a car and a police escort led us at a rapid rate to the hospital, arriving there between three and five minutes following the arrival of the President.
I went directly to the Emergency Room on the ground floor of the hospital and Mrs. Kennedy was seated in a folding chair directly beside the door of the small room in which the President was being observed. I immediately entered the room, went to the head of the table and viewed the President. It was sevident that death was imminent and that he was in a hopeless condition. Fluids had been started and he was being given extra-cardiac massage.
The team was working to supply "0" Rh negative blood and I informed them that his blood group was "O" Ph [sic] positive. Due to the nature of the condition my direct services to him at that moment would have interferred with the action of the team which was in progress.
=========================
George G. Burkley. Affidavit. 28 November 1978
I was Personal Physician to President John F. Kennedy in November 1963 and accompanied President Kennedy on the Texas trip. I was at Parkland Hospital and later at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of November 22, 1963. I saw President Kennedy's wounds at Parkland Hospital and during the autopsy at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. There was no difference in the nature of the wounds I saw at Parkland Hospital and those I observed at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
1. I was with President Kennedy in Dallas. I arrived at the Parkland Hospital within five minutes of the President's arrival. I checked the President's physical condition, gave the doctors working with the President the blood type and some adrenal medication (Sol U Cortef) to place in the intravenous blood and fluids which were being administered. My findings clearly indicated that death was certain and imminent.
2. One of the doctors reported to me vital signs of life no longer could be elicited. I rechecked the vital signs of President Kennedy and there was no sign of life. I reported to Mrs. Kennedy who was nearby in the treatment room that President Kennedy was dead.
3. I remained with the President's body in the treatment room until the body was placed in the coffin and I saw it closed. There was no movement or manipulation of the body other than removal of the intravenous equipment during that time.
===========================
Dr. Perry, in his Warren Commission testimony, refers to Burkley's presence only as "a gentleman" who was with Jackie inside Trauma Room 1.
Dr. Peters, who arrived fairly late in the proceedings, refers to Burkley's presence as "the personal physician of the President."
I believe that nobody else who was in that trauma room mentions him at all. It seems pretty clear to me that he would not have interfered with any already attending doctors to inspect the wounds—but he claims that they were identical in the trauma room and in the autopsy, which indicates that he was completely familiar with the wounds (unless, of course, he's lied). He also says he went to the "head of the table," but that had to be before Carrico and subsequently Perry started their ministrations, or he would, indeed, have had to interfere with the work of any doctors who had arrived.
I also consider it of interest and significance that Dr. J. Thornton Boswell has indicated in testimony the following about the autopsy:
========================
... I think it was George Burkley that had requested it come to Bethesda.
... Q. Was it your impression in 1963 that Dr. Burkley was supervising what was going on in the autopsy room?
A. Well, he wasn't supervising very closely. We were acting on certain of his instructions. Initially, Jim--at this time, I can't remember how Jim got his instructions from Burkley. I don't know whether Jim actually went upstairs to see Burkley or whether he came down. I never saw Admiral Burkley in the morgue. But at some point, Jim understood that we were to do a limited autopsy.
=======================
And of course that has been contradicted by others involved in the autopsy. There's a surprise.

Tom, I wish I had more time to devote to this, but I'm under extreme pressures right now related to the publication of the Watergate book, so I have to do drive-by postings when I can. Please forgive me for not being more thorough in this, but this is what I was able to throw together.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions for Ashton Gray (or anyone else who wants to explain this all for me):

1. Why use a "large bore" needle (+4 mm) to administer a poison that could have been injected I.M. with a tiny needle on some other part of the body?

2. This was obviously not an I.V. injection. Why choose the location of the throat, when the trachea would obviously become damaged as well?

3. Why inject this large bore needle into the throat, when it seems quite likely the conspirators wanted all shots to be seen as coming from the rear?

4. How did Malcolm Perry "obliterate" the throat wound by merely making scalpel incisions leading from the left and right side of this wound? Was the wound not still there and quite visible? Was the wound to the right side of the trachea also not still there, and quite visible as well?

5. If you believe Malcolm Perry was part of the conspiracy, and deliberately "obliterated" the throat wound, in an attempt to hide the administration of poison through this wound, why does Dr. Perry, 3.5 hours later, report both the entrance wound in JFK's throat PLUS the wound in the right side of JFK's trachea in his medical report?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

"At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.

Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg.

At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired.

Malcolm O. Perry, M.D.

1630 hr 22 Nov 1963"

I will be happy to wander down the thorny paths of speculation with you, Robert—if you insist:

"Why use a "large bore" needle (+4 mm) to administer a poison that could have been injected I.M. with a tiny needle on some other part of the body?"

Speed, insurance that a needle wouldn't break off, insurance that the man was not ever coming out of that facility alive, and the impression of a gunshot wound. (Check)

"Why choose the location of the throat, when the trachea would obviously become damaged as well?"

So a tracheostomy could then compromise forensic analysis of the exact nature of the wound. Elementary, my dear Robert. (Check)

"Why inject this large bore needle into the throat, when it seems quite likely the conspirators wanted all shots to be seen as coming from the rear?"

Assumes "want" of conspirators not in evidence, counselor. If it was a CIA operation, what it "wanted" was a very dead JFK and as much confusion as possibly could be created. That's the most important product of any CIA operation: confusion and contradiction. I submit this very forum in evidence to say: (Check)

"How did Malcolm Perry "obliterate" the throat wound by merely making scalpel incisions leading from the left and right side of this wound? Was the wound not still there and quite visible? Was the wound to the right side of the trachea also not still there, and quite visible as well?"

Asked and answered, counselor. Exhaustively. I submit the fact of your own inability to prove that the wound was caused by any bullet at all. (Check)

"If you believe Malcolm Perry was part of the conspiracy, and deliberately "obliterated" the throat wound, in an attempt to hide the administration of poison through this wound, why does Dr. Perry, 3.5 hours later, report both the entrance wound in JFK's throat PLUS the wound in the right side of JFK's trachea in his medical report?"

No, Perry did not state unequivocally that there was a bullet entrance wound, because he waffled on it in his testimony, stating that it could be consistent with an exit wound. I already covered this in the second post in this thread, and I don't respond to fiction stated as fact. As far as Perry's own waffling, see "confusion and contradiction" above.

Ashton

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based solely on the statement below, did Carrico observe the "neck wound" before JFK's shirt and tie were removed?

C. JAMES CARRICO TESTIMONY PARKLAND HOSPITAL 03-25-1964 0930:

Dr. CARRICO: We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck...

IMO Carrico is stating that only after opening JFK's shirt and tie did he observe a "small wound" in the neck. i.e. Prior to opening the shirt and tie he had not previously observed the neck wound.

Does anyone disagree, or feel that his statement is ambiguous?

I agree that Carrico's testimony could be ambiguous.

Ray, if you re-read my post quoted in this post, I stated that IMO Carrico's testimony was NOT ambiguous. Ashton Gray responded and agreed with me that it was NOT ambiguous. I don't know WHO you are agreeing with.

Do you agree that Nurse Hinchcliffe's testimony isn't in any way?

Again, if you re-read my previous posts I stated that Henchliffe DID observe the neck wound. I FURTHER stated that what IMO is ambiguous is WHEN she FIRST saw the neck wound. i.e. She may have seen it before removing JFK's clothing, and she may have FIRST seen it AFTER removing the clothing.

Also, I have asked you twice if your source for BOWRON's 1993 interview was from Livingstone's book "Killing the Truth"...a response would be appreciated as I am seeking an unedited version of her testimony.

Tom

EDIT: appended "a response..." at the end of the last line in the post as it had somehow been clipped off

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...