Jump to content

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


Peter Fokes
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have updated my page on Malcolm Perry.

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

John, don't give in to Paul Rigby here. I suggest adding a link to the OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Perry's Parkland Press conference of 11/22/63

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...oc.do?docId=622

ANd if you can, highlight a few judicious quotes, such as Perry saying 3 times that the throat wound appeared to be a wound of entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Robert Morrow

Connie Kritzberg interviewed the Parkland doctors, including Dr. Malcolm Perry, and was told clearly 3 times that the neck wound was an entrance wound:

I think Kritzberg was later censored by the FBI out of the newspaper she was reporting for.

The front entrance wound to the neck proves conspiracy. It proves shots from the front and we know JFK and Connally both got hit in the back with bullets. However this behavior from the FBI was typical in this case and was just one more sign of the official coverup to protect the murderers and conspirators of JFK's death: in my opinion Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, and some elite Texas oil men like HL Hunt and Clint Murchison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

From an essay by Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD:

"In my third year of medical school, I was having lunch in the large dining room at Harvard’s Vanderbilt Hall on a Friday afternoon in November when a fellow student ran in and yelled that President Kennedy had been shot. Everyone alive on November 22, 1963 (and old enough to understand what had happened) remembers where they were and what they were doing when they heard this. And like everyone else I knew, I was stunned by his murder. It has spurred me over the years to study the Kennedy assassination, beginning with Josiah Thompson’s Six Seconds in Dallas. With the government’s continued defense of the lone-gunman theory it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the government is lying to the American public. (The mainstream media also continues to support and advance the lone-gunman theory, and it dismisses or ignores growing evidence that Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy.)

Dr. Malcolm Perry performed the tracheostomy on President Kennedy at Parkland hospital after he was shot. Dr. Perry and I worked together for a time in the 1970s when he came to Seattle and joined the University of Washington surgical faculty. Knowing my interest in the Kennedy assassination, he reaffirmed to me that the bullet hole in Kennedy’s neck (through which he performed the tracheostomy) was a wound of entrance. This means that an assassin in front of the limousine shot the president, which contradicts the Warren Commission’s lone-assassin scenario, where Oswald is said to have fired all of the bullets from behind the limousine. Dr. Perry said it was a wound of entrance in an unambiguous fashion, three times, at a news conference on November 22, 1963 after Kennedy died. In his testimony before the Warren Commission, however, Dr. Perry equivocated, saying that the bullet wound in the neck might well have been a wound of exit.

As revealed in Probe (Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 20–21), a Secret Service agent named Elmer Moore, functioning as a liaison for the Warren Commission, was placed in charge of the Dallas doctors’ testimony. One of his assignments seems to have been to "reason" with Dr. Perry and talk him out of his original statement (and thus not raise any questions about there being an assassin in front of Kennedy).

Full essay: http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller34.1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing my interest in the Kennedy assassination, he reaffirmed to me that the bullet hole in Kennedy’s neck (through which he performed the tracheostomy) was a wound of entrance.

As revealed in Probe (Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 20–21), a Secret Service agent named Elmer Moore ....assignments seems to have been to "reason" with Dr. Perry and talk him out of his original statement (and thus not raise any questions about there being an assassin in front of Kennedy).[/indent][/b]

Full essay: http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller34.1.html

Thanks to Gary Mack for this email:

Hi Ray,

Isn't it interesting how everyone chooses to believe that Perry's opinion was correct? Yes, he thought the throat wound was an entrance wound, but what he thought doesn't mean he was correct, does it?

After all, how much experience had he had with gunshots wounds caused by military bullets? I suspect none.

Gary

& My reply:

Hi Gary:

I recently became a Grandad for the first time -- it's the greatest feeling in the world -- and in all the excitement have lost touch with the forum, etc. I see they are bashing Gary Mack again, and unlike on previous occasions, yours truly has not entered the fray.

Suffice to say that Josiah THompson speaks for me when it comes to the GM word, and likewise when it comes to Dave Perry.

But I believe that you Gary, and Dave to a lesser extent, are still under the spell of that All-American Bias: the Hatred of Lee Oswald, the Commie Pinko.

I am not sure why Dr. Perry's name is on the menu today, but thank you for your surprise email (always good to hear from you). For starters I would say that everything I have seen and heard leads me to believe that, by November 1963, Malcolm Perry was already a top - notch professional in the field of trauma medicine. Indeed, while the CIty of Dallas has earned few plaudits in this tragedy, nearly all of those belong to the doctors and staff at Parkland hospital and it is probably fair to say that Parkland was the only Dallas institution to emerge with reputation enhanced.

You write:

"Yes, he thought the throat wound was an entrance wound, but what he thought doesn't mean he was correct, does it?

My response goes like this: Did anyone who actually examined the wound ever contradict him?

If not, then when he made his original statement after examining the wound up close and personal,-- and I submit that Perry's sincerity is obvious even just reading the transcript of that Parkland Press conference -- he was speaking closer to the truth than anyone else ever could or will, absent a new autopsy.

After all, how much experience had he had with gunshots wounds caused by

military bullets? I suspect none.

Your guess on this is as good as mine. TO put that another way, my guess is as good as yours. We know that Malcolm was a smart man and he testified that he was also an experienced hunter who hand-loaded his own ammunition. Besides knowing more about the traumatic effects of gunshot wounds on humans than most doctors, he also knew more about guns and ammo.

So when Malcolm Perry somberly addressed the press and the world on that fateful afternoon, he was speaking not only from his own trained medical DIRECT observations of the actual wound itself, but also from a great wealth of RELEVANT life experience.

SO I SUBMIT THAT MALCOLOM PERRY"S OPINION DOES COUNT.

In fact it is the ONLY OPINION THAT DOES COUNT until such time as an independent and professional autopsy is performed on the BODY of JFK.

As in our previous exchanges, I am posting this on the Ed. Forum.

Best to you.

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

Guest Tom Scully

Raymond, I haven't "entered the fray" either, but after reading what you say Gary Mack communicated to you, I wish I had added my two cents to the "fray." IMO, if Gary is making comments like that to you, comments flying in the face of the record of WC alteration, obfuscation, and witness intimidation, why does Gary

still deserve respect, let alone such fealty?

Even if the two doctors from Parkland Hospital who commented to the press, fresh from the experience of treating the dying president actually did withdraw the assertions they had made that afternoon on the record, to the world, and that is preposterous, on its face....there is the matter of the actual record of that press conference vanishing by the time of Dr. Kemp's WC testimony. Integrity, Gary, or money?

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

(1) Robert B. Livingston, letter to David Lifton (2nd May, 1992)

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://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,..."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/clark_w.htm

...Mr. SPECTER - Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Dr. CLARK - William Kemp Clark.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you outline in a general way your educational background, please?

Dr. CLARK - Yes. I graduated from the University of Texas in Austin, 1944. I graduated from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston in 1948. I interned at Indiana University Medical Center and was a resident in surgery there from 1948 to 1950. I spent 2 years in the Air Force and then took my residency in neurological surgery at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. This was from 1953 to 1956, at which time I came to the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School, as chairman of the division of neurological surgery.

Would you like the professional qualifications?

Mr. SPECTER - Yes; may I have the professional qualifications in summary form, if you will, please.

Dr. CLARK - I am beard certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery. I am a Fellow with the American College of Surgeons. I am a member of the Harvey Cushing Society.

Mr. SPECTER - What is the Harvey Cushing Society, by the way?

Dr. CLARK - It is the largest society of neurological surgeons in the world.

Mr. SPECTER - And what do your duties consist of with respect to the Southwestern Medical School of the University of Texas?

Dr. CLARK - I am in charge of the division of neurological surgery and carry the responsibility of administering this department or this division, to arrange the instruction of medical students in neurological surgery and to conduct research in this field.

Mr. SPECTER - What were your duties back on November 22, 1963?

Dr. CLARK - Essentially these. I also, as chairman of the division, have the responsibility as director of neurological surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital which is the major teaching hospital of the medical school.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you receive notification on November 22, 1963, that the President had been wounded and was en route to this hospital?

Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER - Do you know at approximately what time you got that notification?

Dr. CLARK - Approximately 12:20 or 12:30.

Mr. SPECTER - And what action, if any, did you take as a result of receiving that notification?

Dr. CLARK - I went immediately to the emergency room at Parkland Hospital. I was in the laboratory at Southwestern Medical School when this word reached me by phone from the hospital.

Mr. SPECTER - And at approximately what time did you then arrive at the emergency room?

Dr. CLARK - I would estimate it took a minute and a half to two minutes, so I would guess that I arrived approximately 12:30.

Mr. SPECTER - And who was present, if anyone, upon your arrival, attending to the President?

Dr. CLARK - Dr. Jenkins, that is M. T. Jenkins, I suppose I ought to say, Dr. Ronald Jones, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Dr. James Carrico; arriving either with me or immediately thereafter were Dr. Robert McClelland, Dr. Paul Peters, and Dr. Charles Baxter.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there?

Dr. CLARK - The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube . I then examined the President briefly.

My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation.

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.

As I was examining the President's wound, I felt for a carotid pulse and felt none. Therefore, I began external cardiac massage and asked that a cardiotachioscope be connected. Because of my position it was difficult to administer cardiac massage. However, Dr. Jones stated that he felt a femoral pulse.

Mr. SPECTER - What is a femoral pulse?

Dr. CLARK - A femoral artery is the main artery going to the legs, and at the junction of the leg and the trunk you can feel the arterial pulsation in this artery. Because of my position, cardiac massage was taken over by Dr. Malcolm Perry, who was more advantageously situated.

Mr. SPECTER - What did the cardiotachioscope show at that time?

Dr. CLARK - By this time the cardiotachioscope, we just call it a cardiac monitor for a better word----

Mr. SPECTER - That's a good word.

Dr. CLARK - The cardiotachioscope had been attached and Dr. Found Bashour had arrived. There was transient electrical activity of the President's heart of an undefined type. Approximately, at this time the external cardiac massage became ineffectual and no pulsations could be felt. At this time it was decided to pronounce the President dead.

Mr. SPECTER - At what time was this fixed?

Dr. CLARK - Death was fixed at 1 p.m.

Mr. SPECTER - Was that a precise time or an approximate time, or in what way did you fix the time of death at 1 o'clock?

Dr. CLARK - This was an approximation as it is, first, extremely difficult to stage precisely when death occurs. Secondly, no one was monitoring the clock, so an approximation of 1 o'clock was chosen.

Mr. SPECTER - Who was it who actually fixed the time of death?

Dr. CLARK - I did.

Mr. SPECTER - And did you have any part in the filling out of the death certificate?

Dr. CLARK - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And what did you do with respect to that?

Dr. CLARK - I filled out the death certificate at the request of Dr. George Burkley, the President's physician at the White House, signed the death certificate as a registered physician in the State of Texas, and gave this to him to accompany the body to Washington.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you advise anyone else in the Presidential party of the death of the President?

Dr. CLARK - Yes; I told Mrs. Kennedy, the President's wife, of his death.

Mr. SPECTER - And what, if anything, did she respond to you?

Dr. CLARK - She told me that she knew it and thanked me for our efforts.

Mr. SPECTER - Were any bullets or parts of bullets found in the President's body?

Dr. CLARK - Not by me, nor did I see any such missiles recovered at Parkland Hospital.

Mr. SPECTER - Were you a part of any press conference which followed on the day of the assassination?

Dr. CLARK - Yes sir; I was.

Mr. SPECTER - And who made the arrangements for the press conference?

Dr. CLARK - Mr. Malcolm Kilduff, the Presidential press secretary.

Mr. SPECTER - At what time did the press conference occur?

Dr. CLARK - Approximately 2:30.

Mr. SPECTER - Where was it held?

Dr. CLARK - It was held in room 101-102, Parkland Hospital.

Mr. SPECTER - What mechanical instruments were used, if any, by the press at the conference?

Dr. CLARK - Tape recorders and television cameras, as well as the usual note pads and pencils, and so forth.

Mr. SPECTER - And who was interviewed during the course of the press conference and photographed?

Dr. CLARK - Dr. Malcolm Perry and myself.

Mr. SPECTER - No one else?

Dr. CLARK - No.

Mr. SPECTER - What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?

Dr. CLARK - I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound.

Mr. SPECTER - Which wound did you refer to at this time?

Dr. CLARK - The wound in the head.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you describe at that time what you meant by "tangential"?

Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER - What definition of "tangential" did you make at that time?

Dr. CLARK - As I remember, I defined the word "tangential" as being---striking an object obliquely, not squarely or head on.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe at this time in somewhat greater detail the consequences of a tangential wound as contrasted with another type of a striking?

Dr. CLARK - Let me begin by saying that the damage suffered by an organ when struck by a bullet or other missile---

Mr. SPECTER - May the record show that I interrupted the deposition for about 2 minutes to ascertain what our afternoon schedule would be here because the regular administration office ordinarily closes at 12 o'clock, which was just about 15 minutes ago, and then we resumed the deposition of Dr. Clark as he was discussing the concept of tangential and other types of striking. Go ahead, Doctor.

Dr. CLARK - The effects of any missile striking an organ or a function of the energy which is shed by the missile in passing through this organ when a bullet strikes the head, if it is able to pass through rapidly without shedding any energy into the brain, little damage results, other than that part of the brain which is directly penetrated by the missile. However, if it strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore, is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow.

Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual direct line it was proceeding.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring back to the press conference, did you define a tangential wound at that time?

Dr. CLARK - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And what else did you state at the press conference at 2:30 on November 22?

Dr. CLARK - I stated that the President had lost considerable blood, that one of the contributing causes of death was this massive blood loss, that I was unable to state how many wounds the President had sustained or from what angle they could have come. I finally remember stating that the President's wound was obviously a massive one and was insurvivable.

Mr. SPECTER - What did Dr. Perry say at that time, during the course of that press conference, when the cameras were operating?

Dr. CLARK - As I recall, Dr. Perry stated that there was a small wound h the President's throat, that he made the incision for the tracheotomy through this wound. He discovered that the trachea was deviated so he felt that the missile had entered the President's chest. He asked for chest tubes then to be placed in the pleural cavities. He was asked if this wound in the throat was an entrance wound or an exit wound. He said it was small and clean so it could have been an entrance wound.

Mr. SPECTER - Did he say anything else that you can recollect now in response to the question of whether it was a wound of entrance or exit?

Dr. CLARK - No, sir; I cannot recall.

Mr. SPECTER - Were you a part of a second press conference, Dr. Clark? ...

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact remains that the ballistics tests performed at Edgewood Arsenal ..proved that typical exit wounds created by "Oswald’s" rifle at a distance of 180 feet were 10 to 15 mm; at least twice the size of the wound in Kennedy’s throat. (5H77, 17H846)

VERY important consideration, and thank you Martin for making Hay with that.

Gary Mack's response to my emAIL:

Ray,

I guess I need to be more specific. Here's how I see the situation. Perry finished his residency in 1962 and, by 1963, had seen fewer than 200 gunshot wounds. Parkland Hospital is the Dallas County public hospital, which tends to get a lot of domestic gunshot wound victims and Perry certainly assisted with some of them.

Regular ammo, the kind they see at Parkland almost every day, acts very differently than military ammo. The former almost always leaves a much larger, gaping exit hole compared to the entrance because it usually deforms or fragments; military ammo does not, hence Perry logically assumed the small neck hole was an entry and that the bullet did not exit.

Military ammo, as agreed in the Geneva Convention years earlier, acts very differently. It is designed and manufactured to go through the victim without distorting or fragmenting and, hopefully, strike the next soldier nearby. The goal is not necessarily to maim or kill the first guy but to disable him so he can no longer fight. One bullet could, therefore, take down two or more men if it passes cleanly through without fragmenting like regular bullets do.

There are plenty of sources that go into detail of the hows and whys, but that's the basic difference. The official story is that Oswald's MILITARY ammo did exactly what it should have: it went cleanly through the target and struck Connally, the next man in line. That exit hole in JFK's neck misled Perry to think it was the entrance hole of a regular bullet. But Perry had no little or no previous experience with military ammo and it never occurred to him to consider it.

Gary

P.S. Congrats, from one grandfather to another!.

and MY REPLY:

Thanks Gramps. Guess you know how wonderful it feels.

Now a few words more about Dr. Malcolm Perry who was, by all accounts, a cool, careful, conscientious, and knowledgeable observer of the many gunshot wounds he treated in his practice.

Perry finished his residency in 1962 and, by 1963, had seen fewer than 200 gunshot wounds.

Well excuse the hell out of me Gary, but that still sounds like heavy-duty experience with gunshot wounds.

Regular ammo, the kind they see at Parkland almost every day, acts very differently than military ammo. The former almost always leaves a much larger, gaping exit hole compared to the entrance because it usually deforms or fragments; military ammo does not, hence Perry logically assumed the small neck hole was an entry and that the bullet did not exit.

You say that Perry ASSUMED.I don't recall that Perry ever said that Perry assumed ANYTHING.

Military ammo, as agreed in the Geneva Convention years earlier, acts very differently. It is designed and manufactured to go through the victim without distorting or fragmenting and, hopefully, strike the next soldier nearby.

And Malcolm Perry -- given his breath of knowledge about ammo that surpasses mine, at least -- already knew that, I submit.

(at this point I should have referred Gary to Martin Hay's post quoted above)

The official story is that Oswald's MILITARY ammo did exactly what it should have:

Hold on, Sir. Do you have a SHRED of evidence that Lee Oswald ever bought or possessed ammo for that rifle?

I thought not.

Gary: Whenever you use a term like "Oswald's ammunition", your bias shows to every person knowledgeable about the EVIDENCE in this case. THat is not the way to win friends and influence people, hence the tendency of some less-tolerant researchers to engage from time to time in what are known as Mack Attacks.

You write:

Regular ammo, the kind they see at Parkland almost every day, acts very differently than military ammo. The former almost always leaves a much larger, gaping exit hole compared to the entrance because it usually deforms or fragments; military ammo does not, hence Perry logically assumed the small neck hole was an entry and that the bullet did not exit.

Again, I don't recall Perry saying that he ASSUMED anything. His statements were based on his own DIRECT observations of the wound itself. Speaking just from my own general knowledge, reading doctor's reports, etc, my clearly distinct understanding is that ANY entrance wound -- by ANY kind of bullet -- will look distinctly different from an exit wound by ANY kind of bullet. I submit that it was the characteristics of the wound -- size, direction the edges were pushed by the force of the bullet-- that told Macolm Perry, loud and clear, that JFK's throat wound was a wound of entrance. I don't recall that he ever said, or was asked, about the TYPE of bullet that caused the wound

Doctor Perry was acting under the Hippocratic Oath when he told reporters -- three separate times -- that JFK's throat wound was -- in Perry's professional opinion -- a wound of entrance. He was not lying, and had no reason to lie that we know of, and he was not in ANY DOUBT, as the transcript makes crystal-clear.

Which brings us back to the question posed in my earlier email

Did anyone who actually examined the wound ever contradict Malcolm Perry?

Anyone might even include lay witnesses like law enforcement personnel, but I am really trying to nail this down: TO your best knowledge, Gary, has any qualified medical person -- who actually examined JFK's throat wound up close as Perry did -- ever contradicted his conclusion that the wound is a wound of entry?

Take Care of yourself. eVEN IF some RESEARCHERS DON'T NEED YOU, Your grandkids ALWAYS WILL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was not lying, and had no reason to lie that we know of...

Some time ago a mysterious character named Ashton Grey appeared on this forum, caused a great stir, then vanished back to the nowhere he had suddenly appeared from, after claiming that Malcolm Perry was part of a plot to kill JFK. Perry was designated as the killer of last resort, according to the mysterious Mr. Grey.

Pat Speer had no trouble putting Mr. Grey in his place, as I recall, and Pat raised questions about the bona fides of Mr Grey, as did yours truly.

Does anyone have updated information on the status of Mr. Grey? Judging by his writing style, I would guess that he is in a business like Advertising, or some related field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There simply is no credible evidence that the throat wound was an exit for the back wound.

There is plenty of evidence that indicates the throat wound was an exit for the upper-back entry wound, with probably THE BIGGEST piece of common-sense "evidence" for this being the fact that NO BULLETS at all were found in JFK's whole body. Plus, there's the lack of any substantial damage to Kennedy's upper-back and neck (except for some bruising of the top of the right lung and the pleural cavity).

There's also the OUTWARD-pointing fibers on the front side of JFK's shirt. And the previously-mentioned bruising of the lung and pleura certainly indicate that the bullet which caused such bruising was passing very swiftly by the lung and pleura.

In other words, if a bullet had completely STOPPED inside JFK's neck, it's very likely that the bruises that were found inside JFK's back and neck at his Bethesda autopsy would not have been there at all.

Hence, that bullet was travelling at a fairly high rate of speed as it passed (but did not directly strike) the top of the lung and upper pleural cavity.

And, to emphasize the obvious once again -- If one bullet did not pass clean through President Kennedy's body, it means that TWO bullets must have entered from opposite directions -- with one of those missiles going into his throat from the front (and fired from where exactly, btw? The conspiracy theorists don't usually say); while a second bullet entered the President's upper back.

And NEITHER of these two bullets exited JFK's body! Why on Earth didn't EITHER of these two bullets exit the other side of JFK's body? Do conspiracists think the two bullets COLLIDED head-on inside Kennedy's neck or something? (I'm surprised that some CTer hasn't purported such an insane theory. But, to date, I don't think I've heard that one theorized.)

It's simply not reasonable to think that TWO bullets would have entered Kennedy's neck and back and then have both bullets stopping dead in their tracks inside JFK's body. And then the bullets (which should have been INSIDE Kennedy at the autopsy) just disappear. Silly beyond all belief.

But what's not silly when all the evidence connected to JFK's wounds is taken into consideration is the Single-Bullet Theory -- especially when the perfectly logical and reasonable SBT is compared to the absurd "Two Bullets" scenario I just laid out above.

In the final analysis, the only people who have a "Magic Bullet" in the JFK murder case are the conspiracy believers. In fact, they don't have just one Magic Missile -- they've got at least TWO. Those two being the two bullets that "magically" went into Kennedy but didn't exit, and then vanished.

I guess the shooters were firing spitwads at Kennedy through a plastic drinking straw, which is why their hopelessly weak TWO bullets didn't go into JFK's body more than a few inches on either side.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes about this topic, which was uttered by a fellow LNer named "Bud" in 2006. When discussing the SBT and the possible anti-SBT alternatives with some of the assorted conspiracy nuts at the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup, Bud said this:

"The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006

th_LOL.gif

And most conspiracy theorists (such as Jim DiEugenio and many others) actually have a THIRD "magic" bullet -- the one they say went into Governor John Connally that was NOT Commission Exhibit No. 399 (or so the conspiracy believers say). So there's yet another bullet that vanishes off the planet after entering the body of a Dealey Plaza victim.

The anti-SBT crowd is hopeless. They refuse to see the truth and rationality of the Single-Bullet Theory....even after seeing the two victims reacting to that bullet hitting them at the exact same time in the Zapruder Film.

Z-FilmClipSBTInMotion.gif?t=1276736815

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DiEugenio's last effort is more of the same typical anti-SBT nonsense from a typical anti-SBTer.

Jim offers up no logical or coherent alternative to the SBT. And that's because he can't. He knows the SBT is true. And he knows it's silly to believe that TWO bullets went into Kennedy's body with neither bullet exiting from the other side--and then have both bullets disappear.

Watching a CTer make excuses for why the SBT is wrong is more fun than watching DiEugenio try to defend the Jolly Green Fraud named Jim Garrison.

But since Jimbo wrote a book about the other Jimbo's pathetic and fraudulent case against Clay Shaw, there's absolutely NO amount of smoke that he won't blow in our faces when it comes to DiEugenio trying to prop up that Garrison mess in New Orleans.

Jim D. probably even believes that Perry Russo was telling the truth.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absent the soundtrack, there's something about the framing of the whole limo interior in this Z-version below that really works for evaluating the throat wound. It's hard to visualize that the shot came from anywhere but from the front and through the windshield - right between the Connallys.

Connally raises his right hand (with hat) and also his left arm, to ward off the shock of the missile that penetrates the windshield and passes between him and Nellie, to strike Kennedy in the throat, at Von Pein clip 226-227. Connally is then hit at Von Pein clip 243-244, which is why he is prevented from turning all the way to his right to look at JFK.

Turn off the sound and watch this stabilized Z-film to compare with Von Pein post clip.

Why would Connally turn if he were already wounded in the torso? Why would he not complete the turn, unless a wounding stopped him? (Actually, Connally does complete the turn, after Z-250, before he is wounded gain just prior to the JFK headshot(s).

I'm thinking that the Connally wound at Von Pein's 243-244 has already happened by the time of Altgens 6, since the Von Pein clip stops at Z-250, and Jackie's left hand has not yet reached JFK's left arm, as seen in Altgens.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DiEugenio's last effort is more of the same typical anti-SBT nonsense from a typical anti-SBTer.

Jim offers up no logical or coherent alternative to the SBT. And that's because he can't. He knows the SBT is true. And he knows it's silly to believe that TWO bullets went into Kennedy's body with neither bullet exiting from the other side--and then have both bullets disappear.

Watching a CTer make excuses for why the SBT is wrong is more fun than watching DiEugenio try to defend the Jolly Green Fraud named Jim Garrison.

But since Jimbo wrote a book about the other Jimbo's pathetic and fraudulent case against Clay Shaw, there's absolutely NO amount of smoke that he won't blow in our faces when it comes to DiEugenio trying to prop up that Garrison mess in New Orleans.

Jim D. probably even believes that Perry Russo was telling the truth.

David, I offered an alternative to the SBT some time ago, and you have never been able to lay a finger on it. Every step of it is plausible. The only problem is that it accepts the possibility the doctors missed or lied about a hole in the base of Kennedy's skull.

While I could be wrong about this, it is far more logical to assume such a scenario than what you assume. You have a bullet traveling on what is at the very least a highly unlikely trajectory, and causing far more damage than would be consistent with the damage done to the bullet.

Now you COULD claim that your shooting scenario is more consistent with the evidence than my own, but you would be wrong to do so. YOUR shooting scenario, after all, entails that the doctors were incredibly wrong about both entrance locations--an error that dwarfs the error I presume, that of their failing to note a small hole in the base of the skull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You, Jim, act as if Dr. Perry MEASURED the throat wound. His "measurement" was nothing but a guess, Jimbo. Nobody measured the size of that bullet hole and you know it.

A "fragment" caused the throat wound? You're reaching here. Of course, you HAVE to "reach", because you refuse to accept the obvious--one bullet passed through JFK without striking bone. And, no, the bullet did not have to strike a vertebrae. Mantik & Co. are obviously incorrect when they say it HAD to strike a bone.

BTW, Jim, how did the upper lung and pleura get bruised if a bullet and/or a "fragment" entered JFK and just STOPPED inside him? What caused those bruises if not the passage of a high-speed bullet?

And Boswell's explanation about the muscles "closing" up and not permitting any probes to go through makes perfect sense to me. Why doesn't that make sense to you, James?

BTW 2 -- Why didn't the autopsy doctors find any bullets in JFK's body? Or did they lie about that too? All three of them? (And I know darn well you don't agree with Doug Horne or David Lifton on this point. So--who stole the bullets out of JFK's body?)

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You, Jim, act as if Dr. Perry MEASURED the throat wound. His "measurement" was nothing but a guess, Jimbo. Nobody measured the size of that bullet hole and you know it.

Correct. It was a guess. But its small size was confirmed by the other witnesses. Now one might consider it possible its small size was indicative of a shored wound of exit, if only it had the abrasion ring symptomatic of such exits. The small size of this wound, and the proposed trajectory of this high velocity bullet through the neck in which no major vessels or organs were damaged, has never been adequately explained. And you know it.

A "fragment" caused the throat wound? You're reaching here. Of course, you HAVE to "reach", because you refuse to accept the obvious--one bullet passed through JFK without striking bone.

Hilarious. Jim is not reaching, The "fragment caused the throat wound" theory was proposed and pushed by the FBI in the days after the shooting, and was the predominant theory in the land prior to release of the Warren Report.

And, no, the bullet did not have to strike a vertebrae. Mantik & Co. are obviously incorrect when they say it HAD to strike a bone.

Pure smoke. It's fun to say something is obviously wrong when you have no idea how to refute it, isn't it? Show us one overhead view of the trajectory in the WC and HSCA exhibits that shows the spine. You won't find one. Why? Because none of the government's experts had a clue how the bullet evaded hitting the spine. Nichols wrote an article on this only months before the HSCA panel convened, in a well-respected forensics journal. The HSCA FPP, to a man, would have been aware of this article. So why did they make no effort to refute it?

BTW, Jim, how did the upper lung and pleura get bruised if a bullet and/or a "fragment" entered JFK and just STOPPED inside him? What caused those bruises if not the passage of a high-speed bullet?

I believe we've been through this before. Lungs are not seriously bruised by the temporary cavities of high-speed bullets. They are bruised by impacts on the overlying cage. The impact of a bullet on the first rib could have caused the bruise, but the bullet creating this impact would not have had a pristine nose.

And Boswell's explanation about the muscles "closing" up and not permitting any probes to go through makes perfect sense to me. Why doesn't that make sense to you, James?

It makes perfect sense to you because you have never read a forensic pathology textbook. The bullet did not pass between two back muscles--that is a WC misrepresentation (the strap muscles discussed by Humes were on the throat). The bullet DID, however, impact on A back muscle, singular. Such an impact from a high speed-bullet would leave an easily discernible permanent cavity. Boswell's excuse is nonsense.

BTW 2 -- Why didn't the autopsy doctors find any bullets in JFK's body? Or did they lie about that too? All three of them? (And I know darn well you don't agree with Doug Horne or David Lifton on this point. So--who stole the bullets out of JFK's body?)

Not applicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EMAIL FROM Gary Mack:

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Gary Mack <GaryM@jfk.org> wrote:

Ray, my friend, you are still missing the point. Let me explain further by reminding you that my analyses come from my background in journalism and many years working with broadcast and print newsrooms. My approach is simple: the throat wound was either an entrance or an exit, so if the latter, why did Perry think it was an entrance?

Perry certainly had experience with DOMESTIC gunshot wounds, but not MILITARY wounds. According to his background, his two stateside years in the Air Force did not include combat duty. So he did not know that gunshot wounds caused by military ammo often look quite different than the domestic violence kind of bullets Parkland gets all the time.

If you’ll research military bullets and the wounds they cause, you’ll find that yes, exit wounds are usually larger, but not always. If the bullet doesn’t fragment or mushroom – as DOMESTIC bullets usually do – the exit hole will be the same size or only slightly larger than the entrance hole.

Perry simply made an observation based on his own experience with domestic wounds, not warfare wounds, which is where military ammo is used. They are often, perhaps usually, very different in appearance. Later, when he went home and learned from news coverage that the shots came from a building BEHIND the president, he likely started wondering about his initial impression. No wonder he later claimed the wound was either an entrance or an exit hole!

No, Perry wasn’t lying about what he saw. He described his personal opinion based upon his own gunshot experience – which was entirely with DOMESTIC bullets, not military bullets. Had he experienced combat duty and worked on soldiers with wounds from military bullets, his opinion may well have been quite different.

Did any other doctor who examined the wound contradict Perry? Not that I know of, but there were only two such people – Carrico and Jones, and neither one had military experience. Everyone else who saw the wound saw it AFTER Perry had cut it open and inserted the trach tube, thus distorting its appearance. Such later opinions are quite irrelevant to this analysis.

As for Oswald, do I have any proof that he owned or bought ammunition for his rifle? Are you serious? You think he bought a gun with no intention of firing it? The onus is on you to demonstrate that he never possessed any ammunition and could not have. The absence of a receipt proves only that he didn’t keep one, not that he never bought bullets. He certainly could have bought them locally or from some other source investigators never found.

Gary

THank you Gary for your reply. I wasn't expecting one, because I thought -- on this issue at least -- you were out for the count. OK you want more, so here goes. I am reprinting your email on the forum and my only comment on the first part is this: You, Gary Mack, are attempting to substitute YOUR expert opinion for Malcolm Perry's expert opinion, after Malcolm Perry has examined the wound AND YOU HAVE NOT. Quite apart from any discussion of Perry's qualifications vs. YOUR qualifications, Perry examined the wound while you never did. So who am I -- or any rational person -- to believe: You or Perry?

You Say:

The onus is on you to demonstrate that he never possessed any ammunition and could not have. The absence of a receipt proves only that he didn’t keep one, not that he never bought bullets. He certainly could have bought them locally or from some other source investigators never found.

Sorry Gary, the onus is ALWAYS on the accuser, and you are the accuser here. You just cannot make your accusations stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack's response:

Quite the contrary, Ray, for I've seen as many MILITARY bullet gunshot wounds as Perry had as of that date. Odd that you cannot see or accept that. My experience is just as extensive (not) as his was.

Gary cannot accept that he is not qualified as an expert witness on the nature of JFK's throat wound. Even the world's top battlefield surgeon couldn't tell us whether JFK's throat wound was an entry or exit WITHOUT EXAMINING THE WOUND ITSELF.

I posed the question to Gary (and anyone else) whether any qualified medical person --besides Malcolm Perry -- had ever examined the throat wound up close. Judging by the silence, I gather there is NO ONE in a position to contradict Perry's original diagnosis.

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...