JFK's "SHALLOW" BACK WOUND REVISITED (FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME)

[Sandy Larsen]

Last winter we discussed the throat wound at length, in that thread that had been started by Ashton Gray quite a while ago. At the time our discussion petered out, I felt that the evidence for a below-the-shirtline wound was more convincing than that for an above-the-shirtline wound. I found Ashton's two animated GIFs to be both impressive and persuasive. They indicate that the shirt slits were at about the same location as the throat wound.

I posted some photos in that thread of an actual tracheostomy procedure. I believe they tended to support the location of the wound and tracheostomy incision we see in the stare-of-death photos. But I'm not certain of that... it's been so long.

I haven't changed my opinion since then. I haven't given it a lot of thought.

[Ray Mitcham]

I still wonder how a bullet travelling through shirt material makes slits rather than holes.

[James R Gordon]

Ray,

You are absolutely right, a bullet would not create such damage. This damage was created at Parkland.

It was most likely a scalpel when it was being used to cut the tie off. When the shirt is buttoned up - as it was when JFK arrived at Parkland - then the Left side would be over the left side. The importance of this is that when the scalpel touched the shirt - when cutting off the tie it also cut through the shirt. However the Right side - which when the shirt is buttoned is underneath - has smaller damage. This makes clear that the impact on the shirt was lighter here and the damage here smaller.

Below is an image of the tie - although we have no image from the 22nd of the tie - this suggests what it would have looked liked when cut off.

If we are to believe that this is damage caused by a bullet. It might be worth noting that this exit/entrance hole is below the collar line. We know the damage to the trachea was around rings 2 and 3. Well if this is bullet damage that is a quite a distance from there.

James

[Sandy Larsen]

I still wonder how a bullet travelling through shirt material makes slits rather than holes.

It was a long, slender shard of bone IMO. It hit the back of the tie knot, pushed the knot out with what little kinetic energy it had left, and then stopped. It nicked the tie where it hit.

The tie was subsequently loosened by somebody, then re-tied. Doing so relocated the nick from the back of the knot to the side.

My hypothesis.

Note about the location of of tracheal rings: Tracheal rings are located in different places depending upon the person. For example, my first tracheal ring is located below my sternal notch when I'm holding my head upright. The top of my tie knot lies just below the bottom of my thyroid cartilage.

To prove my point, here is a tracheostomy technique that simplifies the procedure in patients "whose upper tracheal rings are substernal." Like mine are.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[James R Gordon]

Sandy,

So if I understand you what you are saying it is that a shard of bone - yet to be specified from where did the following:-

a) It penetrated the left side of JFK's shirt - Causing the damage we see on the highlighted by the R

Then this bone fragment continued to penetrate the left side of the shirt that was buttoned on top of the right side indicated by the letter L. However this time it created damage that is much larger than on the inside of the shirt.

c) Jfk's tie was knotted so that the area that is damaged - and was probably a scalpel nick - was now at the back of the tie. Later the tie was re-knotted allowing this damage area to now be seen on the front of the knot.

I'm sorry that does not seem logical to me. In addition if trachea rings 2 & 3 were - depending on the individual as you suggest - were as low as that, then where do you imagine trachea rings 4 to 7 were in this body????

James

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

So if I understand you what you are saying it is that a shard of bone - yet to be specified from where did the following:-

a) It penetrated the left side of JFK's shirt - Causing the damage we see on the highlighted by the R

b ) Then this bone fragment continued to penetrate the left side of the shirt that was buttoned on top of the right side indicated by the letter L. However this time it created damage that is much larger than on the inside of the shirt.

c) Jfk's tie was knotted so that the area that is damaged - and was probably a scalpel nick - was now at the back of the tie. Later the tie was re-knotted allowing this damage area to now be seen on the front of the knot.

I'm sorry that does not seem logical to me. In addition if trachea rings 2 & 3 were - depending on the individual as you suggest - were as low as that, then where do you imagine trachea rings 4 to 7 were in this body????

James

James,

When I look at the so-called slits, what I see are two similarly sized tears in fabric. They (especially the one on anatomical left) look long because of some frayed threads extending up toward the shirtline. The tear on anatomical left looks like a small hole to me. If one were to flatten the fabric and straighten the threads, I suspect the hole would close up and would look much like the tear on the anatomical right.

I'm not sure what you're asking when you say, "if trachea rings 2 & 3 were - depending on the individual as you suggest - were as low as that, then where do you imagine trachea rings 4 to 7 were in this body????" As low as what?

The autopsy photos show the location of the tracheotomy incision, which of course is above the sternal notch. The number of rings (below rings 2 & 3 or 3 & 4) hidden by the sternum may not be many, judging by the x-ray of Kennedy's chest. You can tell by where the clavicle bones meet the sternum that Kennedy's sternal notch is unusually low. Which would tend to expose more rings. Maybe all 7 rings are above the notch. AFAIK there is no way of knowing.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[James R Gordon]

Sandy,

I assume you have not looked closely enough. These slits are not similar in size. In screen pixels on my screen the R slit is 67.91 pixels whereas the L slit is 101.32 pixels.

With regard to the trachea rings I was referring to this:

"Note about the location of of tracheal rings: Tracheal rings are located in different places depending upon the person. For example, my first tracheal ring is located below my sternal notch when I'm holding my head upright. The top of my tie knot lies just below the bottom of my thyroid cartilage."

I am not at all sure what you mean by:

"The autopsy photos show the location of the tracheotomy incision, which of course is above the sternal notch. The number of rings (below rings 2 & 3 or 3 & 4) hidden by the sternum may not be many, judging by the x-ray of Kennedy's chest. You can tell by where the clavicle bones meet the sternum that Kennedy's sternal notch is unusually low. Which would tend to expose more rings. Maybe all the rings are above the notch. AFAIK there is no way of knowing."

Maybe it is me but I do not see what you mean by the point "The autopsy photos show the location of the tracheotomy incision." I know where the autopsy incision will have been, but I do not see that in the said Xray. Looking at the Xray above C7 is just below the notch protruding just above it. Above C7 we can see C6, C5, C4 and the beginning of C3. So I am not quite sure what is meant the above statement.

James.

[Tom Neal]

The slits were tested at the FBI Lab - no metal was found. No metal no bullet.

Harold Weisberg is the sole originator of the scalpel theory - no doctor or nurse ever claimed to have used a scalpel. Audrey Bell was the head nurse of the Trauma Room. When she arrived JFK's clothing was being removed. She states that she "grabbed a pair of scissors" and assisted in clothing removal. Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, a 10-year veteran of that TR, set up the equipment before JFK was brought in. No TR is without multiple pairs of scissors. No nurse would pass a scalpel that close to a patients throat to cut off a necktie. Dr. James Carrico demonstrated the procedure for removing the JFK's tie by forming his index and middle fingers into a "V" and making snipping motions. JFK's shirt was unbuttoned by Carrico and opened before the tie was cut - would the slits only overlap when the shirt was fully buttoned if the slits had been made with the shirt spread open? The slits are completely through the shirt for a length of 1/2" yet there is no corresponding cut in JFK's body. Look at the photo of the actual cuts made in the jacket and shirt to remove them. Try and do that many long cuts through a suit jacket with an ultra-thin scalpel which is NOT designed to cut cloth. There is no such thing as a clothing-cutting scalpel.

Alleging a bone fragment causing the slits requires a scenario in which this fragment is created and propelled through 1/2 the circumference of the trachea, subcutaneous tissue, the skin and the shirt, yet does not leave any mark whatsoever on the back of the necktie. Where is the entry wound for the bullet that created this alleged bone fragment? What path did the bullet travel? Without all of the above, this bone fragment isn't even conjecture - it's fantasy.

[Tom Neal]

Last winter we discussed the throat wound at length, in that thread that had been started by Ashton Gray quite a while ago. At the time our discussion petered out, I felt that the evidence for a below-the-shirtline wound was more convincing than that for an above-the-shirtline wound. I found Ashton's two animated GIFs to be both impressive and persuasive.

As was discussed in the thread you refer to, the shoulders of the shirt are aligned with the shadow of the shoulders on the table - not with JFK's shoulders. As was discussed in the original thread and later, the shirt and tie are too high.

They indicate that the shirt slits were at about the same location as the throat wound.

IIRC Ashton still believes his GIF is correct, but acknowledges that the slits are too low to correspond with the throat wound.

Why don't you post the GIF as evidence so others can share your belief?

Edited August 31, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

I assume you have not looked closely enough. These slits are not similar in size. In screen pixels on my screen the R slit is 67.91 pixels whereas the L slit is 101.32 pixels.

Yes, I have looked very closely.

Look at the tear/slit on the anatomical left. It looks longer than the tear on the right. Just as you have said. But the upper part of the tear is really a couple of threads IMO. To me it looks like there are just a couple of threads up there.

With regard to the trachea rings I was referring to this:

"Note about the location of of tracheal rings: Tracheal rings are located in different places depending upon the person. For example, my first tracheal ring is located below my sternal notch when I'm holding my head upright. The top of my tie knot lies just below the bottom of my thyroid cartilage."

I am not at all sure what you mean by:

"The autopsy photos show the location of the tracheotomy incision, which of course is above the sternal notch. The number of rings (below rings 2 & 3 or 3 & 4) hidden by the sternum may not be many, judging by the x-ray of Kennedy's chest. You can tell by where the clavicle bones meet the sternum that Kennedy's sternal notch is unusually low. Which would tend to expose more rings. Maybe all the rings are above the notch. AFAIK there is no way of knowing."

Maybe it is me but I do not see what you mean by the point "The autopsy photos show the location of the tracheotomy incision." I know where the autopsy incision will have been, but I do not see that in the said Xray. Looking at the Xray above C7 is just below the notch protruding just above it. Above C7 we can see C6, C5, C4 and the beginning of C3. So I am not quite sure what is meant the above statement.

I meant to say, "The autopsy photos show the location of the tracheotomy incision relative to the sternal notch." But that sentence isn't really necessary for the remainder of the paragraph.

I'm not sure how we went from tracheal rings to cervical vertebrae.

James.

[Sandy Larsen]

Alleging a bone fragment causing the slits requires a scenario in which this fragment is created and propelled through 1/2 the circumference of the trachea, subcutaneous tissue, the skin and the shirt, yet does not leave any mark whatsoever on the back of the necktie. Where is the entry wound for the bullet that created this alleged bone fragment? What path did the bullet travel? Without all of the above, this bone fragment isn't even conjecture - it's fantasy.

I have a sound hypothesis for the path of the bullet through the body, and how the bone fragment was propelled out the front of the neck. I just haven't presented it yet.

I already explained above that the bone fragment did leave a mark on the necktie.

[Tom Neal]

It was a long, slender shard of bone IMO. It hit the back of the tie knot, pushed the knot out with what little kinetic energy it had left, and then stopped. It nicked the tie where it hit.

No long slender shard of bone was found in the wound or in the vicinity of the wound. Therefore even to speculate that one existed requires a reasonable explanation as to how this wound could possibly have been created by a bone, AND how it could have done the things you require it to do. Without this you can say with equal assurance that is was a chicken bone from the snack he had during the limo ride...

The tie was subsequently loosened by somebody, then re-tied. Doing so relocated the nick from the back of the knot to the side.

This alleged "nick" is a hole with the blue fabric completely removed, exposing the white tie liner. So the "long slender bone fragment" slit the shirt, *removed" a piece of cloth from the tie without leaving a mark in the liner or any blood or tissue, and completely exited the wound.

The FBI Lab states that it tested a sample removed from the necktie. Their stated procedure is to remove the sample as close as possible to the suspect area. If this "nick" was caused by a bone fragment, where is the hole created when the fabric was removed from the tie? The evidence photo depicts both sides of the unknotted tie - a hole would be easily visible due to the white fabric lining the interior of the tie that was not removed. IMO, the alleged nick *is* the removed sample.

Note about the location of of tracheal rings: Tracheal rings are located in different places depending upon the person. For example, my first tracheal ring is located below my sternal notch when I'm holding my head upright.

The first one you can feel - possibly. In most tracheostomy procedures the tracheal cartilage must be retracted to allow access to the upper tracheal rings. How can anyone feel them through this cartilage?

The trachea begins at the base of the Adam's apple. Therefore you are saying your Adam's Apple is located at or below the sternal notch. ???!!!

Where is your evidence that JFK's 2nd tracheal ring was substernal? The stare of death photo clearly depicts the trach incision AND the upper half of the circular bullet wound in the margin of the incision which is located at the 2nd tracheal ring. It is located quite close to the base of the Adam's Apple despite the EXTREME retraction of the lower margin of the incision. The substernal notch is also visible, many inches BELOW the wound.

JFK's 2nd tracheal ring is just below his Adam's Apple. Given the size of tracheal rings, the wound is at most 3/8" below his Adam's Apple - not the cartilage below it. The shirt slits are well below the collar button (supply your own measurements if you like) and therefore below the lower edge of the necktie knot.

The photo I have posted and referenced many times of JFK speaking at a podium on 11-22-1963 wearing the *SAME* shirt and tie that he was wearing when shot clearly shows his entire Adam's Apple and cartilage is above the top of his collar. Verify this with the skin folds in his neck, here, and in the SOD photo. The shirt slits however are below the knot in his tie.

My estimate is the shirt slits are 1 1/2" lower than the throat wound, and if true these slits could not have been created by any missile departing the throat wound.

[Ray Mitcham]

Again, if it was a sliver of bone, how would it cause a neat 6mm hole in JFK's throat, as described by Dr Perry?

[Tom Neal]

I have a sound hypothesis for the path of the bullet through the body, and how the bone fragment was propelled out the front of the neck. I just haven't presented it yet.

I've asked you to present this "sound hypothesis" for months and months. Haven't heard even the vaguest description of it yet. What reason other than 'it isn't ready for presentation' could there be? If it isn't ready for presentation even now, then you concluded months ago that your theory is correct without any evidence to back it up. Not quite the Scientific Method is it?

You have stated that your previous back wound "hypothesis" is "conjecture' and that "you have never claimed it was anything else." Will this "sound hypothesis" include actual evidence or is it too 'complete conjecture?'

You will no doubt label the above as a "snarky comment", but these are YOUR WORDS I'm using, so it is a legitimate question. If this is also 'complete conjecture' I'm not interested. If it includes what you deem as "evidence" it should prove interesting...

BTW, do you have a response yet to my statement regarding your EOP/Front shot cause for the forward then back movement of JFK's head?

Edited August 31, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

Again, if it was a sliver of bone, how would it cause a neat 6mm hole in JFK's throat, as described by Dr Perry?

Ray,

I've already heard his explanation for this - I'm eager to hear if your response is similar to mine, which didn't affect his belief at all...

Tom