Jump to content
The Education Forum

THE EVER EXPANDING THROAT WOUND - www.jfkthefrontshot.blogspot.com


Recommended Posts

The photos of JFK's throat wound and the quotes from the doctors do not lie. I posted concrete analysis on my blog www.jfkthefrontshot.blogspot.com

My 303 page research compilation (it keeps growing!) on the front shot to JFK'S throat is available to any one interested. Please email me at defiorejfk@gmail.com for a free copy by email or snail mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. DeFiore

In your blog, a shot from the south knoll is mentioned a few times. This is a rarely explored theory and there seems to not be much research on it.

Between Parkland and Bethesda, do you happen to know how many people saw or thought they saw a bullet entry wound in JFK's left temple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The tracheostomy incision, which was shown on several of the photographs that I examined, looks exactly the same size and the same configuration as it did when Dr. Perry and I did that incision."

-- Robert McClelland; 1988*

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-shot-president-kennedy-1988-nova.html

* = Of course, given Dr. McClelland's incredibly idiotic theory about JFK's head wounds, I would have to take anything he says with a large grain of salt. But the above quote did come out of McClelland's mouth nonetheless on PBS-TV in 1988.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

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

"The tracheostomy incision, which was shown on several of the photographs that I examined, looks exactly the same size and the same configuration as it did when Dr. Perry and I did that incision."

-- Robert McClelland; 1988*

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-shot-president-kennedy-1988-nova.html

* = Of course, given Dr. McClelland's incredibly idiotic theory about JFK's head wounds, I would have to take anything he says with a large grain of salt. But the above quote did come out of McClelland's mouth nonetheless on PBS-TV in 1988.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

When there is a conflict in the record, as there is for almost every statement made by the Dallas doctors, I would consider the earliest statements to be the most accurate. I will take Perry's 1966 comments to LIfton as definitive. It was made before it was understood there was a conflict in the record, and therefore free from bias (at least from the pressure to conform one's observations to the official record). I have not yet found any contemporaneous statements that would indicate a 6-8 cm ragged cut was made by Perry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The tracheostomy incision, which was shown on several of the photographs that I examined, looks exactly the same size and the same configuration as it did when Dr. Perry and I did that incision."

-- Robert McClelland; 1988*

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-shot-president-kennedy-1988-nova.html

* = Of course, given Dr. McClelland's incredibly idiotic theory about JFK's head wounds, I would have to take anything he says with a large grain of salt. But the above quote did come out of McClelland's mouth nonetheless on PBS-TV in 1988.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

When there is a conflict in the record, as there is for almost every statement made by the Dallas doctors, I would consider the earliest statements to be the most accurate. I will take Perry's 1966 comments to LIfton as definitive. It was made before it was understood there was a conflict in the record, and therefore free from bias (at least from the pressure to conform one's observations to the official record). I have not yet found any contemporaneous statements that would indicate a 6-8 cm ragged cut was made by Perry.

Daniel,

The conversation your quoted (and which I had with Dr. Malcolm Perry) took place on October 27, 1966, and is exactly as described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. Using the pretext that I was doing a research paper for a UCLA Law School class, and that it was an exercise in fact-finding, I queried Dr. Perry about the length of the trach incision. He said: “2-3 cm.” and I wrote that down, as he talked. I then asked a number of “could it have been larger than that. . .?” questions, making it larger each time. He was clearly uncomfortable with going much larger than “2-3 cm.” Immediately after that conversation—and fully aware that what he had just said was of considerable historical importance—I decided to purchase a tape recorder, with the appropriate attachments to record telephone conversations. I did just that, and from that point forward, had a reel-to-reel recorder on the line when I spoke with the Dallas doctors, Dr. Humes, and FBI agent James Sibert. All of this is described in chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Best Evidence:

Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum

Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda

Chapter 12: An Oral Utterance (about the S & O report)

One other thing about the trach incision, and that concerns what occurred in December, 1982 (and January, 1983), when I first came into possession of good copies of the autopsy photographs. At that time, I –along with Pat Valentino (in January)—were the first to show the autopsy photographs to a number of the Dallas doctors and nurses. Almost everyone reacted by shaking their head from left to right, and/or stating (in effect): “No, that’s not the way it was.” I summed up these interviews in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and that epilogue is also re-published (as an “Afterword”) in the 1993 New American Library edition).

Finally, there is this "postscript": In 1989, I went to Dallas –again with Pat Valentino, and this time with a a professional film crew—and showed the photographs (again) to various Dallas doctors and nurses, this time recording their reactions on camera.

To go back to the point that you have made, Daniel: My conversation with Dr. Perry was on October 27, 1966, and certainly is more significant than statements made 22 years later, after books and articles have been published, and by which time the issue became crystal clear: did somebody alter the wounds between the time the Dallas doctors saw the President’s body, and the “start time” of the Bethesda autopsy, at 8 PM on the night of November 22, 1963?

That's the issue, and based on the data presented in Best Evidence, the answer is clearly "yes."

DSL

6/11/13; 8:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The tracheostomy incision, which was shown on several of the photographs that I examined, looks exactly the same size and the same configuration as it did when Dr. Perry and I did that incision."

-- Robert McClelland; 1988*

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-shot-president-kennedy-1988-nova.html

* = Of course, given Dr. McClelland's incredibly idiotic theory about JFK's head wounds, I would have to take anything he says with a large grain of salt. But the above quote did come out of McClelland's mouth nonetheless on PBS-TV in 1988.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

When there is a conflict in the record, as there is for almost every statement made by the Dallas doctors, I would consider the earliest statements to be the most accurate. I will take Perry's 1966 comments to LIfton as definitive. It was made before it was understood there was a conflict in the record, and therefore free from bias (at least from the pressure to conform one's observations to the official record). I have not yet found any contemporaneous statements that would indicate a 6-8 cm ragged cut was made by Perry.

Daniel,

The conversation your quoted (and which I had with Dr. Malcolm Perry) took place on October 27, 1966, and is exactly as described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. Using the pretext that I was doing a research paper for a UCLA Law School class, and that it was an exercise in fact-finding, I queried Dr. Perry about the length of the trach incision. He said: “2-3 cm.” and I wrote that down, as he talked. I then asked a number of “could it have been larger than that. . .?” questions, making it larger each time. He was clearly uncomfortable with going much larger than “2-3 cm.” Immediately after that conversation—and fully aware that what he had just said was of considerable historical importance—I decided to purchase a tape recorder, with the appropriate attachments to record telephone conversations. I did just that, and from that point forward, had a reel-to-reel recorder on the line when I spoke with the Dallas doctors, Dr. Humes, and FBI agent James Sibert. All of this is described in chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Best Evidence:

Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum

Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda

Chapter 12: An Oral Utterance (about the S & O report)

One other thing about the trach incision, and that concerns what occurred in December, 1982 (and January, 1983), when I first came into possession of good copies of the autopsy photographs. At that time, I –along with Pat Valentino (in January)—were the first to show the autopsy photographs to a number of the Dallas doctors and nurses. Almost everyone reacted by shaking their head from left to right, and/or stating (in effect): “No, that’s not the way it was.” I summed up these interviews in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and that epilogue is also re-published (as an “Afterword”) in the 1993 New American Library edition).

Finally, there is this "postscript": In 1989, I went to Dallas –again with Pat Valentino, and this time with a a professional film crew—and showed the photographs (again) to various Dallas doctors and nurses, this time recording their reactions on camera.

To go back to the point that you have made, Daniel: My conversation with Dr. Perry was on October 27, 1966, and certainly is more significant than statements made 22 years later, after books and articles have been published, and by which time the issue became crystal clear: did somebody alter the wounds between the time the Dallas doctors saw the President’s body, and the “start time” of the Bethesda autopsy, at 8 PM on the night of November 22, 1963?

That's the issue, and based on the data presented in Best Evidence, the answer is clearly "yes."

DSL

6/11/13; 8:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Mr. Lifton

While it is true that tracheotomy incisions are made both horizontally and vertically, I have never understood the preference for one over the other. As it would seem that the muscles overlying the trachea tend to run up and down, it would make sense that a vertical incision would damage less muscle tissue than a horizontal incision.

Has anything in your research ever arisen that would shed some light on this matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The tracheostomy incision, which was shown on several of the photographs that I examined, looks exactly the same size and the same configuration as it did when Dr. Perry and I did that incision."

-- Robert McClelland; 1988*

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-shot-president-kennedy-1988-nova.html

* = Of course, given Dr. McClelland's incredibly idiotic theory about JFK's head wounds, I would have to take anything he says with a large grain of salt. But the above quote did come out of McClelland's mouth nonetheless on PBS-TV in 1988.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

When there is a conflict in the record, as there is for almost every statement made by the Dallas doctors, I would consider the earliest statements to be the most accurate. I will take Perry's 1966 comments to LIfton as definitive. It was made before it was understood there was a conflict in the record, and therefore free from bias (at least from the pressure to conform one's observations to the official record). I have not yet found any contemporaneous statements that would indicate a 6-8 cm ragged cut was made by Perry.

Daniel,

The conversation your quoted (and which I had with Dr. Malcolm Perry) took place on October 27, 1966, and is exactly as described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. Using the pretext that I was doing a research paper for a UCLA Law School class, and that it was an exercise in fact-finding, I queried Dr. Perry about the length of the trach incision. He said: “2-3 cm.” and I wrote that down, as he talked. I then asked a number of “could it have been larger than that. . .?” questions, making it larger each time. He was clearly uncomfortable with going much larger than “2-3 cm.” Immediately after that conversation—and fully aware that what he had just said was of considerable historical importance—I decided to purchase a tape recorder, with the appropriate attachments to record telephone conversations. I did just that, and from that point forward, had a reel-to-reel recorder on the line when I spoke with the Dallas doctors, Dr. Humes, and FBI agent James Sibert. All of this is described in chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Best Evidence:

Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum

Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda

Chapter 12: An Oral Utterance (about the S & O report)

One other thing about the trach incision, and that concerns what occurred in December, 1982 (and January, 1983), when I first came into possession of good copies of the autopsy photographs. At that time, I –along with Pat Valentino (in January)—were the first to show the autopsy photographs to a number of the Dallas doctors and nurses. Almost everyone reacted by shaking their head from left to right, and/or stating (in effect): “No, that’s not the way it was.” I summed up these interviews in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and that epilogue is also re-published (as an “Afterword”) in the 1993 New American Library edition).

Finally, there is this "postscript": In 1989, I went to Dallas –again with Pat Valentino, and this time with a a professional film crew—and showed the photographs (again) to various Dallas doctors and nurses, this time recording their reactions on camera.

To go back to the point that you have made, Daniel: My conversation with Dr. Perry was on October 27, 1966, and certainly is more significant than statements made 22 years later, after books and articles have been published, and by which time the issue became crystal clear: did somebody alter the wounds between the time the Dallas doctors saw the President’s body, and the “start time” of the Bethesda autopsy, at 8 PM on the night of November 22, 1963?

That's the issue, and based on the data presented in Best Evidence, the answer is clearly "yes."

DSL

6/11/13; 8:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Mr. Lifton

While it is true that tracheotomy incisions are made both horizontally and vertically, I have never understood the preference for one over the other. As it would seem that the muscles overlying the trachea tend to run up and down, it would make sense that a vertical incision would damage less muscle tissue than a horizontal incision.

Has anything in your research ever arisen that would shed some light on this matter?

Forgive me for interjection an opinion, but what you have observed about the nature of the neck muscles would be a good motive for Perry to make the horizontal incision as small as possible, say, 2-3 cm, so as to minimize damage to the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The tracheostomy incision, which was shown on several of the photographs that I examined, looks exactly the same size and the same configuration as it did when Dr. Perry and I did that incision."

-- Robert McClelland; 1988*

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-shot-president-kennedy-1988-nova.html

* = Of course, given Dr. McClelland's incredibly idiotic theory about JFK's head wounds, I would have to take anything he says with a large grain of salt. But the above quote did come out of McClelland's mouth nonetheless on PBS-TV in 1988.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

When there is a conflict in the record, as there is for almost every statement made by the Dallas doctors, I would consider the earliest statements to be the most accurate. I will take Perry's 1966 comments to LIfton as definitive. It was made before it was understood there was a conflict in the record, and therefore free from bias (at least from the pressure to conform one's observations to the official record). I have not yet found any contemporaneous statements that would indicate a 6-8 cm ragged cut was made by Perry.

Daniel,

The conversation your quoted (and which I had with Dr. Malcolm Perry) took place on October 27, 1966, and is exactly as described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. Using the pretext that I was doing a research paper for a UCLA Law School class, and that it was an exercise in fact-finding, I queried Dr. Perry about the length of the trach incision. He said: “2-3 cm.” and I wrote that down, as he talked. I then asked a number of “could it have been larger than that. . .?” questions, making it larger each time. He was clearly uncomfortable with going much larger than “2-3 cm.” Immediately after that conversation—and fully aware that what he had just said was of considerable historical importance—I decided to purchase a tape recorder, with the appropriate attachments to record telephone conversations. I did just that, and from that point forward, had a reel-to-reel recorder on the line when I spoke with the Dallas doctors, Dr. Humes, and FBI agent James Sibert. All of this is described in chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Best Evidence:

Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum

Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda

Chapter 12: An Oral Utterance (about the S & O report)

One other thing about the trach incision, and that concerns what occurred in December, 1982 (and January, 1983), when I first came into possession of good copies of the autopsy photographs. At that time, I –along with Pat Valentino (in January)—were the first to show the autopsy photographs to a number of the Dallas doctors and nurses. Almost everyone reacted by shaking their head from left to right, and/or stating (in effect): “No, that’s not the way it was.” I summed up these interviews in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and that epilogue is also re-published (as an “Afterword”) in the 1993 New American Library edition).

Finally, there is this "postscript": In 1989, I went to Dallas –again with Pat Valentino, and this time with a a professional film crew—and showed the photographs (again) to various Dallas doctors and nurses, this time recording their reactions on camera.

To go back to the point that you have made, Daniel: My conversation with Dr. Perry was on October 27, 1966, and certainly is more significant than statements made 22 years later, after books and articles have been published, and by which time the issue became crystal clear: did somebody alter the wounds between the time the Dallas doctors saw the President’s body, and the “start time” of the Bethesda autopsy, at 8 PM on the night of November 22, 1963?

That's the issue, and based on the data presented in Best Evidence, the answer is clearly "yes."

DSL

6/11/13; 8:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

David, there was only one "first time" for that important question to be asked of Perry,viz,, how large was the incision, and by a very great Providence you asked it at a time when the question could be asked with good certainty that it would be answered accurately. I fail to understand the extraordinary doubt cast on your work when we have such an unequivocal response from Perry on so great a matter. One cannot brush aside wound alteration if one faces Perry's assertion squarely. Yet the contempt for this ;position as "extreme" and "risible" etc. is pervasive, or so it seems. One can sit back in an arm chair and theorize Perry purposely made a wide irregular 6-8 cm incision ( as Humes describes it) for any of a number or reasons, but there was only one moment in history when Perry could first divulge the size of the incision transparently, as it were. Anyone seeking to evade the significance of Perry's admission is running from history, not seeking insights from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The tracheostomy incision, which was shown on several of the photographs that I examined, looks exactly the same size and the same configuration as it did when Dr. Perry and I did that incision."

-- Robert McClelland; 1988*

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/who-shot-president-kennedy-1988-nova.html

* = Of course, given Dr. McClelland's incredibly idiotic theory about JFK's head wounds, I would have to take anything he says with a large grain of salt. But the above quote did come out of McClelland's mouth nonetheless on PBS-TV in 1988.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

When there is a conflict in the record, as there is for almost every statement made by the Dallas doctors, I would consider the earliest statements to be the most accurate. I will take Perry's 1966 comments to LIfton as definitive. It was made before it was understood there was a conflict in the record, and therefore free from bias (at least from the pressure to conform one's observations to the official record). I have not yet found any contemporaneous statements that would indicate a 6-8 cm ragged cut was made by Perry.

Daniel,

The conversation your quoted (and which I had with Dr. Malcolm Perry) took place on October 27, 1966, and is exactly as described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. Using the pretext that I was doing a research paper for a UCLA Law School class, and that it was an exercise in fact-finding, I queried Dr. Perry about the length of the trach incision. He said: “2-3 cm.” and I wrote that down, as he talked. I then asked a number of “could it have been larger than that. . .?” questions, making it larger each time. He was clearly uncomfortable with going much larger than “2-3 cm.” Immediately after that conversation—and fully aware that what he had just said was of considerable historical importance—I decided to purchase a tape recorder, with the appropriate attachments to record telephone conversations. I did just that, and from that point forward, had a reel-to-reel recorder on the line when I spoke with the Dallas doctors, Dr. Humes, and FBI agent James Sibert. All of this is described in chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Best Evidence:

Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum

Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda

Chapter 12: An Oral Utterance (about the S & O report)

One other thing about the trach incision, and that concerns what occurred in December, 1982 (and January, 1983), when I first came into possession of good copies of the autopsy photographs. At that time, I –along with Pat Valentino (in January)—were the first to show the autopsy photographs to a number of the Dallas doctors and nurses. Almost everyone reacted by shaking their head from left to right, and/or stating (in effect): “No, that’s not the way it was.” I summed up these interviews in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and that epilogue is also re-published (as an “Afterword”) in the 1993 New American Library edition).

Finally, there is this "postscript": In 1989, I went to Dallas –again with Pat Valentino, and this time with a a professional film crew—and showed the photographs (again) to various Dallas doctors and nurses, this time recording their reactions on camera.

To go back to the point that you have made, Daniel: My conversation with Dr. Perry was on October 27, 1966, and certainly is more significant than statements made 22 years later, after books and articles have been published, and by which time the issue became crystal clear: did somebody alter the wounds between the time the Dallas doctors saw the President’s body, and the “start time” of the Bethesda autopsy, at 8 PM on the night of November 22, 1963?

That's the issue, and based on the data presented in Best Evidence, the answer is clearly "yes."

DSL

6/11/13; 8:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Mr. Lifton

While it is true that tracheotomy incisions are made both horizontally and vertically, I have never understood the preference for one over the other. As it would seem that the muscles overlying the trachea tend to run up and down, it would make sense that a vertical incision would damage less muscle tissue than a horizontal incision.

Has anything in your research ever arisen that would shed some light on this matter?

Forgive me for interjection an opinion, but what you have observed about the nature of the neck muscles would be a good motive for Perry to make the horizontal incision as small as possible, say, 2-3 cm, so as to minimize damage to the area.

Mr. Gallup

While only the skin and underlying cutaneous layers are cut with a scalpel during a tracheotomy and the long muscles are only pulled aside with forks to expose the trachea, the muscles would seem prone to accidental cutting in a horizontal or transverse cut, due to their close proximity to the cutaneous layer. It would seem only logical to cut vertically to avoid damaging the muscles accidentally.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/imagesCA3GP4WY_zps02b6f4ee.jpg

And, of course, you are correct in surmising that, if a horizontal incision is made, making it as short as possible would minimize the risk of damage to muscles in that area.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip to save space]

Daniel,

[snipped to save space]

Mr. Lifton

While it is true that tracheotomy incisions are made both horizontally and vertically, I have never understood the preference for one over the other. As it would seem that the muscles overlying the trachea tend to run up and down, it would make sense that a vertical incision would damage less muscle tissue than a horizontal incision.

Has anything in your research ever arisen that would shed some light on this matter?

Not really. But it must be understood that Dr. Perry testified twice-- in a WC deposition in Dallas, and another time before the entire Warren Commission in Washington, D.C.--that his incision was horizontal. He also told me, when we spoke (and I was asking questions leading to the notion of a larger incision than 2-3 cm) that it was a general principle of surgery not to make the incision any larger than need be. The clear implication was that "2-3 cm" --which was the length he gave me--was quite adequate for the task at hand.

DSL

6/12/13; 1:50 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
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...