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

[Robert Prudhomme]

The JFK "Stare-of-Death" photograph from Robin Unger's fine site. I have added an inset of the throat wound and surrounding neck tissue.

There are a multitude of photos on the web that CLEARLY show the trachea through the tracheotomy incision. Note the bright light on JFK's face and neck...note the interior of the throat incision. The flesh and muscles overlying the unseen trachea are clear and moderately bright. Below the level of flesh and muscles however, where we should see the trachea, there is only blackness. The inset has been brightened and filtered to the extent that the flesh of the neck has disappeared above the white level threshold. Compare the small circular areas within the incision opening in the photo and inset. Note they have turned bright white. The pixels at the level of the trachea are 100% black -- no picture information at all.

Why are the shadows behind his head, neck, and shoulders so dark and IMO oversize? Perhaps to create the illusion that the area within the tracheostomy incision opening SHOULD be this dark?

With the light shining brightly into the open incision, the trachea SHOULD be easily detectable. This area has been deliberately darkened to hide the interior organs of the neck. We should also see indications of the tracheal incision made by Malcolm Perry. Despite all of his many interviews he was never asked what type of incision he made in the trachea to allow insertion of the trach tube. Did he cut a flap, fold it back and sew it down? Did he completely remove an area of trachea which would leave a hole? We should most likely see an actual physical hole. We do not.

If you look carefully, you may detect what appears to me as a VERY jagged portion of the protruding DOWNWARD. It extends 1/2 of the width of the incision opening on JFK's anatomical right, and 1/3 of the width on his left. Is this the end of a completely severed trachea, the jagged wound described on the right side of the trachea or something else entirely?

What is being hidden here? The extent of the actual damage to the trachea and its precise location...I can't think of anything else that would be obliterated by this intentional blackness.

Tom

Yeah, it does look like just a black hole, doesn't it.

[Tom Neal]

The JFK "Stare-of-Death" photograph from Robin Unger's fine site. I have added an inset of the throat wound and surrounding neck tissue.

There are a multitude of photos on the web that CLEARLY show the trachea through the tracheotomy incision. Note the bright light on JFK's face and neck...note the interior of the throat incision. The flesh and muscles overlying the unseen trachea are clear and moderately bright. Below the level of flesh and muscles however, where we should see the trachea, there is only blackness. The inset has been brightened and filtered to the extent that the flesh of the neck has disappeared above the white level threshold. Compare the small circular areas within the incision opening in the photo and inset. Note they have turned bright white. The pixels at the level of the trachea are 100% black -- no picture information at all.

Why are the shadows behind his head, neck, and shoulders so dark and IMO oversize? Perhaps to create the illusion that the area within the tracheostomy incision opening SHOULD be this dark?

With the light shining brightly into the open incision, the trachea SHOULD be easily detectable. This area has been deliberately darkened to hide the interior organs of the neck. We should also see indications of the tracheal incision made by Malcolm Perry. Despite all of his many interviews he was never asked what type of incision he made in the trachea to allow insertion of the trach tube. Did he cut a flap, fold it back and sew it down? Did he completely remove an area of trachea which would leave a hole? We should most likely see an actual physical hole. We do not.

If you look carefully, you may detect what appears to me as a VERY jagged portion of the protruding DOWNWARD. It extends 1/2 of the width of the incision opening on JFK's anatomical right, and 1/3 of the width on his left. Is this the end of a completely severed trachea, the jagged wound described on the right side of the trachea or something else entirely?

What is being hidden here? The extent of the actual damage to the trachea and its precise location...I can't think of anything else that would be obliterated by this intentional blackness.

Tom

Yeah, it does look like just a black hole, doesn't it.

It literally is DEVOID of any pixel information.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm having a hard time imagining what they could have been trying to hide. From what the doctors at Parkland reported and testified, it seemed like a straightforward tracheotomy procedure.

Something that has always bothered me about the tracheotomy is why it was done at all. Read what Dr. Jenkins had to say in his WC testimony about the endotracheal tube Dr. Carrico had inserted through JFK's mouth, through his larynx and supposedly to just above where the trachea branches into the bronchi:

"Dr. Carrico had just introduced an endotracheal tube, I'm very proud of him for this because it's not as easy as it sounds. At times and under the circumstances--it was harder--he had. just completed a 3-month rotation on the anesthesiology service, and I thought this represented good background training for a smart individual, and he told me he had a cuff on the endotracheal tube and he introduced it below the wound.

The reason I said this, of course, this is a reflex--there is a tube, the endotracheal tube, if it is pushed down a little too far it can go into the right main stem of the bronchus impairing respiration from both lungs, or both chest."

In other words, the endotracheal tube has a cuff near the inserted end that,once inflated would have stopped air from escaping through the tracheal wound.

Endotracheal tube, inflatable cuff on left.

As the idea was to get the tip of the ETT to just above the junction of the bronchi and trachea, this cuff would be well below a wound above the 3rd tracheal ring. I am not sure how they determined the depth of insertion of the ETT tip in 1963 but, nowadays, a portable x-ray is used to determine depth of insertion.

After commending Carrico for doing a good job Jenkins, in the next breath, says this:

"There were three others who came in as I did who recognized at once the neck wound, in fact, where the wound was, would indicate that we would have serious pulmonary problems unless a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs. These were doctors Malcolm Perry, Charley Baxter, and Robert McClelland, who with Dr. Carrico's help, I believe, started the tracheotomy."

So, despite Carrico being satisfied the cuff was below the tracheal wound, they pull the ETT out, do a tracheotomy and insert a tracheotomy tube with an inflatable cuff on its tip that doesn't appear to go as far down the trachea as the ETT did.

I don't get it.

[Tom Neal]

I don't get it.

...and *I* don't get why you're NOT responding to my post #656 which YOU asked for, or my 2nd request for this response in post #660

Edited March 28, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Michael Walton]

Bob P,

You can keep posting trach photos and diagrams but I really believe you'll never resolve this. The reason is simple - there is absolutely no record of a bullet entering anywhere on Kennedy's back side (meaning the lower skull) to have caused this bone/bullet fragment theory that Ashton Gray started back on 2007 in this forum.

The autopsy face sheet and the autopsy itself do not describe anything like this being found on the body. The trach cut completely obliterated the front throat shot Kennedy received. Perry himself, on seeing that wound, said it was a wound of entrance. Further, Perry said the trach cut was made "in the middle" of the wound but as soon as you but into tight skin, it's going to stretch and make the wound look extra large and garish.

Further one of the photos you posted here actually argues against your claim. Look how much sinew, bone and tissue is on that cross section:

For argument's sake, let's say there *was* in the official record a line like, "there is a bullet of entrance at the base of the skull" which, remember, there is not. Do you really think a piece of bone or bullet could have made it through all of that stuff to punch a clean hole out of his throat, a hole that the doctor who saw it with his own eyes before he made a trach of it would mistake it to be a "wound of entrance?"

Yet, you keep posting photos and diagrams of the trach. It's not going to prove anything. Please look at the animated GIF of the clear photo of Kennedy combined with Z225 that I posted earlier - there's plenty of room to get a frontal shot in there just above the tie. You have to try to step back and keep an open mind on this, to accept the record and the voice of the doctor who was there in Dallas that day. Otherwise, you're going to drive yourself bonkers looking at anatomy photos from every which way but loose.

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited March 28, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm having a hard time imagining what they could have been trying to hide. From what the doctors at Parkland reported and testified, it seemed like a straightforward tracheotomy procedure.

Something that has always bothered me about the tracheotomy is why it was done at all. Read what Dr. Jenkins had to say in his WC testimony about the endotracheal tube Dr. Carrico had inserted through JFK's mouth, through his larynx and supposedly to just above where the trachea branches into the bronchi:

"Dr. Carrico had just introduced an endotracheal tube, I'm very proud of him for this because it's not as easy as it sounds. At times and under the circumstances--it was harder--he had. just completed a 3-month rotation on the anesthesiology service, and I thought this represented good background training for a smart individual, and he told me he had a cuff on the endotracheal tube and he introduced it below the wound.

The reason I said this, of course, this is a reflex--there is a tube, the endotracheal tube, if it is pushed down a little too far it can go into the right main stem of the bronchus impairing respiration from both lungs, or both chest."

In other words, the endotracheal tube has a cuff near the inserted end that,once inflated would have stopped air from escaping through the tracheal wound.

Endotracheal tube, inflatable cuff on left.

As the idea was to get the tip of the ETT to just above the junction of the bronchi and trachea, this cuff would be well below a wound above the 3rd tracheal ring. I am not sure how they determined the depth of insertion of the ETT tip in 1963 but, nowadays, a portable x-ray is used to determine depth of insertion.

After commending Carrico for doing a good job Jenkins, in the next breath, says this:

"There were three others who came in as I did who recognized at once the neck wound, in fact, where the wound was, would indicate that we would have serious pulmonary problems unless a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs. These were doctors Malcolm Perry, Charley Baxter, and Robert McClelland, who with Dr. Carrico's help, I believe, started the tracheotomy."

So, despite Carrico being satisfied the cuff was below the tracheal wound, they pull the ETT out, do a tracheotomy and insert a tracheotomy tube with an inflatable cuff on its tip that doesn't appear to go as far down the trachea as the ETT did.

I don't get it.

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area.

[Ray Mitcham]

I'm having a hard time imagining what they could have been trying to hide. From what the doctors at Parkland reported and testified, it seemed like a straightforward tracheotomy procedure.

Something that has always bothered me about the tracheotomy is why it was done at all. Read what Dr. Jenkins had to say in his WC testimony about the endotracheal tube Dr. Carrico had inserted through JFK's mouth, through his larynx and supposedly to just above where the trachea branches into the bronchi:

"Dr. Carrico had just introduced an endotracheal tube, I'm very proud of him for this because it's not as easy as it sounds. At times and under the circumstances--it was harder--he had. just completed a 3-month rotation on the anesthesiology service, and I thought this represented good background training for a smart individual, and he told me he had a cuff on the endotracheal tube and he introduced it below the wound.

The reason I said this, of course, this is a reflex--there is a tube, the endotracheal tube, if it is pushed down a little too far it can go into the right main stem of the bronchus impairing respiration from both lungs, or both chest."

In other words, the endotracheal tube has a cuff near the inserted end that,once inflated would have stopped air from escaping through the tracheal wound.

Endotracheal tube, inflatable cuff on left.

As the idea was to get the tip of the ETT to just above the junction of the bronchi and trachea, this cuff would be well below a wound above the 3rd tracheal ring. I am not sure how they determined the depth of insertion of the ETT tip in 1963 but, nowadays, a portable x-ray is used to determine depth of insertion.

After commending Carrico for doing a good job Jenkins, in the next breath, says this:

"There were three others who came in as I did who recognized at once the neck wound, in fact, where the wound was, would indicate that we would have serious pulmonary problems unless a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs. These were doctors Malcolm Perry, Charley Baxter, and Robert McClelland, who with Dr. Carrico's help, I believe, started the tracheotomy."

So, despite Carrico being satisfied the cuff was below the tracheal wound, they pull the ETT out, do a tracheotomy and insert a tracheotomy tube with an inflatable cuff on its tip that doesn't appear to go as far down the trachea as the ETT did.

I don't get it.

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area.

Sandy. this was Dr Perry to the W.C.

"The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure."

Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate".

​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you?

Edited March 28, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Sandy Larsen]

Bob P,

You can keep posting trach photos and diagrams but I really believe you'll never resolve this. The reason is simple - there is absolutely no record of a bullet entering anywhere on Kennedy's back side (meaning the lower skull) ....

Michael, check out this excerpt from the autopsy report: (Click it to enlarge.]:

.... to have caused this bone/bullet fragment theory that Ashton Gray started back on 2007 in this forum.

Are you trying to irritate Ashton?

The "bone/bullet fragment" theory isn't his at all, as he has repeatedly told you. He introduced a hypothesis where one of the doctors internationally poisoned Kennedy with a large-bore needle. I know it is easy to miss that if you don't read the first page of the thread.

But don't be surprised if Ashton objects if you call this his theory, as he did with me. I guess his problem is with the word "theory," but I'm not sure. (I now use the word hypothesis, the meaning of which is different from theory... look them up if you like.) I know he's sensitive about having what he's said being misrepresented... understandably so. He wants to be quoted. (I often don't because I don't have the patience or energy level to do so every time I comment on what someone has said.)

The autopsy face sheet and the autopsy itself do not describe anything like this being found on the body. The trach cut completely obliterated the front throat shot Kennedy received. Perry himself, on seeing that wound, said it was a wound of entrance. Further, Perry said the trach cut was made "in the middle" of the wound but as soon as you but into tight skin, it's going to stretch and make the wound look extra large and garish.

Further one of the photos you posted here actually argues against your claim. Look how much sinew, bone and tissue is on that cross section:

For argument's sake, let's say there *was* in the official record a line like, "there is a bullet of entrance at the base of the skull" which, remember, there is not. Do you really think a piece of bone or bullet could have made it through all of that stuff to punch a clean hole out of his throat, a hole that the doctor who saw it with his own eyes before he made a trach of it would mistake it to be a "wound of entrance?"

Yet, you keep posting photos and diagrams of the trach. It's not going to prove anything.

Robert's posts may not prove anything, but they certainly help some of us visualize what might have happened.

Please look at the animated GIF of the clear photo of Kennedy combined with Z225 that I posted earlier - there's plenty of room to get a frontal shot in there just above the tie. You have to try to step back and keep an open mind on this, to accept the record and the voice of the doctor who was there in Dallas that day. Otherwise, you're going to drive yourself bonkers looking at anatomy photos from every which way but loose.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Robert, check out the description of the scalp laceration from the bullet hitting near the EOP:

The laceration is only 6 mm wide (no surprise, I guess) but is 15 mm long. I wonder if that is a sign of the bullet skidding along the base of the skull just prior to it being deflected downward.

Or something along that line of thought. I often wonder how the bullet made its way down the neck, if it did.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm having a hard time imagining what they could have been trying to hide. From what the doctors at Parkland reported and testified, it seemed like a straightforward tracheotomy procedure.

Something that has always bothered me about the tracheotomy is why it was done at all. Read what Dr. Jenkins had to say in his WC testimony about the endotracheal tube Dr. Carrico had inserted through JFK's mouth, through his larynx and supposedly to just above where the trachea branches into the bronchi:

"Dr. Carrico had just introduced an endotracheal tube, I'm very proud of him for this because it's not as easy as it sounds. At times and under the circumstances--it was harder--he had. just completed a 3-month rotation on the anesthesiology service, and I thought this represented good background training for a smart individual, and he told me he had a cuff on the endotracheal tube and he introduced it below the wound.

The reason I said this, of course, this is a reflex--there is a tube, the endotracheal tube, if it is pushed down a little too far it can go into the right main stem of the bronchus impairing respiration from both lungs, or both chest."

In other words, the endotracheal tube has a cuff near the inserted end that,once inflated would have stopped air from escaping through the tracheal wound.

Endotracheal tube, inflatable cuff on left.

As the idea was to get the tip of the ETT to just above the junction of the bronchi and trachea, this cuff would be well below a wound above the 3rd tracheal ring. I am not sure how they determined the depth of insertion of the ETT tip in 1963 but, nowadays, a portable x-ray is used to determine depth of insertion.

After commending Carrico for doing a good job Jenkins, in the next breath, says this:

"There were three others who came in as I did who recognized at once the neck wound, in fact, where the wound was, would indicate that we would have serious pulmonary problems unless a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs. These were doctors Malcolm Perry, Charley Baxter, and Robert McClelland, who with Dr. Carrico's help, I believe, started the tracheotomy."

So, despite Carrico being satisfied the cuff was below the tracheal wound, they pull the ETT out, do a tracheotomy and insert a tracheotomy tube with an inflatable cuff on its tip that doesn't appear to go as far down the trachea as the ETT did.

I don't get it.

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area.

Sandy. this was Dr Perry to the W.C.

"The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure."

Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate".

​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you?

Brilliant post Ray, on more than one count!

I assume that the stare-of-death photo was taken after the throat wound was manually probed, and that the probing is what caused the tracheotomy incision to gape. Or maybe what we see was created during the pre-autopsy autopsy for some reason. Presumably the latter because Humes claims in the autopsy report that the tracheotomy was gaping.

Oddly he calls it a wound. But later he explains how it came about:

Edited March 28, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm having a hard time imagining what they could have been trying to hide. From what the doctors at Parkland reported and testified, it seemed like a straightforward tracheotomy procedure.

Something that has always bothered me about the tracheotomy is why it was done at all. Read what Dr. Jenkins had to say in his WC testimony about the endotracheal tube Dr. Carrico had inserted through JFK's mouth, through his larynx and supposedly to just above where the trachea branches into the bronchi:

"Dr. Carrico had just introduced an endotracheal tube, I'm very proud of him for this because it's not as easy as it sounds. At times and under the circumstances--it was harder--he had. just completed a 3-month rotation on the anesthesiology service, and I thought this represented good background training for a smart individual, and he told me he had a cuff on the endotracheal tube and he introduced it below the wound.

The reason I said this, of course, this is a reflex--there is a tube, the endotracheal tube, if it is pushed down a little too far it can go into the right main stem of the bronchus impairing respiration from both lungs, or both chest."

In other words, the endotracheal tube has a cuff near the inserted end that,once inflated would have stopped air from escaping through the tracheal wound.

Endotracheal tube, inflatable cuff on left.

As the idea was to get the tip of the ETT to just above the junction of the bronchi and trachea, this cuff would be well below a wound above the 3rd tracheal ring. I am not sure how they determined the depth of insertion of the ETT tip in 1963 but, nowadays, a portable x-ray is used to determine depth of insertion.

After commending Carrico for doing a good job Jenkins, in the next breath, says this:

"There were three others who came in as I did who recognized at once the neck wound, in fact, where the wound was, would indicate that we would have serious pulmonary problems unless a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs. These were doctors Malcolm Perry, Charley Baxter, and Robert McClelland, who with Dr. Carrico's help, I believe, started the tracheotomy."

So, despite Carrico being satisfied the cuff was below the tracheal wound, they pull the ETT out, do a tracheotomy and insert a tracheotomy tube with an inflatable cuff on its tip that doesn't appear to go as far down the trachea as the ETT did.

I don't get it.

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area.

Sandy. this was Dr Perry to the W.C.

"The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure."

Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate".

​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you?

Hi Ray

This brings back the same old problem with so much of the evidence in this case. When Perry stated the incision was two to three centimetres, was he referring to the incision in the throat, or was he referring to the incision in the trachea itself? As Perry stated that part of the tracheotomy was for exploratory purposes to ascertain damage to blood vessels and other structures, an incision this small through the skin of the throat hardly seems adequate, if you consider that these blood vessels are located toward the rear of the trachea. Also. the trachea was deviated somewhat to the left and hidden under the left strap muscles, forcing Perry to sever one of the left strap muscles to locate it. Could this have been done through such a small incision?

Edited March 28, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm having a hard time imagining what they could have been trying to hide. From what the doctors at Parkland reported and testified, it seemed like a straightforward tracheotomy procedure.

Something that has always bothered me about the tracheotomy is why it was done at all. Read what Dr. Jenkins had to say in his WC testimony about the endotracheal tube Dr. Carrico had inserted through JFK's mouth, through his larynx and supposedly to just above where the trachea branches into the bronchi:

"Dr. Carrico had just introduced an endotracheal tube, I'm very proud of him for this because it's not as easy as it sounds. At times and under the circumstances--it was harder--he had. just completed a 3-month rotation on the anesthesiology service, and I thought this represented good background training for a smart individual, and he told me he had a cuff on the endotracheal tube and he introduced it below the wound.

The reason I said this, of course, this is a reflex--there is a tube, the endotracheal tube, if it is pushed down a little too far it can go into the right main stem of the bronchus impairing respiration from both lungs, or both chest."

In other words, the endotracheal tube has a cuff near the inserted end that,once inflated would have stopped air from escaping through the tracheal wound.

Endotracheal tube, inflatable cuff on left.

As the idea was to get the tip of the ETT to just above the junction of the bronchi and trachea, this cuff would be well below a wound above the 3rd tracheal ring. I am not sure how they determined the depth of insertion of the ETT tip in 1963 but, nowadays, a portable x-ray is used to determine depth of insertion.

After commending Carrico for doing a good job Jenkins, in the next breath, says this:

"There were three others who came in as I did who recognized at once the neck wound, in fact, where the wound was, would indicate that we would have serious pulmonary problems unless a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs. These were doctors Malcolm Perry, Charley Baxter, and Robert McClelland, who with Dr. Carrico's help, I believe, started the tracheotomy."

So, despite Carrico being satisfied the cuff was below the tracheal wound, they pull the ETT out, do a tracheotomy and insert a tracheotomy tube with an inflatable cuff on its tip that doesn't appear to go as far down the trachea as the ETT did.

I don't get it.

I agree. This seems inexplicable. Unless the tracheostomy was justified because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area.

Sandy. this was Dr Perry to the W.C.

"The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure."

Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate".

​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you?

Hi Ray

This brings back the same old problem with so much of the evidence in this case. When Perry stated the incision was two to three centimetres, was he referring to the incision in the throat, or was he referring to the incision in the trachea itself? As Perry stated that part of the tracheotomy was for exploratory purposes to ascertain damage to blood vessels and other structures, an incision this small through the skin of the throat hardly seems adequate, if you consider that these blood vessels are located toward the rear of the trachea. Also. the trachea was deviated somewhat to the left and hidden under the left strap muscles, forcing Perry to sever one of the left strap muscles to locate it. Could this have been done through such a small incision?

Robert,

Yes, but did you get the main point, that the reason for switching from the endotracheal tube to the tracheostomy may indeed have been "because the docs wanted to have a look at the damage in the tracheal area?" (Quoting myself.)

Mr. SPECTER - Based on your observations of the neck wound alone, do you have a sufficient basis to form an opinion as to whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound.

Dr. PERRY - No, sir. I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile. The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure.

Or am I reading too much into this?

[Michael Walton]

Sandy, thanks for your replies. Here's mine:

Michael, check out this excerpt from the autopsy report.

If you're talking about the mark on the autopsy face sheet that says "ragged...15cm..." then that's the rear head shot that hits him in the head (Z313) *after* the throat and back shots. Watch the Z film frame by frame and you can see when this "15cm ragged..." shot hits him - his head is literally pushed downward so his chin is most probably touching his chest. Then the temple shot hits, slamming him backward onto the seat. Here's a frame by frame analysis:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxWV9BWXk5M3hxbEk

You can also see when this "15cm..." shot hits in the Nix film. Watch it here especially when the footage is slowed down. His head dips from the "15cm" rear head shot, then flies backward from the frontal temple shot:

Because this "15cm" shot happens at Z313, it couldn't possibly have caused a piece of bone or bullet fragment to fly out of his throat because that would have *had to have happened earlier at Z225* when you see Kennedy throwing his hands up. Only it doesn't happen at all because his reaction is not from a shot in the skull and fragments coming out of this throat; it's from the frontal throat shot hitting him, the same shot that Dr. Perry said was a wound of entrance when he first saw him in the trauma room.

Are you trying to irritate Ashton?

Believe it or not but I'm not trying to irritate anyone here including him. He's the one that started this post back in 2007 or whatever. So whether he owns this theory or not, it makes no difference. Someone needs to post opposing views if and only if the opposing view goes against the theory that the post starts with. In this case, it's "There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat." If I agreed with this post, then I wouldn't even be here arguing against it. But I don't believe this theory is correct and that's why I'm posting in opposition to it. I really don't care who came up with it. The point is, I don't agree with it.

In addition, I'm posting here because I do think that *all* viewpoints need to be expressed especially for new students to the case. For example, if some young kid is curious about the case and they stumble onto McAdams's site, then they'll learn the Lone Nutters view. If they then come here, they'll learn about this theory but also opposing views of it.

So I'm going to continue to post here about this theory. It happens to be under his name since he started the thread and there's nothing I can do about that.

Robert's posts may not prove anything, but they certainly help some of us visualize what might have happened.

Sandy, for what it's worth, that is a good point. As I've posted photos, GIFs and such here and elsewhere, Bob P. can do the same, so you're right on this point.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Tom Neal]

​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you?

I clearly recall the statements you have produced regarding the incision following the removal of the trach tube. And yet the Parkland doctors after

viewing this photo agreed that the was the same tracheostomy incision they saw at Parkland.

Ray,

Have you read my post #622 in this thread?

I'd like to hear your take on it...

Tom