Jump to content

Dr. Malcolm Perry R.I.P. (1929-2009)


Peter Fokes
 Share

Recommended Posts

To the Editor, Providence Journal

The Journal today carried the obituary of Dr. Malcolm Perry ("Malcolm Perry, tried to save JFK") written by David Stout of the New York Times. Stout comments on the controversy over the direction of the shots that struck President Kennedy, and particularly the nature of his throat wound: was it an entrance wound or an exit? Stout quotes Dr. Perry as saying to reporters that afternoon: "It could have been either."

Nowhere in the transcript of that afternoon's press conference do any such words appear. Repeat: Nowhere. Quite the contrary: Dr. Perry unequivocally described the throat wound as "an entrance wound," later, as "a wound of entrance." He even stressed the point by saying that "the bullet was coming at him," that is from the front, not from the Texas School Book Depository. Dr. Perry was highly experienced in assessing gunshot wounds.

All the Parkland doctors who assisted at JFK's treatment later were subjected to heavy government pressure to change their judgments, not only about the throat wound but also about the large, gaping wound to the rear of the President's head. This has been known for years, and meticulously documented.

Yet the New York Times continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence in this case in order to cling to the "Lee Harvey Oswald lone-nut" theory. Or to making up "evidence" like Stout's pseudo-quote of Dr. Perry. Shame!

James R Folliard

31 Valley Lane

Portsmouth RI 02871

401-683-1238

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just sent this email to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor at the New York Times

Dear Mr. Hoyt:

Further to my email of December 8, it has been pointed out by Mr. James Folliard of Rhode Island that the error in David Stout's obituary for Dr. Perry is even more egregious than I originally thought. In a letter to the Providence Journal, Mr. Folliard writes:

Stout comments on the controversy over the direction of the shots that struck President Kennedy, and particularly the nature of his throat wound: was it an entrance wound or an exit? Stout quotes Dr. Perry as saying to reporters that afternoon: "It could have been either."

Nowhere in the transcript of that afternoon's press conference do any such words appear. Repeat: Nowhere. Quite the contrary: Dr. Perry unequivocally described the throat wound as "an entrance wound," later, as "a wound of entrance." He even stressed the point by saying that "the bullet was coming at him...,"

Mr. Folliard's letter is reprinted on The Education Forum

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...15&start=15

Yours Sincerely,

Raymond Carroll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Anybody think my critique of Patricia Sullivan's commentary was too emphatic?

The Daily Goodbye

Patricia Sullivan

Good morning.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postmorte...oodbye-125.html

M.O. Perry, one of the surgeons who operated on a dying President John F. Kennedy, has himself died in Texas. He lived to regret an offhand comment that fueled conspiracy theorists for decades. Of whether the bullet hole, which he used to perform a tracheotomy, was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, "It could have been either." He later said he thought it was an exit wound....

Comments

Ms. Sullivan, in your first sentence, you wrote:

"Of whether the bullet hole, which he used to perform a tracheotomy, was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, "It could have been either."

Where did you get that? It is a lie, a deliberate distortion. These are Dr. Perry's OPPOSITE, actual, initial comments to the press:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

"PRESS CONFERENCE

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

DALLAS, TEXAS

NOVEMBER 22, 1963

2:16 P.M. CST

AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH WAYNE HAWKS

...QUESTION-

Where was the entrance wound?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-

There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.

QUESTION-

Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-

It appeared to be coming at him. ...

..QUESTION-

Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-

The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know...

..DR. KEMP CLARK-

The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound,..."

More here, from the chied military researcher at the ARRB:

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

Posted by: TopTenPercentOwn70PercentOfUSassets | December 10, 2009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

The New York Times has published a "correction" to Dr. Perry's obituary and, in addition, altered the web version of the obituary so that it now makes no sense.

Correction: December 11, 2009

An obituary on Tuesday about Dr. Malcolm O. Perry 2nd, who performed a tracheotomy on President John F. Kennedy after the president was shot, referred incorrectly to his remark that based on appearance alone, a hole in the president’s neck could have been either an entrance or an exit wound. The remark was made to the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination; it was not made to reporters. Dr. Perry also told the commission that based on autopsy findings and other factors, he later concluded that the hole was an exit wound.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/us/08per...ref=todayspaper

Note the new web version of the obituary:

But in doing so the doctor changed the appearance of the wound, thereby making it far less valuable as evidence. Even more fatefully, when he was asked by commission investigators if he thought the bullet hole was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, “It could have been either.”

Now the original print (and web) version

Even more fatefully, when he was asked by reporters if he thought the bullet hole was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, “It could have been either.”

THe problem is the expression "even more fatefully." What Dr. Perry said to reporters on 11/22/63 -- that the wound appeared to be an entrance wound -- was a FATEFUL statement indeed, and by hiding this statement from readers, and substituting something he said months later, the Times has created a non-sequitur.

THis only confirms what I said to Clark Hoyt in my original email: The Times appears unable to face facts -- even simple facts -- when it comes to reporting on the assassination of President Kennedy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just sent this email to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor at the New York Times.

Dear Mr. Hoyt:

I was disappointed -- but not surprised -- by the so-called "correction" that appeared in this morning's New York Times.

If the office of Public Editor is meant to encourage journalistic integrity, then I fear its efforts are in vain, judging by the Times's "correction" of the Malcolm Perry obituary.

Dr. Perry's statements to the Warren Commission were made in a secret hearing. They were not published in the next day's newspapers, nor broadcast on television, and only saw the light of day one year AFTER he made his FATEFUL statement to reporters.

In no sense of the word can Dr. Perry's quoted statement to the Warren Commission be called FATEFUL, but that word FATEFUL can and has been applied to the statement he made to reporters at Parkland hospital on 11/22/63.

Can you please tell me (or better yet, your readers) why the fateful statement Dr. Perry made at Parkland hospital is NOT FIT TO PRINT in the New York Times?

Yours, Sincerely,

Raymond Carroll

CC: The Education Forum

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...15&start=15

P.S. Below is a transcript of my post to the Education Forum this morning, reporting on the Times's "correction."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just sent this email to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor at the New York Times.

Dear Mr. Hoyt:

I was disappointed -- but not surprised -- by the so-called "correction" that appeared in this morning's New York Times.

If the office of Public Editor is meant to encourage journalistic integrity, then I fear its efforts are in vain, judging by the Times's "correction" of the Malcolm Perry obituary.

Dr. Perry's statements to the Warren Commission were made in a secret hearing. They were not published in the next day's newspapers, nor broadcast on television, and only saw the light of day one year AFTER he made his FATEFUL statement to reporters.

In no sense of the word can Dr. Perry's quoted statement to the Warren Commission be called FATEFUL, but that word FATEFUL can and has been applied to the statement he made to reporters at Parkland hospital on 11/22/63.

Can you please tell me (or better yet, your readers) why the fateful statement Dr. Perry made at Parkland hospital is NOT FIT TO PRINT in the New York Times?

Yours, Sincerely,

Raymond Carroll

CC: The Education Forum

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...15&start=15

P.S. Below is a transcript of my post to the Education Forum this morning, reporting on the Times's "correction."

Good job sir, and thank you from here.

Harry J. Dean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Because the New York TImes has long been my favorite newspaper, I tend to be prejudiced in their favor, and to give them the benefit of the doubt. On re-reading the revised web version of Dr. Perry's obituary, however, I am finding it harder to treat this as a case of sloppy reporting. I must assume that the author of the "correction" read Dr. Perry's Warren Commission deposition before making the "correction."

Note this exchange:

Mr. SPECTER - Have you had an opportunity to examine the autopsy report?

Dr. PERRY - I have.

So Dr. Perry had read the autopsy report BEFORE he made the so-called fateful statement "it could have been either."

Now consider the "corrected" version of Dr. Perry's obituary in the New York Times:

Even more fatefully, when he was asked by commission investigators if he thought the bullet hole was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, “It could have been either.”

Later, when the autopsy findings were complete and the characteristics of the rifle used by Lee Harvey Oswald were known in detail, Dr. Perry told commission investigators, “I believe that it was an exit wound.”

The problem is that both statements ("it could have been either" and "I believe that it was an exit wound") were made in the same deposition and only a few minutes apart.

So the "correction" in yesterday's Times is even more misleading than the error being "corrected."

All I can say in defense of the New York TImes, based on this instance and on forty six years of misreporting on the JFK assassination, is that they are not trying to fool their readers; they are trying to fool themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

You are "right on", Raymond! Good letter to The Times. But I think that they

are complicit in the cover up. Someone attacked me in The Houston Chronicle,

so I have taken the opportunity to expand on the objection that they raised:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6758471.html

(0)

JamesFetzer wrote:

Quite a few years ago, I wrote to Malcolm Perry, M.D., in relation to his

experiences during the treatment of President John F. Kennedy. Because

I was aware of his contemporaneous reports about the wound the the throat

as well as the wound to the head, I was acutely distressed by the letter that

I received in reply. It was a handwritten letter on lined paper that affirmed

THE WARREN REPORT (1964) in describing the throat wound as an exit

wound. This saddened me, having read the Parkland Press Conference, which

began at 3:16 PM on 22 November 1963, during which he described the wound

to the throat as "an entrance wound", as "a wound of entrance", and said

"the bullet was coming at him". Dr. Perry was grossly abused by the FBI,

Commander Humes, and Arlen Specter and intimidated into changing his mind

about the wound, which he knew "up close and personal". Anyone who thinks

that Perry was thereafter speaking or writing the truth, I am sorry to say,

has thereby demonstrated their incompetence in relation to his role in the

assassination. Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who was the last physician to view

the body before it was wrapped in sheets and placed in the large, bronze-

colored ceremonial casket at Parkland, drew diagrams of the appearance of

the throat wound before and after Perry performed a tracheostomy incision

through the wound. It was a clean, neat puncture wound, clearly of entry,

through which he made a simple, straight incision. Crenshaw also sent me

diagrams of the wound to the back of the head, which I published with his

diagrams of the throat wound as Appendix A of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).

The Parkland Press Conference transcript, which was never provided to the

Warren Commission, may also be found there as Appendix C. For those who

are unfamiliar with the research that appears here, I recommend that they

track it down, since it includes studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.,

that proved the autopsy x-rays had been altered and by Robert Livingston,

M.D., a world authority on the human brain, concluding that the images of

a brain in diagrams and photographs stored at the National Archives cannot

possibly be of the brain of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Since these studies

shattered the cover-up in the death of JFK, you might want to read them to

come up-to-speed with respect to the most important research ever conducted

on the medical evidence, which was reinforced by studies by Mantik and by

Douglas Horne, the senior analyst for military affairs for the AARB, which

are published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and are now being confirmed

by a five-volume study of the medical evidence by Horne, which is only now

being released and is accessible via amazon.com. In relation to the basic

evidence concerning the body and even the Zapruder film, which is analyzed

in both of my books and in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), where Horne

corroborates our finding that it's a fabrication, the case has been solved.

For those who still linger to the illusion that THE WARREN REPORT was right,

you can download "Reasoning about Assassinations" via google, where I take

apart the "magic bullet" theory in a study that I presented at Cambridge

and published in a peer-reviewed international journal. It is easily available.

12/8/2009 9:30:42 AM

Recommend: (8) (0) [Report abuse]

(0)

JamesFetzer wrote:

This is a nice example of someone who has been out-of-touch with research on the authenticity of the Zapruder film, which has been proceeding at a rapid clip since the symposium on the film I organized and moderated at the Lancer Conference in 1996. Since the film has been used as the backbone of the cover up from its inception--including the creation of the "blob" of brains bulging forward, the missing right-front cranial mass from the x-rays, the caption for frame 313 in LIFE magazine describing how the direction of the shot was determined by the study of the film, and Abraham Zapruder's appearance on television that evening, using his had to show a blow-out to the right-front that did not occur--it would have been extremely unfortunate had Doug Horne, the senior analyst for military affairs for the ARRB, suppressed his research on the film. Indeed, one of the great virtues of Vol. IV of his five-volume study, now available at amazon.com, is its exposure of film fakery.

Let me say that Doug Horne has been extremely generous in acknowledging the previous work by Jack White, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, and David Lifton, who are those who have made the most important contributions to establishing that the Z-film has been recreated. After all, anyone who takes for granted that the film is authentic--as have generations of students of the crime in generations past--will be unable to reconstruct what actually happened in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, since some events--such as William Greer bringing the limousine to a halt to make certain JFK would be killed, Motorcycle Patrolman Cheney's motoring forward to advise Chief Curry that he had been shot, and Mary Moorman and Jean Hill's stepping into the street to take Mary's famous Polariod--have been removed, while other events--such as the bulging "blob", the blood spray, and the passengers being thrown forward WHILE THE LIMO WAS ACCELERATING--have been added in. Horne's studies reinforce these discoveries.

I especially like the manner in which Doug Horne encourages other students of JFK to abandon their long-held but provably-false belief in Zapruder film authenticity:

"The biggest problem we face right now in the JFK research community are the legions of 'old guard' researchers who refuse to face this fact [that the Z-film has been fabricated] and who stubbornly cling to some piece of "bedrock evidence", which in their mind will lead them out of the wilderness if only they study it long enough and can divine its true meaning. For Thompson, Wrone, Weisberg, Groden, and may others, the Zapruder film has been this piece of bedrock evidence for over four decades. I say to the old guard who have continued to insist that the Zapruder film is an authentic and unaltered film in spite of the mounting evidence of its alteration, 'Come on over, and see the light.' You will feel better for having done so--in fact, it will liberate you. Once you accept the fact that the Zapruder film is a clever (but imperfect) forgery, you are free suddenly to believe the Dealey Plaza car stop witnesses (which include several Dallas motorcycle policemen and Bill Newman); Marily Sitzman; the Kodak laboratory personnel (who all say the original film was slit the evening of the assassination); Marilyn Willis; Erwin Schwartz; Cartha DeLoach; Dan Rather; and the Parkland doctors and nurses. For if you believe the Zapruder film is authentic, you must, of necessity, believe that all of these people are either liars, or incompetent and unreliable witnesses.

Following the lead of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), who consulted Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects from the cinema capitol of the world, who told him that the "blog" and the blood spray had been painted in, Doug Horne consulted additional experts on special effects and reported that, "When the 6K scans of frames 313 through 323 were viewed, one after the other on two high resolution video screens in the editing bay, Ned Price (who just happens to also be the Head of Restoration at a major Hollywood film studio) said: "Oh, that's horrible, that's just terrible! That's such a bad fake." His colleague, Paul Rutan, opined: "We are not looking at originals; we are looking at artwork." (By this, Rutan meant we were not looking at traveling mattes; we were looking at painted visual effects superimposed on top of the original film frames--by inference, he meant aerial imaging.) The film editor concurred with his two colleagues. To say that this was an electrifying moment would be a gross understatement.

"The considered opinions of our two film restoration professionals, who together have spent over five decades restoring and working with films of the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (when visual effects were done optically--not digitally), in that one moment superseded the statements of all those in the JFK research community who have insisted for two decades now that the Zapruder film could not have been altered, because the technology did not exist to do so. Our two restoration experts know special effects in modern motion picture films far better than Josiah Thompson, or David Wrone, or Gary Mack, or Robert Groden, or me, for that matter; and their subjective opinion [better: professional judgment] trumps Rollie Zavada's as well--a man who has absolutely no experience whatsoever in the post production of visual effects in motion picture films. And while Rollie Zavada, a lifetime Kodak employee receiving retirement pay from his former employer, would certain have an apparent conflict of interest in blowing the whistle on Zapruder film forgery if his former employer was involved in its alteration, our three Hollywood film professionals had no vested interest, one way or the other, in the outcome of their examination of the 6Kscans on August 25th of 2009."

In my estimation, If this had been the only contribution of Doug Horne's research toward a better understanding of the assassination of JFK and its cover up, it would have been worth the price of the volume by itself! I am completely and utterly in awe and admiration for his painstaking efforts and meticulous research on the most controversial aspects of the case, where I believe that it has become impossible to deny that the film is a fabrication and that the cover up cannot be understood --even remotely!--without rejecting the blindfold extended by Josiah Thompson, David Wrone, Gary Mack, Rollie Zavada and their chums and allies, who have held back major advances in research on the basis of their misconceived objections to the alteration of the film. I therefore agree with Bill Kelly in his belief that "the corner has been turned" in relation to the question of Zapruder film alteration. Jack White, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton and I have known it for some time, but there is no substitute for a presentation that anyone with the capacity for objectivity can comprehend! For that--and for his diligence, his dedication, his intelligence, his self-sacrifice, and his professionalism--I congratulate him and encourage others to study his work.

12/12/2009 8:32:30 AM

Recommend: (0) (0) [Report abuse]

(0)

SDJackrabbit wrote:

Thank you for that great post, Jim. Now go put on the Maroon Loon outfit and skate around the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center ice during intermissions of UMD Bulldog hockey games. Because to say the Z-film is faked, when it shows shots from the front -- exactly what the lone-nutters don't want it to show, does not make sense. If the film were faked, it would be faked to show shots from behind, thus supporting the government's lone-assassin and single-bullet theory.

12/10/2009 10:41:12 PM

Recommend: (0) (0) [Report abuse]

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Because the New York TImes has long been my favorite newspaper, I tend to be prejudiced in their favor, and to give them the benefit of the doubt. On re-reading the revised web version of Dr. Perry's obituary, however, I am finding it harder to treat this as a case of sloppy reporting. I must assume that the author of the "correction" read Dr. Perry's Warren Commission deposition before making the "correction."

Note this exchange:

Mr. SPECTER - Have you had an opportunity to examine the autopsy report?

Dr. PERRY - I have.

So Dr. Perry had read the autopsy report BEFORE he made the so-called fateful statement "it could have been either."

Now consider the "corrected" version of Dr. Perry's obituary in the New York Times:

Even more fatefully, when he was asked by commission investigators if he thought the bullet hole was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, “It could have been either.”

Later, when the autopsy findings were complete and the characteristics of the rifle used by Lee Harvey Oswald were known in detail, Dr. Perry told commission investigators, “I believe that it was an exit wound.”

The problem is that both statements ("it could have been either" and "I believe that it was an exit wound") were made in the same deposition and only a few minutes apart.

So the "correction" in yesterday's Times is even more misleading than the error being "corrected."

All I can say in defense of the New York TImes, based on this instance and on forty six years of misreporting on the JFK assassination, is that they are not trying to fool their readers; they are trying to fool themselves.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Dr. Fetzer,

Walter Cronkite's remarks in the video linked below, indicate he was reporting the remarks of Dr. Malcolm Perry made during the November 22, Parkland Hospital press conference, no later than 2:30 pm, CST.:

At 8:02 into the CBS news video linked below, Walter Cronkite fixes the time since the president was shot. He looks up at his studio clock and states that, "it seems almost inconceivable that this whole, tragic set of circumstances has taken place in these last three hours only. It was 12:25 EST, 11:25 in Dallas when the shots rang out on that Dallas street..."

53 seconds later, at 8:55 in the same CBS news video linked here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJFAIKbzkmE

...Walter Cronkite announces that word is "just in" of Dr. Perry's remarks about the president's two wounds, and that he performed a tracheotomy....

There is also this account which tends to support intentional conspiracy to distort and cover up.:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlivingston.htm

Inasmuch as I was Scientific Director of two of the institutes at the NIH - and both institutes were pertinent to the matter of the President's assassination and brain injury - the Navy Hospital operator and the Officer on Duty put me through to speak directly with Dr Humes who was waiting to perform the autopsy. After introductions, we began a pleasant conversation. He told me that he had not heard much about the reporting from Dallas and from the Parkland Hospital. I told him that the reason for my making such an importuning call was to stress that the Parkland Hospital physicians' examination of President Kennedy revealed what they reported to be a small wound in the neck, closely adjacent to and to the right of the trachea. I explained that I had knowledge from the literature on high-velocity wound ballistics research, in addition to considerable personal combat experience examining and repairing bullet and shrapnel wounds. I was confident that a small wound of that sort had to be a wound of entrance and that if it were a wound of exit, it would almost certainly be widely blown out, with cruciate or otherwise wide, tearing outward ruptures of the underlying tissues and skin.

I stressed to Dr. Humes how important it was that the autopsy pathologists carefully examine the President's neck to characterize that particular wound and to distinguish it from the neighbouring tracheotomy wound.

I went on to presume, further, that the neck wound would probably not have anything to do with the main cause of death-massive, disruptive, brain injury - because of the angle of bullet trajectory and the generally upright position of the President's body, sitting up in the limousine. Yet, I said, carefully, if that wound were confirmed as a wound of entry, it would prove beyond peradventure of doubt that that shot had been fired from in front-hence that if there were shots from behind, there had to have been more than one gunman....

....I conclude, therefore, on the basis of personal experience, that Dr. Humes did have his attention drawn to the specifics and significance of President Kennedy's neck wound prior to his beginning the autopsy. His testimony that he only learned about the neck wound on the day after completion of the autopsy, after he had communicated with Doctor Perry in Dallas by telephone, means that he either forgot what I told him (although he appeared to be interested and attentive at the time) or that the autopsy was already under explicit non-medical control...

...Two important subsequent events are noteworthy: Commander Humes did not dissect that wound, and when asked why not, in the Warren Commission hearings, he said that he didn't know about the small wound in the neck until the following day when he had a conversation with Dr. Perry at Parkland Hospital....

Dr. Robert B. Livingston 1918 - 2002

http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2002/04_30_Livingston.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One month after President Kennedy's murder, The New Republic published an article by by Jack Minnis and Staughton Lynd entitled

Seeds of Doubt; some questions about the assassination. The number one question was "how Lee Oswald, from a position behind and

slightly to the right of President Kennedy, fired a shot which entered the President’s neck just below the Adam’s apple."

Minnis and Lynd wrote:

The Wounds

Tom Wicker, in The New York Times of November 23, wrote that Doctors Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark, who attended Mr. Kennedy in the emergency room of the Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas immediately after the shooting, described the President’s wounds thus: “Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam’s apple….This wound had the appearance of a bullet’s entry. Mr. Kennedy also had a massive, gaping wound in the back and on the right side of the head.” Dr. Perry was the first physician to treat the President. Dr. Clark was summoned and arrived in a minute or two.

We saw nowhere in the newspapers nor heard in any of the earlier radio or TV accounts any attempt to reconcile a wound in the front of the President’s throat with the theory that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository, 75–100 yards to the rear of the President at the time the first shot was fired. Nor did we see or hear any suggestion that the original accounts of where the President’s car was at the time of the shooting might be inaccurate. This could, perhaps, be attributed to the fact that identification of the throat wound as one of entry was tentative, and that it would be reasonable to suppose a bullet entering the back of the President’s head, fired from an angle of about 45 degrees above him, might exit at the Adam’s apple. The examining doctors, as they were quoted in the early press accounts, seemed to be unsure as to whether one bullet or two had inflicted the head and throat wounds of the President.

However, John Herbers, in a follow-up story in the Times of November 27, cleared this up. Herbers quotes Dr. Kemp Clark, the Dallas surgeon who pronounced the President dead, as saying that two bullets hit the President. One entered through the throat just below the Adam’s apple and ranged downward, without exiting. The other struck the right side of the back of the President’s head tangentially (that is, it smashed in and out, traveling on a tangent to his head).

From this description, it would seem that one bullet was fired from in front of the President. Herbers tries to reconcile the frontal wound with the supposed position of the assassin in the School Book Depository Building by suggesting that the gunman could have fired as the President’s car was approaching the building, then swung the gun through an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired twice more. But this reconciliation ignores the uncontroverted accounts of many eyewitnesses as to where the President’s car was at the time the first shot was heard. It appears well-established that the first shot was fired only after the President’s car was more than 75 yards past the building. Indeed, Herbers’ own interpretation of the 15-second movie sequence supports this. In order for the assassin, from his supposed position in the building, to have wounded the President frontally, he would have had to fire while the Presidential car was entering the turn at Houston and Elm, or before the car had halfway completed the turn. By all accounts this would have been six to eight seconds before a shot was heard. According to a New York Times dispatch from Dallas dated November 27, the Secret Service conducted a re-enactment of the assassination that day. The dispatch reported that “the consensus was that the shooting began after the President’s car had made the turn.”

We see no way to reconcile the conclusion attributed to the forthcoming FBI report, that “it has been established that all three shots came from the same direction, behind and slightly to the right of the President’s car” (AP dispatch datelined Washington, Atlanta Journal, Dec. 3), with the statement of Dallas doctors that one bullet struck the President at about the necktie knot “in the mid-section of the front part of his neck” (New York Times, Nov. 24 and 27). Indeed, the bullet that struck the President’s throat was sufficiently frontal that Dr. Clark at first thought the same bullet might have entered through the throat and exited through the upper rear of the President’s head. (See “The Kennedy Wound,” New York Times, Nov. 24, for an account based on this supposition.)

On December 5, 13 days after the assassination, “federal investigators” were still simulating the crime with car, camera and surveyor’s transit on Elm Street in Dallas, in an attempt to answer the question “how the President could have received a bullet in the front of the throat from a rifle in the Texas School Book Depository Building after his car had passed the building and was turning a gentle curve away from it” (Joseph Loftus in the New York Times, Dec. 6).

Finally, what is the explanation of the reports of Frank Cormier of the AP and of Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of a small hole in the windshield of the President’s limousine?
Minnis and Lynd concluded:

The central problem—the fact that the President was wounded in the front of the throat, “the midsection of the front part of his neck,” according to “staff doctors” at Parkland Hospital on November 23 (New York Times, November 24)—remains. Life and Newsweek place the President’s car 170 feet and 150 feet past the turn at the time of the first shot: a shorter distance than our estimate, but much too distant from the window for a shot through the front of the neck. Life (December 6) recognizes the problem, but solves it by saying that the President was turning far to the right at the moment of impact. This explanation appears to fail for two reasons. First, Life’s own pictures of the event in the issue of November 29 show the President looking straight ahead. Second, Elm Street curves left as it passes the warehouse building (see the picture on page 32H of Life, November 29), in such as way that when the first bullet struck, the President’s back was to the window. In order for a bullet to have entered “the mid-section of the frontal part of his neck” the President would have had to turn completely around just before the shot was fired.

In his book Breach of Trust, author Gerald McKnight writes that "perhaps only for the sake of argument," Hale Boggs and John McCloy recommended

the essay (Seeds of Doubt) in response to Allen Dulles' attempts to pre-convict Oswald by handing out a book dealing with past attempts on American President's lives.

Also, according to McKnight:

"Kennedy loyalist and special assistant to the murdered president Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. received a prepublication copy of
Seeds of Doubt

and thought the essay's arguments were persuasive and troubling enough to send a copy to Bobby Kennedy.

It was clear that McCloy had read the Lynd-Minnis piece and that it reinforced his own misgivings about discrepancies in accounting for JFK's wounds.

For example,
Seeds of Doubt
reported that two of the doctors who performed a tracheotomy on the moribund president identified the wound in

Kennedy's throat as a wound of entrance. Obviously conflicted, but still clinging to the official version that all shots had come from the 'sniper's nest,'

McCloy believed it was imperative that the Commission visit the locus in quo -- the scene of the crime -- 'before the evidence gets too dusty.'

'

A few pages later, McKnight writes how Hoover and DeLoach discredited Lynd and Minnis by feeding Commission member Gerald Ford derogatory

information from their FBI files. Eventually, Lee Rankin "was sent a summary of their backgrounds to ensure that the Commission would dismiss

Seeds of Doubt as communist-inspired propaganda."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My latest missive (missile?) to Mr. Hoyt, with thanks to Michael Hogan for the timely reminder about the New Republic article:

Greetings,Mr. Hoyt, I hope all is well with you.

With further reference to the so-called "correction" to the Malcolm Perry obituary, I recommend that you look back at the New York Times, Saturday, November 23 1963, and specifically the page one story from Dallas by Tom Wicker. As the official transcript now proves, Tom Wicker got the story straight on day one:

Later in the afternoon Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery at Parkland hospital, gave more details. Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adams apple, they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FK2F5fXfd...;q=&f=false.

It was Tom Wicker's FATEFUL report in the New York Times that made Dr. Perry's name forever synonymous with controversy.

One month after Tom Wicker's report, The New Republic published an article entitled Seeds of Doubt, which discussed the implications of Dr. Perry's statement to reporters.

Tom Wicker, in The New York Times of November 23, wrote that Doctors Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark, who attended Mr. Kennedy in the emergency room of the Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas immediately after the shooting, described the President’s wounds thus: “Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam’s apple….This wound had the appearance of a bullet’s entry. Mr. Kennedy also had a massive, gaping wound in the back and on the right side of the head.” Dr. Perry was the first physician to treat the President. Dr. Clark was summoned and arrived in a minute or two.

We saw nowhere in the newspapers nor heard in any of the earlier radio or TV accounts any attempt to reconcile a wound in the front of the President’s throat with the theory that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository, 75–100 yards to the rear of the President at the time the first shot was fired.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/L...s_of_doubt.html

So someone at the New York Times needs to make a decision: Was Tom Wicker a wacky conspiracy theorist, or is the present New York TImes leadership stuck in Orwell's 1984?

Yours, sincerely,

Raymond Carroll

CC The Education Forum

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...15&start=15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE PATIENTS AT PARKLAND

jfklancer.com/3Patients.html

THREE PATIENTS at PARKLAND

Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, treats an average of 272 emergency cases a day. It is adjacent to and is the major teaching hospital for the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. It is staffed by the faculty of the medical school and has 150 interns and residents in all medical specialties. It is a modern hospital, well equipped, one of which any community might be proud. Today and for none of these reasons-Parkland has a new reputation all over the world, and historians are typing its name into manuscripts that will be textbooks for generations to come. This has happened because three particular gunshot victims were carried there out of the bright November sunlight, two to die and the third to leave by wheelchair almost two weeks later, his arm in a sling.

Many Texas physicians have visited Parkland hospital; many have worked or trained there. Members of the Parkland staff are their acquaintances and friends. Many Texas physicians know personally the surviving gunshot victim, Gov. John Connally; some personally knew President John F. Kennedy, who died in Trauma Room 1; perhaps a few even knew Lee Harvey Oswald, the man charged by Dallas authorities with the assassination of the President and who was himself shot two days later.

The assassination of President Kennedy, the wounding of Governor Connally, and the fatal shooting of Oswald are events of profound import to people everywhere, but they have special, personal meaning for Texans. So because a Texas hospital and Texas physicians figured prominently in this tragedy, the Texas State Journal of Medicine records for its readers of the medical profession a full account of treatment given a never-to-be-forgotten trio.

When President John F. Kennedy in a moribund condition entered Parkland on Nov. 22, there was never opportunity for medical history taking. Such a history, had it been taken, would have shown that the patient "had survived several illnesses, the danger of war, the rigor of exposure in icy water, and . . . had waged grueling electoral campaigns in spite of a serious and painful back injury."

Parkland records show that the President arrived at the emergency room sometime after 12:30 p.m. (There is conflict as to the exact moment.) At 1 p.m. Dr. William Kemp Clark, associate professor and chairman of the Division of Neurosurgery of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, declared him dead. During the interim of less than 30 minutes, continuous resuscitative efforts were made.

Later that day, several attending physicians filed reports. The following identifies these physicians and gives the gist of their reports:

Charles J Carrico - Dr. Carrico was the first physician to see the President. A 1961 graduate of Southwestern Medical School, he is 28 and a resident in surgery at Parkland.

He reported that when the patient entered the emergency room on an ambulance carriage he had slow agonal respiratory efforts and occasional cardiac beats detectable by auscultation. Two external wounds were noted; one a small wound of the anterior neck in the lower one third. The other wound had caused avulsion of the occipitoparietal calvarium and shredded brain tissue was present with profuse oozing. No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were bilaterally dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted through the laryngoscope. A ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was advanced past the laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration was instituted using a respirator assistor on automatic cycling. Concurrently, an intravenous infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun via catheter placed in the right leg. Blood was drawn for typing and crossmatching. Type 0 Rh negative blood was obtained immediately.

In view of the tracheal injury and diminished breath sounds in the right chest, tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Malcolm 0. Perry and bilateral chest tubes inserted. A second intravenous infusion was begun in the left arm. In addition, Dr. M. T. Jenkins began respiration with the anesthesia machine, cardiac monitor and stimulator attached. Solu-Cortef (300 mg.) was given intravenously. Despite those measures, blood pressure never returned. Only brief electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity was obtained.

Malcolm 0. Perry - Dr. Perry is an assistant professor of surgery at Southwestern Medical School from which he received his degree in 1955. He was 34 years old and was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1963.

At the time of initial examination of the President, Dr. Perry has stated, the patient was noted to be nonresponsive . His eyes were deviated and the pupils dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage, and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.

Pulse or heart beat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being controlled. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg. While additional venesections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The cuffed tracheostomy tube was put in place as the endotracheal tube was withdrawn and respirations continued. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed-drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. When electrocardiogram evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart, resuscitative attempts were abandoned. The team of physicians determined that the patient had expired.

Charles R. Baxter - Dr. Baxter is an assistant professor of surgery at Southwestern Medical School where he first arrived as a medical student in 1950. Except for two years away in the Army he has been at Southwestern and Parkland ever since, moving up from student to intern to resident to faculty member. He is 34 and was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1963.

Recalling his attendance to President Kennedy, he says he learned at approximately 12 :35 that the President was on the way to the emergency room and that he had been shot. When Dr. Baxter arrived in the emergency room, he found an endotracheal tube in place and respirations being assisted. A left chest tube was being inserted and cut-downs were functioning in one leg and in the left arm. The President had a wound in the midline of the neck. On first observation of the other wounds, portions of the right temporal and occipital bones were missing and some of the brain was lying on the table. The rest of the brain was extensively macerated and contused. The pupils were fixed and deviated laterally and were dilated. No pulse was detectable and ineffectual respirations were being assisted. A tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter and a chest tube was inserted into the right chest (second interspace anteriorly). Meanwhile one pint of O negative blood was administered without response. When all of these measures were complete, no heart beat could be detected. Closed chest massage was performed until a cardioscope could be attached.

Brief cardiac activity was obtained followed by no activity. Due to the extensive and irreparable brain damage which existed and since there were no signs of life, no further attempts were made at resuscitation.

Robert N. McClelland - Dr. McClelland, 34, assistant professor of surgery at Southwestern Medical School, is a graduate of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. He has served with the Air Force in Germany and was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1963.

Regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, Dr. McClelland says that at approximately 12:35 p.m. he was called from the second floor of the hospital to the emergency room. When he arrived, President Kennedy was being attended by Drs. Perry, Baxter, Carrico, and Ronald Jones, chief resident in surgery. The President was at that time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube had been placed and assisted respiration started by Dr. Carrico who was on duty in the emergency room when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and McClelland performed a tracheostomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury. Dr. Jones and Dr. Paul Peters, assistant professor of surgery, ; inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoraces secondary to the tracheo-mediastinal injury. Dr. Jones and assistants had started three cutdowns, giving blood and fluids immediately.

In spite of this, the President was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m. by Dr. Clark, the neurosurgeon, who arrived immediately after Dr. McClelland. The cause of death, according to Dr. McClelland was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head. The President was pronounced dead after external cardiac massage failed and electrocardiographic activity was gone.

Fouad A, Bashour - Dr. Bashour received his medical education at the University of Beirut School of Medicine in Lebanon. He is 39 and an associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Southwestern Medical School.

At 12 :50 p.m. Dr. Bashour was called from the first floor of the hospital and told that President Kennedy had been shot. He and Dr. Donald Seldin, professor and chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine, went to the emergency room. Upon examination, they found that the President had no pulsations, no heart beats, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a complete standstill. The President was declared dead at 1:00 p.m.

William Kemp Clark - Dr. Clark is associate professor and chairman of the Division of Neurosurgery at Southwestern Medical School. The 38-year-old physician has done research on head injuries and has been at Southwestern since 1956.

He reports this account of the President's treatment:

The President arrived at the emergency room entrance 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. Carrico.

Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agonal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heart beat but found no pulse or blood pressure. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube and while doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx.

At this time, Drs. Perry, Baxter, and Jones arrived. Immediately thereafter, Dr. Jenkins and Drs. A. H. Giesecke, Jr., and Jackie H. Hunt, two other staff anesthesiologists, arrived. The endotracheal tube had been connected to a respirator to assist the President's breathing. An anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100 per cent oxygen was administered.

A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein. An infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun. Blood was drawn for typing and crossmatching, but unmatched type O Rh negative blood was immediately obtained and begun. Hydrocortisone (300 mg.) was added to the intravenous fluids.

Dr. McClelland arrived to help in the President's care. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and McClelland did a tracheostomy. Considerable quantities of blood were present in the President's oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Peters and Dr. Clark arrived.

Dr. Clark noted that the President had bled profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 by 3 cm.) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also.

The tracheostomy was completed and the endotracheal tube was withdrawn. Suction was used to remove blood in the oral pharynx. A nasogastric tube was passed into the stomach. Because of the likelihood of mediastinal injury, anterior chest tubes were placed in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage.

Neurological examination revealed the President's pupils to be widely dilated and fixed to light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present. No deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found.

When Dr. Clark noted that there was no carotid pulse, he began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral levels.

Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so that Dr. Clark could evaluate the head wound.

There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the right posterior skull, at brief examination, appeared gone. The previously described extruding brain was present. Profuse bleeding had occurred and 1500 cc. of blood was estimated to be on the drapes and floor of the emergency operating room. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.

By this time an electrocardiograph was hooked up. There was brief electrical activity of the heart which soon stopped.

The President was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m. by Dr. Clark.

M. T. Jenkins - Dr. Jenkins is professor and chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology at Southwestern Medical School. He is 46, a graduate of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, and was certified by the American Board of Anesthesiology in 1952. During World War II he served in the Navy as a lieutenant commander.

When Dr. Jenkins was notified that the President was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland, he dispatched Drs. Giesecke and Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area. He ran downstairs to find upon his arrival in the emergency operating room that Dr. Carrico had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus. Drs. Baxter, Perry, and McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Drs. Peters and Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation. Dr. Jenkins believes it evidence of the clear thinking of the resuscitative team that the patient received 300 mg. hydrocortisone intravenously in the first few minutes.

For better control of artificial ventilation, Dr. Jenkins exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation. Dr. Gene Akin, a resident in anesthesiology, and Dr. Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity.

During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank. All of these activities were completed by approximately 12:50 at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Dr. Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was only brief electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity.

These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out, attention was turned to other evidences of injury. There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that part of the right cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart. With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1 p.m.

It is Dr. Jenkins' personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently. However, he says, the cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause irreversible damage.

.

....

B.

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article with important links on the Maryferrell.org website

News Archive - December 2009

Dr. Malcolm Perry Dies at 80

December 20: Dr. Malcolm Perry, who treated JFK at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, died on December 5 at the age of 80. See the obituary in the Dallas Morning News. Perry performed a tracheostomy and inserted a breathing tube as part of the emergency treatment, and in a press conference that afternoon said that JFK had "an entrance wound in the neck," which if true would mean Oswald could not have fired that shot.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...-_December_2009

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Tom, Glad to see the quotations from Robert B. Livingston, M.D., who was not only a world authority on the human brain but an expert on wound ballistics, having supervised an emergency medical hospital for injured Okinawans and Japanese POWs during the Battle of Okinawa. Livingston's original statement is published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) as well as the Parkland Press Conference transcript, which appears as Appendix C. MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) is dedicated to him.

Dr. Fetzer,

Walter Cronkite's remarks in the video linked below, indicate he was reporting the remarks of Dr. Malcolm Perry made during the November 22, Parkland Hospital press conference, no later than 2:30 pm, CST.:

At 8:02 into the CBS news video linked below, Walter Cronkite fixes the time since the president was shot. He looks up at his studio clock and states that, "it seems almost inconceivable that this whole, tragic set of circumstances has taken place in these last three hours only. It was 12:25 EST, 11:25 in Dallas when the shots rang out on that Dallas street..."

53 seconds later, at 8:55 in the same CBS news video linked here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJFAIKbzkmE

...Walter Cronkite announces that word is "just in" of Dr. Perry's remarks about the president's two wounds, and that he performed a tracheotomy....

There is also this account which tends to support intentional conspiracy to distort and cover up.:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlivingston.htm

Inasmuch as I was Scientific Director of two of the institutes at the NIH - and both institutes were pertinent to the matter of the President's assassination and brain injury - the Navy Hospital operator and the Officer on Duty put me through to speak directly with Dr Humes who was waiting to perform the autopsy. After introductions, we began a pleasant conversation. He told me that he had not heard much about the reporting from Dallas and from the Parkland Hospital. I told him that the reason for my making such an importuning call was to stress that the Parkland Hospital physicians' examination of President Kennedy revealed what they reported to be a small wound in the neck, closely adjacent to and to the right of the trachea. I explained that I had knowledge from the literature on high-velocity wound ballistics research, in addition to considerable personal combat experience examining and repairing bullet and shrapnel wounds. I was confident that a small wound of that sort had to be a wound of entrance and that if it were a wound of exit, it would almost certainly be widely blown out, with cruciate or otherwise wide, tearing outward ruptures of the underlying tissues and skin.

I stressed to Dr. Humes how important it was that the autopsy pathologists carefully examine the President's neck to characterize that particular wound and to distinguish it from the neighbouring tracheotomy wound.

I went on to presume, further, that the neck wound would probably not have anything to do with the main cause of death-massive, disruptive, brain injury - because of the angle of bullet trajectory and the generally upright position of the President's body, sitting up in the limousine. Yet, I said, carefully, if that wound were confirmed as a wound of entry, it would prove beyond peradventure of doubt that that shot had been fired from in front-hence that if there were shots from behind, there had to have been more than one gunman....

....I conclude, therefore, on the basis of personal experience, that Dr. Humes did have his attention drawn to the specifics and significance of President Kennedy's neck wound prior to his beginning the autopsy. His testimony that he only learned about the neck wound on the day after completion of the autopsy, after he had communicated with Doctor Perry in Dallas by telephone, means that he either forgot what I told him (although he appeared to be interested and attentive at the time) or that the autopsy was already under explicit non-medical control...

...Two important subsequent events are noteworthy: Commander Humes did not dissect that wound, and when asked why not, in the Warren Commission hearings, he said that he didn't know about the small wound in the neck until the following day when he had a conversation with Dr. Perry at Parkland Hospital....

Dr. Robert B. Livingston 1918 - 2002

http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2002/04_30_Livingston.html

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...