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

[Robert Prudhomme]

Carrico said hematoma and contusion to the RIGHT of the larynx, NOT a hematoma and contusion on the larynx itself.

For those who don't know, a hematoma is a collection of blood outside of a blood vessel while a contusion is bruising of tissue.

It would be perfectly normal for a bullet passing beneath the level of the larynx to cause localized bleeding and bruising beside the larynx. However, Cliff, the main injury was still the tear the projectile made passing through the right side of the trachea, between the SECOND and THIRD tracheal rings.

Bruising beside the larynx but "rugged (sic should read ragged) tissue below indicating tracheal injury".

Bruising to the tissue adjacent to the larynx but the main injury was below in the trachea.

Do you see now what Carrico was saying, Cliff, or do we get to listen to your madness for a few more pages now?

How does Carrico's description preclude the round striking the larnyx?

You insist on putting words in his mouth.

The x-rays showed damage to the right T1 transverse process so obviously the round deflected downward.

I know we're going to keep putting up with your contentless dismissals.

By all means ignore the x-ray.

Cliff Varnell continues to display his complete ignorance of anything connected to medical evidence, and his complete inability to interpret medical evidence.

Do tell, Doctor Prudhomme?

This is not surprising, as he wants so desperately to believe in JFK being shot in the throat with a rocket propelled dart, he is willing to fabricate evidence and see things that are not there to do so.

Fabricating evidence?

Are you accusing me of fabricating the witness testimony of Linda Willis, Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, Glenn Bennett, James Curtis Jenkins, Francis O'Neill, James Sibert and all the Parkland personnel who described a wound of entrance in the throat?

Did I fabricate the neck x-ray, or did I fabricate the HSCA analysis of the x-ray?

Did I fabricate the Zapruder film, which shows JFK reacting to the first shot by reflexively bringing is hands in front of his throat?

Did I fabricate this testimony from Dr. Charles Carrico?

<quote on>

Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury.

<quote off>

Carrico says there was a hematoma (collection of blood) and contusion (bruising) to the RIGHT of the thyroid cartilage, in which the larynx is contained.

You are misquoting Dr. Carrico, Doctor Prudhomme.

"there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left"

The hematoma was to the right of the larnyx, not the contusions.

That's ALL he says about the thyroid cartilage, and wishful thinking on your part will not change that.

No, he also said that there was a minimal deviation of the larnyx to the left, consistent with a round which struck the larnyx on the right and deflected down.

Carrico does NOT say there was any evidence whatsoever the larynx was struck with a projectile.

He described damage to the larnyx.

How you can deny that is amazing!

"Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury."

Anyone that has ever skinned out a deer and butchered that deer for meat will understand exactly what is going on here. When a bullet, or any other projectile, passes through meaty tissue containing a great number of blood vessels, such as the neck, the shock wave of it passing through has a tendency to rupture many small, and sometimes, some large, blood vessels, leaving very obvious bruising of tissue around the path of the bullet, and collections of blood in that tissue.

But according to Doctor Prudhomme "the path of the bullet" was well below the thyroid.

You keep insisting that the wound in the trachea was too low for the round to have entered at the larnyx -- now you've put the larnyx immediately adjacent to path of the bullet!

Make up your mind, Bob.

How could the "exit" wound be so small if the bullet left so much damage above and below it's path?

That is ALL that Carrico is seeing,

Look who's fabricating testimony!

and he most definitely states the ragged tissue is BELOW the thyroid cartilage (larynx) and is a tracheal injury.

Yes indeed! You have characterized the location of the tracheal wound as "well below" the larnyx, but now it's not so "well below," is it?

Some medical authorities, as shown above, include the cricoid cartilage as part of the larynx. With this in mind, can you see how a projectile passing through the right side of the trachea, at a level between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal cartilages (tracheal rings) could cause bruising of the tissue adjacent to the larynx, and a collection of blood in that tissue?

"Could cause bruising"?

"Could"?

What happened to your iron-clad certainties, Bob?

Bruises on the larnyx, broken blood vessels next to the larnyx, and a deviation of the larnyx are consistent with a strike in the larnyx.

However, Carrico's observation of bruising in the tissue adjacent to the larynx completely destroys the theme of this thread, that being Ashton Gray's claim there was no bullet wound in JFK's throat. The evidence of bruising to surrounding tissue is clear evidence of the traumatic passage of a projectile travelling at a fairly good velocity.

P.S.

Carrico's observation of the larynx being deviated to the left is an indication of a developing tension pneumothorax in JFK's right pleural cavity.

There you go again!

Making up evidence as you go along...

While Carrico observed only "minimal" deviation, once he had intubated JFK and connected him to the positive pressure breathing of a respirator, the tension pneumothorax rapidly developed. By the time Perry performed the tracheotomy, the trachea had deviated so far to JFK's left, it was necessary for Perry to sever JFK's left strap muscle, in order to gain access to the trachea.

I invited you to ignore the x-ray, and you did.

The rounded ended up down at the T1 transverse process, consistent with a significant deflection of the round.

Again, the evidence the Pet Theorists must ignore:

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

<quote off>

Consistent with significant deflection of the round.

If the round ended up down at the T1 transverse process, why did it not show up on the x-ray you are referring to, Cliff? Did it exit JFK's body? Where did it exit?

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Yes indeed! You have characterized the location of the tracheal wound as "well below" the larnyx, but now it's not so "well below," is it?"

Far enough below the larynx to place the throat wound below the top of JFK's shirt collar.

[Cliff Varnell]

"Yes indeed! You have characterized the location of the tracheal wound as "well below" the larnyx, but now it's not so "well below," is it?"

Far enough below the larynx to place the throat wound below the top of JFK's shirt collar.

And this round which caused all manner of damage in the neck from the T1 transverse process up to the larnyx left a wound upon exit which looked like a small exit wound?

That dawg don't hunt, as they say...

[Cliff Varnell]

Carrico said hematoma and contusion to the RIGHT of the larynx, NOT a hematoma and contusion on the larynx itself.

For those who don't know, a hematoma is a collection of blood outside of a blood vessel while a contusion is bruising of tissue.

It would be perfectly normal for a bullet passing beneath the level of the larynx to cause localized bleeding and bruising beside the larynx. However, Cliff, the main injury was still the tear the projectile made passing through the right side of the trachea, between the SECOND and THIRD tracheal rings.

Bruising beside the larynx but "rugged (sic should read ragged) tissue below indicating tracheal injury".

Bruising to the tissue adjacent to the larynx but the main injury was below in the trachea.

Do you see now what Carrico was saying, Cliff, or do we get to listen to your madness for a few more pages now?

How does Carrico's description preclude the round striking the larnyx?

You insist on putting words in his mouth.

The x-rays showed damage to the right T1 transverse process so obviously the round deflected downward.

I know we're going to keep putting up with your contentless dismissals.

By all means ignore the x-ray.

Cliff Varnell continues to display his complete ignorance of anything connected to medical evidence, and his complete inability to interpret medical evidence.

Do tell, Doctor Prudhomme?

This is not surprising, as he wants so desperately to believe in JFK being shot in the throat with a rocket propelled dart, he is willing to fabricate evidence and see things that are not there to do so.

Fabricating evidence?

Are you accusing me of fabricating the witness testimony of Linda Willis, Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, Glenn Bennett, James Curtis Jenkins, Francis O'Neill, James Sibert and all the Parkland personnel who described a wound of entrance in the throat?

Did I fabricate the neck x-ray, or did I fabricate the HSCA analysis of the x-ray?

Did I fabricate the Zapruder film, which shows JFK reacting to the first shot by reflexively bringing is hands in front of his throat?

Did I fabricate this testimony from Dr. Charles Carrico?

<quote on>

Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury.

<quote off>

Carrico says there was a hematoma (collection of blood) and contusion (bruising) to the RIGHT of the thyroid cartilage, in which the larynx is contained.

You are misquoting Dr. Carrico, Doctor Prudhomme.

"there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left"

The hematoma was to the right of the larnyx, not the contusions.

That's ALL he says about the thyroid cartilage, and wishful thinking on your part will not change that.

No, he also said that there was a minimal deviation of the larnyx to the left, consistent with a round which struck the larnyx on the right and deflected down.

Carrico does NOT say there was any evidence whatsoever the larynx was struck with a projectile.

He described damage to the larnyx.

How you can deny that is amazing!

"Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury."

Anyone that has ever skinned out a deer and butchered that deer for meat will understand exactly what is going on here. When a bullet, or any other projectile, passes through meaty tissue containing a great number of blood vessels, such as the neck, the shock wave of it passing through has a tendency to rupture many small, and sometimes, some large, blood vessels, leaving very obvious bruising of tissue around the path of the bullet, and collections of blood in that tissue.

But according to Doctor Prudhomme "the path of the bullet" was well below the thyroid.

You keep insisting that the wound in the trachea was too low for the round to have entered at the larnyx -- now you've put the larnyx immediately adjacent to path of the bullet!

Make up your mind, Bob.

How could the "exit" wound be so small if the bullet left so much damage above and below it's path?

That is ALL that Carrico is seeing,

Look who's fabricating testimony!

and he most definitely states the ragged tissue is BELOW the thyroid cartilage (larynx) and is a tracheal injury.

Yes indeed! You have characterized the location of the tracheal wound as "well below" the larnyx, but now it's not so "well below," is it?

Some medical authorities, as shown above, include the cricoid cartilage as part of the larynx. With this in mind, can you see how a projectile passing through the right side of the trachea, at a level between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal cartilages (tracheal rings) could cause bruising of the tissue adjacent to the larynx, and a collection of blood in that tissue?

"Could cause bruising"?

"Could"?

What happened to your iron-clad certainties, Bob?

Bruises on the larnyx, broken blood vessels next to the larnyx, and a deviation of the larnyx are consistent with a strike in the larnyx.

However, Carrico's observation of bruising in the tissue adjacent to the larynx completely destroys the theme of this thread, that being Ashton Gray's claim there was no bullet wound in JFK's throat. The evidence of bruising to surrounding tissue is clear evidence of the traumatic passage of a projectile travelling at a fairly good velocity.

P.S.

Carrico's observation of the larynx being deviated to the left is an indication of a developing tension pneumothorax in JFK's right pleural cavity.

There you go again!

Making up evidence as you go along...

While Carrico observed only "minimal" deviation, once he had intubated JFK and connected him to the positive pressure breathing of a respirator, the tension pneumothorax rapidly developed. By the time Perry performed the tracheotomy, the trachea had deviated so far to JFK's left, it was necessary for Perry to sever JFK's left strap muscle, in order to gain access to the trachea.

I invited you to ignore the x-ray, and you did.

The rounded ended up down at the T1 transverse process, consistent with a significant deflection of the round.

Again, the evidence the Pet Theorists must ignore:

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

<quote off>

Consistent with significant deflection of the round.

If the round ended up down at the T1 transverse process, why did it not show up on the x-ray you are referring to, Cliff?

There are two possibilities indicated in the historical record -- the round may have been removed prior to the autopsy, or the Prosector's Scenario is correct and the round dissolved.

Did it exit JFK's body?

Of course not.

These are the root facts of the case, Bob, whether you like them or not:

JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round did not exit; he was shot in the throat from the front, and the round did not exit.

JFK 101 -- the beginning of the study of the murder of the man.

Where did it exit?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Look at this diagram, Cliff.

The larynx can be seen just under the jawbone. The bottom vertebra we can see here is the C7 cervical vertebra. The next one below C7, if it were shown, would be the T1 thoracic vertebra.

Before we begin, I should point out there was no visible wound to JFK's throat at the level of his larynx, nor did any doctor at Parkland report a wound to JFK's throat at the level of his larynx.

That being said, Cliff would have us believe a bullet struck JFK's larynx and, instead of penetrating the larynx as one would expect a bullet to do with soft cartilage, this piece of cartilage managed to deflect the bullet almost 90° downward. It then travelled down to the T1 vertebra and fractured its right transverse process.

Where it went after it magically fractured the transverse process, only Cliff knows, and he's not telling.

P.S.

I forgot to mention, Dr. Malcolm Perry observed a tear in the trachea, between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (seen below larynx), that would have been going downhill from left to right in this diagram; exactly the opposite direction of Cliff's "magical" deflection.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Dissolving rounds or rounds removed prior to autopsy.

Sure, Cliff, no wonder no one takes you seriously here.

[Cliff Varnell]

Look at this diagram, Cliff.

The larynx can be seen just under the jawbone. The bottom vertebra we can see here is the C7 cervical vertebra. The next one below C7, if it were shown, would be the T1 thoracic vertebra.

Before we begin, I should point out there was no visible wound to JFK's throat at the level of his larynx,

Factually incorrect.

Carrico: "There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below

the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple."

He does not say "below the larnyx," he instead uses the Adams apple as a landmark.

nor did any doctor at Parkland report a wound to JFK's throat at the level of his larynx.

They reported wounds to the larnyx.

That being said, Cliff would have us believe a bullet struck JFK's larynx and, instead of penetrating the larynx as one would expect a bullet to do with soft cartilage, this piece of cartilage managed to deflect the bullet almost 90° downward. It then travelled down to the T1 vertebra and fractured its right transverse process.

Hairline fracture with an air pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

That's what the historical record shows, Bob, in spite of your curious insistence that I somehow made all this up.

Where it went after it magically fractured the transverse process, only Cliff knows, and he's not telling.

Excuse me?

Why do you insist on conflating me with the evidence presented?

Either the round was removed prior to the autopsy, or it dissolved.

Not my scenarios, just what the record shows.

P.S.

I forgot to mention, Dr. Malcolm Perry observed a tear in the trachea, between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (seen below larynx), that would have been going downhill from left to right in this diagram; exactly the opposite direction of Cliff's "magical" deflection.

Factually incorrect. The right T1 transverse process was to the right of the bruised larnyx and damaged trachea.

[Cliff Varnell]

Dissolving rounds or rounds removed prior to autopsy.

Sure, Cliff, no wonder no one takes you seriously here.

The autopsists took the dissolved round scenario seriously.

The FBI men took such a scenario so seriously they followed up on the lead when SA Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such weaponry.

The US Army Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick, MD, took the technology seriously.

The CIA took this technology seriously, and it was used a lot under MKNAOMI for more than two decades.

Who gives a fly'n quad-x what a bunch of Pet Theorists take seriously?

[Robert Prudhomme]

"They reported wounds to the larnyx."

Citation, please.

[Cliff Varnell]

"They reported wounds to the larnyx."

Citation, please.

Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Anyone with any reading skills at all would interpret Carrico's statement as saying there were contusions and hematoma adjacent to the larynx, Cliff.

BUT, do you know what you are REALLY missing, Cliff?

A FRICKIN' ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE LARYNX! WHY DID PERRY NOT REPORT AN ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE LARYNX?

[Cliff Varnell]

Anyone with any reading skills at all would interpret Carrico's statement as saying there were contusions and hematoma adjacent to the larynx, Cliff.

So you are unfamiliar with the common "comma" punctuation?

Carrico: ""there were some contusions, [comma!] hematoma to the right of the larynx, [another comma!] with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left"

BUT, do you know what you are REALLY missing, Cliff?

A FRICKIN' ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE LARYNX! WHY DID PERRY NOT REPORT AN ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE LARYNX?

Carrico saw it first and reported a wound below the Adams apple above the shirt-line just about where the tie knot was, to the right.

The round deflected down from the larnyx and ended up creating a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process.

It didn't take a straight-line path, Bob. Get over it.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area?

KELLERMAN: No, sir.
SPECTER: From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed?
KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir."

[Cliff Varnell]

"SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area?

KELLERMAN: No, sir.

SPECTER: From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed?

KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir."

So Kellerman has more credibility on this issue than Carrico?

Really?

If Kellerman had admitted the wound was above the shirtline he'd have to answer for why he didn't see it earlier, wouldn't he?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Anyone with any reading skills at all would interpret Carrico's statement as saying there were contusions and hematoma adjacent to the larynx, Cliff.

So you are unfamiliar with the common "comma" punctuation?

Carrico: ""there were some contusions, [comma!] hematoma to the right of the larynx, [another comma!] with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left"

BUT, do you know what you are REALLY missing, Cliff?

A FRICKIN' ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE LARYNX! WHY DID PERRY NOT REPORT AN ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE LARYNX?

Carrico saw it first and reported a wound below the Adams apple above the shirt-line just about where the tie knot was, to the right.

The round deflected down from the larnyx and ended up creating a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process.

It didn't take a straight-line path, Bob. Get over it.

One last time, Cliff. If a round "deflected down from the larynx", that would mean that round had to HIT the larynx, and at a pretty good velocity in order to do all of the tricks you claim it did.

If that round hit the larynx, why did it not wound the larynx?