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

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff

Yes, there was room for a bullet to strike his throat beneath the Adam's apple. However, if you have carefully read my thread about the "shallow" back wound, you will see the undeniable medical evidence that clearly demonstrates the tracheal wound was too far below the laryngeal prominence (Adam's apple) for it to be even close to being above the top of the shirt collar. The location of the tracheal wound is based on Dr. Malcolm Perry's observations. He placed this wound between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring. If you prefer, we could go with Commander Humes' observations, which placed the tracheal wound between the 3rd and 4th tracheal ring.

Isn't it tough dismissing Humes' "shallow wound" comment while 100% buying his throat wound comment?

Did Perry have time to make an accurate diagnosis?

Isn't it "possible" they were mistaken -- off by an inch?

[Ashton Gray]

I'm posting these images again to make a statement that is pursuant to and consistent with my original posts in this thread, and with my title for this thread:

If you accept that an injury to JFK's trachea existed which ran from ANY tracheal ring to ANY OTHER tracheal ring, in ANY DIRECTION, up or down, then you have absolutely negated and nullified ANY POSSIBILITY of it having been caused by ANY frontal shot, of ANY description, to the throat. The angles make it categorically impossible.

Of course that is entirely and perfectly consistent with the clothing evidence, which alone proves conclusively that no projectile OF ANY DESCRIPTION possibly could have entered JFK's throat at the point where the tracheostomy was done without PENETRATING THE KNOT IN THE TIE, and it is beyond any faintest shade of doubt that NO PROJECTILE PENETRATED THE TIE.

Every last scrap of testimony and evidence militates toward only one possible rational conclusion, which is the title I gave to this thread: THERE WAS NO BULLET WOUND IN JOHN F. KENNEDY'S THROAT.

Ashton

Edited September 13, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Robert Prudhomme]

Cliff

Yes, there was room for a bullet to strike his throat beneath the Adam's apple. However, if you have carefully read my thread about the "shallow" back wound, you will see the undeniable medical evidence that clearly demonstrates the tracheal wound was too far below the laryngeal prominence (Adam's apple) for it to be even close to being above the top of the shirt collar. The location of the tracheal wound is based on Dr. Malcolm Perry's observations. He placed this wound between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring. If you prefer, we could go with Commander Humes' observations, which placed the tracheal wound between the 3rd and 4th tracheal ring.

Isn't it tough dismissing Humes' "shallow wound" comment while 100% buying his throat wound comment?

Did Perry have time to make an accurate diagnosis?

Isn't it "possible" they were mistaken -- off by an inch?

I seriously doubt Perry would have been "off" in his estimation of the location of the tracheal wound. He made the tracheostomy in exactly the location of the tracheal wound, and with the tracheal rings beginning below the cricoid cartilage and being such distinctive and obvious landmarks, he would have no trouble recalling he made the incision between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings.

No one is buying Humes' comment about the tracheal wound. Humes observed the wound to be between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, while Perry et al observed the wound to be between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings. Who do you think was telling the truth?

Perry was a professional. He made the tracheotomy incision exceptionally large for two reasons.

1. He stated that he wanted to explore the tissue below the throat wound to determine the extent of the damage, in particular as it related to the diminished breath sounds observed by Carrico when auscultating JFK's chest.

2. JFK's trachea was deviated somewhat to the left, as a result of a growing tension pneumothorax and collapsed right lung in his right pleural cavity. It was necessary to extend the incision far enough to the left to expose the trachea and the strap muscles concealing it.

I believe he had ample time to assess the damage to the trachea plus the developing pneumothorax in the right pleural cavity; hence his request for a right chest tube to be inserted and connected to sealed underwater drainage.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm posting these images again to make a statement that is pursuant to and consistent with my original posts in this thread, and with my title for this thread:

If you accept that an injury to JFK's trachea existed which ran from ANY tracheal ring to ANY OTHER tracheal ring, in ANY DIRECTION, up or down, then you have absolutely negated and nullified ANY POSSIBILITY of it having been caused by ANY frontal shot, of ANY description, to the throat. The angles make it categorically impossible.

Of course that is entirely and perfectly consistent with the clothing evidence, which alone proves conclusively that no projectile OF ANY DESCRIPTION possibly could have entered JFK's throat at the point where the tracheostomy was done without PENETRATING THE KNOT IN THE TIE, and it is beyond any faintest shade of doubt that NO PROJECTILE PENETRATED THE TIE.

Every last scrap of testimony and evidence militates toward only one possible rational conclusion, which is the title I gave to this thread: THERE WAS NO BULLET WOUND IN JOHN F. KENNEDY'S THROAT.

Ashton

Ashton

It may surprise you to learn that I agree with everything you say in the first two paragraphs. Unless there was a gunman lying on the floor of the limo, behind Connally, the downward trajectory of the projectile, as evidenced by the tracheal wound, precludes the possibility of a frontal shot to JFK's throat.

I do, however, take issue with the rather grandiose manner in which you announce, in the third paragraph, that all of the testimony and evidence points toward there not being a throat wound on JFK's neck. I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this matter and wonder, perhaps, if you have taken the time to read all of the testimony, and looked at all of the evidence.

[Ashton Gray]

I am re-posting this from the first page of this thread, which I posted almost nine years ago, on 21 October 2007, because it is every bit as valid today as it was the day I posted it, and there never has been any other such non-biased analysis of relevant medical testimony concerning the wound in JFK's throat. Later in this post, I'm going to amend my original spreadsheets to make them even more valid and correct than they were before, but for now, here is the original post that contained them:

"But the Parkland doctors said..."

Well, what did they say about the wound to the throat? They didn't say much of anything that a same-size group of longshoremen or checkout girls couldn't have said about it, with just as much contradiction of each other, but scarcely more.

What they didn't say is the hyperinflated mythology that rages like a fire-and-brimstone tent revival in the "research community," where Garrison-Book thumpin' Front-Shooter Faithful will swear on the Holy Gun-Totin' Ghost(s) that every medical personnel in Parkland 'lowed that there was a bullet hole in the throat, and that it was an entrance wound, so JFK absolutely had to have been shot from the front.

Well, while the Front-Shooters all hold hands and sing "I shall not be, I shall not be moved," while they steadfastly refuse the evidence of their own eyes and stare fixedly away from the heathenistic animations above, let's you and me just go all-out heathen and heretic, and consult the actual sworn testimony of these sainted Parkland personnel to find out what in fact came out of their mouths—summarized and counted rather clinically and dispassionately here in this summary of sworn testimony about the celebrated lower-throat stigmata:



If you're having any trouble with that image immediately above, you can access it through these links as:

a direct browswer link to the image, or,

a PDF file of the same chart, or,

a web page with the chart as an html table, or,

even download it to your default download location as a Microsoft Excel file.

Assuming you have the chart in front of you in some form, it can be seen that out of 12 Parkland Hospital personnel who testified under oath about the throat wound—10 doctors and 2 nurses—9 were ambiguous about or flat out didn't know whether the wound was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound. In fact, fully half of the personnel at issue, 6 of them, said under oath that they never saw the throat (neck) wound at all, or saw the area only after Dr. Malcolm Perry had electively sliced a gaping tracheotomy gash right through the center of it—conveniently eradicating all evidence of the wound, however it had been made.

This edited chart below reflects, then, the only actual eyewitnesses of record—except now I've moved the count for Dr. Ronald Jones from the EXIT WOUND column to the ENTRANCE WOUND column as a result of a discussion with someone in this forum that took place while this article was in progress—not because Jones actually made a definitive declatory statement that it was an entrance wound, but because his own ambiguous statements could be interpreted either way, and I was happy to concede the benefit of the doubt:



So of the six actual eyewitnesses, half said it could have been either an entrance or an exit wound, one said he thought it was an exit wound, and two people in the entire world who claim they saw the wound—including the ambivalent Jones—said they thought it was a bullet entrance wound.

Two people. Two. In the entire world. Two.

(I probably should be more politic than to mention that one of those two—Dr. Ronald Jones—lied under oath about steroids that were administered to Kennedy in Trauma Room One in order to hide that fact that JFK's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, had been in the room and supplied the steroids, because it's a very inconvenient time for Burkley to have been there. But why should I start being politic now?)

The utterly simple, if lamentable and painful (to some), truth that explains in full the conflicting opinions and assertions about whether it was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound is that it was not a bullet wound at all.

Now, there's a good deal more that could be said about all this, and some of it I have said before, and some of it I could further say, but being a heathen and a heretic is only a part-time position and doesn't pay well at all, so for the moment I believe I will give this over to the Front-Shot Faithful and let the ghost-hunt begin. Again.

Ashton Gray

At the time I created these spreadsheets I had made bend-over-backwards good-faith concessions about the waffling of both Dr. Ronald Jones and Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, but after watching others twist and maul the testimony—for 51 pages—to prop up their own limp scarecrows of "theory," I'm not feeling anywhere near as generous. As a result I have revised the spreadsheets, and have marked the flip-flopping ambiguity and evasive equivocation of Jones and Henchliffe for exactly what it is. My final analysis of the results is below. Here are the revised charts.

First is the relevant concise summary of the testimony about the throat wound from ALL medical personnel—even those who say that they never saw the wound directly. Their testimony on this matter is essentially worthless, but some people insist on dragging it into the arena anyway, so here it all is:

There is a total of 12 medical personnel who have given testimony about the wound. Eleven of them don't know or are uncertain whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound—OR WHETHER IT WAS A WOUND FROM A PROJECTILE AT ALL. (See more on this last statement below.)

Now here is an accounting of the testimony of medical personnel who say they actually SAW the throat wound before it was essentially obliterated by the tracheotomy. They are the only witnesses who actually matter in relation to the wound because they are the only actual WITNESSES to the wound, or so each says. There are only SIX MEDICAL PERSONNEL in the world who say they saw the throat wound, and here is an accounting of their testimony:

Out of SIX medical personnel in the entire world who ever saw the throat wound, FIVE of them don't know or are uncertain whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound—OR WHETHER IT WAS A WOUND FROM A PROJECTILE AT ALL. (See more on this below.)

You can count the contradictions and hedging for yourself.

Only ONE MEDICAL PERSON stated unequivocally that it was a wound from a projectile, and he said he thought it was an exit wound, NOT an entrance wound.

PREJUDICE OF THE OBSERVERS AND PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONING

Because gunshots unquestionably were fired in Dealey Plaza that day, ALL MEDICAL PERSONNEL WERE PREJUDICED TOWARD ANY WOUND IN THE THROAT HAVING BEEN EITHER AN ENTRY WOUND OR EXIT WOUND MADE BY A PROJECTILE.

All questioning of the medical personnel about this wound was AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES PREJUDICIAL, because it led with the PRESUMPTION that any such wound HAD TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY A PROJECTILE, so it always was the prejudicial choice: entry or exit?

It is a FALSE AND PREJUDICIAL PREMISE that the wound only could have been caused by a projectile fired into JFK's neck, so there never, at any time, was any NONPREJUDICIAL QUESTIONING about the throat wound.

The evidence demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY A PROJECTILE, and the ambiguity and uncertain of the medical personnel in testimony is FULLY CONSISTENT with the one inescapable fact:

There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat.

Ashton Gray

Edited September 13, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Michael Walton]

Yes, there WAS a bullet wound in Kennedy's throat. There WAS. One of entrance. Watch the Z film. It's obvious...

Throat

Back

Head

What absolutely blows my mind here is no one - NO ONE - wants to take Perry's word for it. I mean, why? How many gunshot wounds have you, or me, or anyone else, actually seen compared to Perry?

And yet here on this thread, people continually want to fudge the record about Perry and others to come up with their own crazy theories.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Cliff Varnell]

From the WC testimony of close proximity witness Linda Willis:

<quote on>

Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there?

Miss Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.

<quote off>

Must have got it wrong, eh?

From the WC testimony of close proximity witness Nellie Connally:

<quote>

Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was

a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder

and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over

gripping your own neck?

Mrs. Connally: Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry.

I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and

he just sort of slumped down.

<quote off>

She must of got it wrong, too.

But look closely at the Z-film and his left forefinger is grabbing at his tie while he holds both hands in front of his throat -- consistent with someone who doesn't want to get shot in the throat again.

So JFK got shot in the back which immediately caused his lungs to collapse?

His hands didn't reflexively go to his back or to his chest, but instead toward his throat.

If you bump your knee which causes you to stub your toe do your hands reflexively reach for your elbow?

Edited September 14, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

At no time did JFK "grab" or "clutch" his throat. This has been proven over and over, and to try to claim his hands were doing so is a non-starter.

Yes, Ashton, we do not have absolute guaranteed 100% proof the wound in his throat was from a projectile such as a bullet or fragment of a bullet, but I'm afraid it is the most likely candidate at the moment. I base this solely on the observations of the first doctors to deal with JFK in Trauma Room One who, as far as can be determined, were completely honest in all of their observations, and had absolutely no role in the conspiracy.

I am a part time paramedic on the ambulance in our town, and this allows me frequent contact with doctors and nurses at our hospital. I have broached the topic to them of administering a poison from a syringe to JFK's throat, via a 1/4" hollow needle, and the universal response seems to be that a much tinier needle would be more than sufficient for such a task, and the thought of using such a large needle is a bit ridiculous. Also, according to them, a hypodermic needle would make an extremely clean entry, as opposed to a bullet which would also bruise surrounding tissue with its shock wave, and it would be virtually impossible to masquerade a wound from a needle as a bullet wound.

Another part of your theory which reveals your lack of medical knowledge is your belief that Dr. Perry was able to "obliterate" a 3-8 mm throat wound, plus an equally large and longer tracheal tear, with a scalpel that had a cutting edge that was likely, at most, less than .4 mm in thickness. Do you honestly expect us to believe the throat and tracheal wound wound disappear, merely because Perry made an incision through them?

About the only thing we seem to agree on is that a frontal entrance wound from a bullet in JFK's throat was an impossibility.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Cliff Varnell]

At no time did JFK "grab" or "clutch" his throat. This has been proven over and over, and to try to claim his hands were doing so is a non-starter.

I accurately described what the film clearly shows -- he held his hands in front of his throat and with his left forefinger grabbed at his tie -- which of course to a witness would look like he was grabbing at his throat.

Are you denying that he reflexively brought his hands in front of his throat in a manner consistent with a defensive posture against another shot from the front?

You posit events in two parts of his body that are not associated with the reflexive position of his hands.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

It could also be an instinctive response to a sudden inability to breathe. We may never know.

I do know that the medical evidence clearly demonstrates the throat wound was well below the top of the collar and, unless the shooter was crouched on the floor of the limo, the lack of a hole through the tie knot precludes a frontal shot to the throat from anywhere in Dealey Plaza.

[Cliff Varnell]

It could also be an instinctive response to a sudden inability to breathe. We may never know.

I can hold my breath for a good number of seconds before it becomes an issue.

Your scenario posits a bullet entering his back and collapsing his lung but his hands don't reflexively within one second reach for his chest or his back instead his hands go immediately in front of his throat in a natural defensive reaction to a shot from the front.

Perry and Humes were subject to pressure which tends to taint their testimony.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

How did the bullet get through JFK's tie knot? Or do you believe the throat wound was above the collar? Have you even read the medical proof I posted on the back wound thread that shows the throat wound was below the top of the collar?

Would you be thinking of holding your breath if your inability to breathe came as a complete surprise to you?

Have you read Perry's medical report written on the day of the assassination? Or the medical reports of the other doctors? Here is the link:

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

[Cliff Varnell]

How did the bullet get through JFK's tie knot? Or do you believe the throat wound was above the collar? Have you even read the medical proof I posted on the back wound thread that shows the throat wound was below the top of the collar?

Would you be thinking of holding your breath if your inability to breathe came as a complete surprise to you?

Have you read Perry's medical report written on the day of the assassination? Or the medical reports of the other doctors? Here is the link:

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

<quote on>

The President arrived at the Emergency Room at 12:43 P. M., the 22nd of November, 1963. He was in the back seat of his limousine. Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car. The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery.

Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agenal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted.

<quote off>

How could Carrico have seen the throat wound unless it was above the collar?

From the WC testimony of Margaret Henchliffe:

<quote on>

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe [JFK] at some place in the hospital?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - I was working with him in the emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER - Had he arrived in the emergency room when you first arrived at the site of the emergency room?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Do what?

Mr. SPECTER - Were you in the area of the emergency room before he came there?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes.

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.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever had any experience with bullet holes?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And what did that appear to you to be?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - An entrance bullet hole it looked to me like.

Mr. SPECTER - Could it have been an exit bullet hole?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - I have never seen an exit bullet hole I don't remember seeing one that looked like that.

Mr. SPECTER - What were the characteristics of the hole?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - It was just a little round---just a little round hole, just a little round jagged-looking---jagged a little bit.

Mr. SPECTER - What experience have you had in observing bullet holes, Miss Henchliffe?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Well, we take care of a lot of bullet wounds down there--I don't know how many a year.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever had any formal studies of bullet holes?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Oh, no; nothing except my experience in the emergency room.

<quote off>

How could Henchliffe have seen a wound that wasn't above the collar?

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm sorry, Cliff, but neither the good doctor nor the nurse specifically state whether they observed the throat wound before or after JFK's shirt and tie were removed.

I do find this excerpt from Nurse Hinchcliffe's testimony rather interesting, though:

"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."

I wonder if we are getting her full testimony here? Do the three dashed lines indicate a certain amount of paraphrasing of her response? As it stands, her response does not make a great deal of sense. Is she saying when she first saw him she could only see the head wound?

Once again, Cliff, have you read my medical argument regarding the location of the throat wound? You seem to be avoiding this topic.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm sorry, Cliff, but neither the good doctor nor the nurse specifically state whether they observed the throat wound before or after JFK's shirt and tie were removed.

She states when she saw the wound:

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.

Specter specifically asked for her first impression, didn't he?

Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agenal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted.

This indicates he saw both the head and throat wounds at the same time, does it not?

Edited September 14, 2016 by Cliff Varnell