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

[Robert Prudhomme]

If those slits lie overtop one another when the shirt was buttoned up, the nurse with the scalpel made that gash through three layers of shirt; a single layer on the button side and a double layer on the button hole side.

It is a little frightening to think this might have been done just to remove a tie. As I said earlier, did no one think of loosening the tie a few inches first?

Robert,

How about a little experiment? As I understand it, you go shooting so own guns? How about getting an old shirt and firing a (reduced velocity) bullet through it in the same position as the slits in JFK's shirt appear and see if you can replicate those slits? Maybe post photos of the results?

I suppose I could do the shirt collar up around a small roast, and fire a bullet through that. Thing is, I'll have to get hold of some full metal jacket ammunition, as a soft point bullet might begin to expand as it travels through the roast.

Of course, there is also the problem of getting a roast out of the freezer without getting crucified by the old lady.

[Tom Neal]

My assumption is that the part of the tie with the nick was located within the knot, the top exposed part of the knot,

Sandy,

In the above photo of JFK, the "nick" is located on the anatomical left SIDE of the tie. I already have the photo Bob P. has posted as well as one that depicts the "nick". This photo however is a crop that does NOT show enough of the necktie to decide exactly where the nick is located in the vertical direction. The 1/2" vertical slit in the shirt is located on a vertical line from the collar button. The way the tie is 'tied' has pointed the BOTTOM of the knot toward JFK's anatomical right. IMO, the "nick" aligns well with the slit in the shirt IF it is located just above the vertical midpoint of the knot in the tie.

As I have said in previous posts, the problem I am having with this scenario is that a bullet fragment (or bone fragment) that left a 1/5" ROUND hole in JFK's neck produced a 1/2" vertical slit in the shirt and deposited NO BULLET METAL on the shirt. Within the memo that gives the results of the spectrographic examination of the hole in the back of the shirt and coat, there is no indication that this test was performed on the "nick" in the necktie.

It seems unlikely that a scalpel WOULD be used to remove his necktie. As I stated in an earlier post and Ashton has posted in agreement - no nurse has stated that she used a scalpel OR scissors to remove the clothing. Carrico stated in a 1997 video that they used scissors. IIRC correctly, (and I have not had the opportunity to check) the belief that a scalpel was used originated with Harold Weisberg following an interview with Carrico.

As Bob P. has asked: Why didn't the nurse pull the tie away from his neck prior to cutting it? To cut the tie without loosening it would require her to first cut through the collar that was on top of the tie. The upper margin of the slit in the shirt would be higher than it appears on the shirt. She may well have pulled the tie away from his neck and then cut it. *Assuming* that she actually DID cut it with a scalpel - something that neither nurse has stated.

As I have stated earlier, Dr. C. James Currico stated in his WC testimony that HE unbuttoned JFK's shirt himself. To do so would have required him to undo the collar button which is still attached to the shirt. I find it unlikely that he would fail to notice a throat wound while performing this act. Additionally, he is also clear in WC testimony that he did NOT observe the throat wound until AFTER the shirt was opened. Nurse Margaret Henchliffe observed the neck wound, however it is unclear whether she FIRST saw it before or after the clothing was removed. In her WC statement, Nurse Diana Bowron was asked when she first saw the neck wound and she indicated that she did not see it until they removed the trach tube. Unfortunately, in a 1993 interview she clearly states that she first observed it while JFK was still in the limo. IMO, this is due to her faulty memory of a 30 year old incident. As discussed in an earlier post, other members believe the WC may have altered her statement.

FWIW, at the moment anyway, my OPINION is that:

1. The "throat wound" was located behind the tie - not above it - and was not seen until JFK's shirt was opened.

2. An exiting bullet fragment or bone fragment did NOT create the slit in the front of the shirt.

3. The shirt slit and tie nick were made with a scalpel.

4. Until (and IF) credible evidence emerges that a nurse did actually use a scalpel to remove JFK's tie, there is a strong chance that the slit and nick were created as false indications of an exiting bullet or bullet fragment.

5. The throat wound is located behind the tie and collar and there is no BULLET DAMAGE to the shirt or tie -- so WHAT made the hole in JFK's throat???

If anyone can produce reasonable evidence to the contrary I will GLADLY revise any or all of the above opinions!

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

I've been looking at every photo I can find of JFK in a shirt and tie, both on 22/11/63 and on other dates. Between the man's physique and the style of shirts he wore, every photo seems to show him with the collar of his shirt high up on his neck and the knot of his tie against his Adam's apple or larynx.

The tear in JFK's trachea was at the 3rd tracheal ring, well below the larynx, as seen above. Also seen above is the correct tracheostomy site, with the incision made between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, although this can be modified slightly to suit individual cases. Even though Perry may have made the incision at the same level as the tracheal tear, the tube is well down into the trachea, and the inflatable cuff is seen at the level of the 5th, 6th and 7th tracheal rings, guaranteeing a seal well below the tear in the trachea.

While all of this makes sense, it places the throat wound, to me anyways, below the top of the collar and the top of the tie knot.

So far, I have seen no evidence stating whether the nick in the tie was with that section of the tie on top (level with the top of the tie knot) or on the bottom, to the left of the tie knot.

However, I do have another question. If this bullet went through the right side of JFK's trachea, and then went through the neck band of his tie on the left side of the tie knot, would this not suggest a bullet travelling in a right to left direction through JFK, and likely headed toward Greer?

How did this bullet end up hitting Connally in the right armpit?

Edited January 25, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

Is it daylight? Isn't it the white 'filler' within the the tie that we see through a hole in the outer fabric of the tie?

Good point, Ian. I assumed I could see the background material through a hole, but closer examination shows there to be white fibrous material in that "hole".

Hey Bob, Ian and Ashton,

In an FBI memo, the damage to the tie is described as "a HOLE in the outer layer of the tie that exposes the white inner lining". So there's a HOLE in the outer layer, and a NICK in the tie...

Does everyone agree that the 'stain' is a dried blood clot?

Tom

[Tom Neal]

The tear in JFK's trachea was at the 3rd tracheal ring...

Hey Bob,

In an earlier post I mentioned that I remembered the tear was at the 3rd tracheal ring, but I could not recall where I found that info. You replied that you thought the same thing but couldn't remember where you got that info either. Does this mean you located a source?

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Tom

It does look like a dried blood stain, now that you mention it.

I am reluctantly beginning to lean toward the implement that caused all this damage as being a sharp little piece of bone from somewhere in the C3 and C4 cervical vertebrae. I know this may sound crazy but, all of the evidence points toward this.

1. Jerrol Custer (x-ray tech at Bethesda autopsy), in his deposition to the HSCA, stated that the x-ray he saw of JFK's neck showed many small metallic fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

2. Lt. Richard Lipsey, observing the autopsy, stated in his deposition the belief a bullet entered the back and went down either into the chest or abdominal cavity, and another bullet struck JFK low in the back of the skull, sending a fragment of bullet out through the throat. As Lt. Lipsey had no medical background, it can only be surmised this information came from the doctors performing the autopsy.

3. As reported earlier, a spectrographic analysis of the slits in the shirt collar turned up no traces of bullet metal, while the same test on the hole in the back of the shirt showed evidence of copper bullet jacket.

4. The "nick" in the tie looks too coarse and rounded to have been made by a scalpel.

A frangible bullet either glances off the base of the skull or goes through the lower base of the skull and impacts the spine at C3/C4; disintegrating the bullet and sending a bone particle through the trachea, throat and collar, nicking the tie on its way by. The sharpness of the bone particle might account for the slits in the collar, and might explain why some described the throat wound as appearing ragged. It would be expected that a non-deformed FMJ bullet would leave a very clean and smooth exit wound.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ian Lloyd]

Is it daylight? Isn't it the white 'filler' within the the tie that we see through a hole in the outer fabric of the tie?

Good point, Ian. I assumed I could see the background material through a hole, but closer examination shows there to be white fibrous material in that "hole".

Hey Bob, Ian and Ashton,

In an FBI memo, the damage to the tie is described as "a HOLE in the outer layer of the tie that exposes the white inner lining". So there's a HOLE in the outer layer, and a NICK in the tie...

Does everyone agree that the 'stain' is a dried blood clot?

Tom

Agreed.

I wonder why the FBI report describes the damage to the front of the shirt as having been caused by a "fragment"? Where did they get that from? Would seem to shoot down the SBT!!! (Get it?)...

Edited January 25, 2016 by Ian Lloyd

[Tom Neal]

I'm trying to determine if either Bowron or Henchliffe ever stated that they used a scalpel to remove JFK's tie. Blunt-nosed scissors appear to be the weapon of choice for this task.

I've never found any such statement, and don't believe it will be found.

Neither have I, and I will be surprised if I do find one. But I have not yet seen Henchliffe's entire interview conducted by Wallace Milam, and I want to see whatever is extant before forming a conclusion.

I think that the most likely reason that no point has been made of it is exactly because of the rigorous training of such personnel for just such situations,

and of course they would have used the scissors designed specifically to remove fabric and "do no harm." I believe that it's just taken for granted.

Agreed. I'm hoping that Mr. Milam was aware of the scalpel issue, and as he did with the back wound, asked direct questions that would resolve the issue. He was obviously aware of the importance of whether or not anyone at Parkland observed the back wound. While studying this issue I was told that Henchliffe stated she had "washed the body" and there was no back wound. However, in her interview with Milam, what she actually says is that she washed the blood off JFK, but she "could not rule out a back wound." I've read similar statements regarding Carrico. 'He states that he performed a back exam and there was no back wound.' In his testimony he states that he performed an emergency examination by running his hands down JFK's back and feeling for any 'large' wounds. He further stated that with 'all the blood and debris' there 'could have been a back wound.' So I prefer to read the original documents myself.

My other question is did anyone report seeing the throat wound while JFK was still clothed? If so, this would place the wound above the collar. Carrico did not see the throat wound until JFK's shirt was opened.

You are exactly right about Carrico, and he was the first Parkland doctor to arrive in the trauma room.

SPECTER: What action, if any, was taken with respect to the removal of President Kennedy's clothing?

DR. CARRICO: ...After *I* had opened his shirt and coat, I proceeded with the examination and the nurses removed his clothing as is the usual procedure.

He then makes it clear, in an elementary English language sentencewhich you already have referred to a number of timesthat opening the shirt revealed the existence of the throat wound:

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

Thank you for confirming this and it is gratifying to realize that some people actually read the entire post.

Nurse Diana Bowron was the person who took a stretcher out to the presidential limosine and, with an orderly named Joewhose last name she couldn't recall in testimony

If you're interested; in an earlier Memo to Mrs. Elizabeth L. Wright, Director of Nursing Services (and wife of O.P. Wright) Miss Bowron states "I took the nearest cart and together with Joe Richards the orderly ran down the hall to the ER entrance."

Ashton, thanks for your usual thorough and detailed reply.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

It does look like a dried blood stain, now that you mention it.

I am reluctantly beginning to lean toward the implement that caused all this damage as being a sharp little piece of bone from somewhere in the C3 and C4 cervical vertebrae. I know this may sound crazy but, all of the evidence points toward this.

As you can tell from my post #272:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=19#entry324254

IMO, viable options are sparse, indeed.

Thus far I certainly still consider a bone fragment as a possibility, but the 1/5" round throat exit and the 1/2" vertical slit in a shirt that was touching the wound at the time of exit strike me as incompatible.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

In consideration of the 'scalpel v. scissors' controversy, I thought it might prove interesting to examine the actual cut through the tie:

Before I take the back of the tie from a different photo and paste it here to see if the ends match and check out the cut itself, can someone tell me if the side I have labelled in RED is actually the FRONT of the tie? I don't see a twist in the tie so I think I have it right...

Note that the tag in this display indicates this is CE-394, which is the shirt. The tie should be labelled CE-395.

Thanks for any assistance,

Tom

[Ashton Gray]

In an FBI memo, the damage to the tie is described as "a HOLE in the outer layer of the tie that exposes the white inner lining". So there's a HOLE in the outer layer, and a NICK in the tie...

I was, after all, only having a bit of fun, but a "HOLE in the outer layer" is merely a restatement of a NICK in the holy tie, and neither is a "hole through the tie." I believe that we all now are in agreement on this point. I sure hope so.

Does everyone agree that the 'stain' is a dried blood clot?

No.

Ashton

[Tom Neal]

Does everyone agree that the 'stain' is a dried blood clot?

No.

Ashton

Eggs Benedict?

Or...[insert identity of substance here] Hint. Hint. Hint-Hint...

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

In an FBI memo, the damage to the tie is described as "a HOLE in the outer layer of the tie that exposes the white inner lining". So there's a HOLE in the outer layer, and a NICK in the tie...

I was, after all, only having a bit of fun, but a "HOLE in the outer layer" is merely a restatement of a NICK in the holy tie, and neither is a "hole through the tie." I believe that we all now are in agreement on this point. I sure hope so.

Does everyone agree that the 'stain' is a dried blood clot?

No.

Ashton

What do you believe caused the nick in the tie?

[Ashton Gray]

Does everyone agree that the 'stain' is a dried blood clot?

No.

Ashton

Eggs Benedict?

Or...[insert identity of substance here] Hint. Hint. Hint-Hint...

Tom

I thought perhaps maple syrup.

(No, wait: maple syrup doesn't show up metallically in X-rays.)

Tom: Please. Of course it could be blood. It also could be Hollandaise sauce, or some combination of— I know! "It's a dessert topping and a floor wax!" (Apologies to Chevy Chase.)

That's my entire point: The President of the United States was murdered, and nobody bothered to find out what it was. But it goes further than they just didn't bother to find out: they emphatically didn't find out, and even "managed" somehow to confuse the issue with the incorrect evidence numbering, which you have pointed out—even though the stain is directly adjacent to a "nick" in the tie that no one ever explained or tested for "evidence of bullet metal," which you also have pointed out.

So, no, I will not just assume that it is nothing but blood, and neither would any responsible forensic investigator. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

What do you believe caused the nick in the tie?

I don't know.

The visual evidence indicates that it was something sharp enough to slice through a single layer of the tie in a short line.

The visual evidence indicates that the slice in the tie is not inconsistent with whatever sliced through the several layers of shirt underneath the tie.

The visual evidence indicates that the slits in the shirt—allowing for the flexile nature of the fabric in the two sides of the shirt—are not inconsistent with the placement of the wound in the throat.

The visual evidence therefore suggests strongly that the nick in the tie, the shirt slits, and the throat wound all were created by the same item, whatever it was.

The forensic analysis of the shirt slits has eliminated a bullet as the cause, as documented in this thread.

You say it was a bone fragment. I'm not convinced that it was. If it was, it is unfortunate for all of us that it coincidentally created a hole that was mistaken by a host of medical personnel as a bullet wound, then created neat little slits in the shirt.

Ashton

Edited January 25, 2016 by Ashton Gray