Mili Cranor on the Wide Tracheotomy

[Micah Mileto]

CAN ANYBODY WITH BETTER EARS HELP MAKE A MORE COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT? many parts are difficult to make out.

 

 

Perry: I recognize, as I said earlier, I was in a big hurry. He had agonal respiration. I didn’t even wipe the blood off.

 

Oakes: Yeah.

 

Perry: Soon as I saw there was trouble with breathing, I did a trach.

 

Oakes: Yeah- Yeah.

 

Perry: I cut right through that wound and nobody else ever saw it. [inaudible] big enough to do the trach and to handle bleeding that was coming out, so it was big enough to do a little operation on it, but [inaudible]. And I did say that, and I followed that sentence by saying that neither Dr. Clark nor I know how many bullets there were or where they came from.

 

Oakes: Right.

 

[...]

 

Oakes: Is the trach incision just like a quarter-inch or something, or?

 

Perry: No.

 

Oakes: It’s bigger?

 

Perry: A tracheotomy incision has to be big enough to fit a big ol’ tube in the trachea, but I made this bigger than a tracheostomy incision [inaudible]

 

Oakes: Oh.

 

Perry: I made it big enough to do [inaudible], I mean, who knows. I mean, it was big enough. [inaudible]

 

Oakes: That’s why. They try to make a big deal out of the- the wound-

 

Perry: [inaudible] people don’t know anything about [inaudible]

 

Oakes: Wow.

 

Perry: Somebody who knows something about this business wouldn’t make a big deal about it. They’re amateurs, they’ll say something, but what do they know? I mean, [inaudible] been there. When you’re there, you get the incision big enough to control the airway and to control the breathing-

 

Oakes: Right.

 

Perry: Which is what I did.

 

Oakes: Right.

 

Perry: And I didn’t measure it, I didn’t [inaudible], I didn’t fiddle with it, I was in a hurry.

 

Oakes: Wow.

 

Perry: -big enough, but I put a big ol’ metal tracheostomy tube in there with a flange on it, like we used to have in the old days, now we have much smaller modern stuff, bu what we used in 1963 was a big ol’ metal flange which further destroyed the tissues, and any one who’s experienced in this business wouldn’t give that a second thought. Only all of these conspiracists and amateurs who have opinions about something they know nothing about.

 

Oakes: Right.

 

Perry: And that’s what’s happened. Doesn’t do any good to tell them, they’ve already been told, they didn’t believe it the first time around, so [inaudible] now.

 

Oakes: Oh that’s-

 

Perry: [inaudible] make money, all these books and stuff.

 

Caller: Yeah.

 

Perry: [inaudible] really care. I gotta go to work, nice to talk to you.

 

Caller: Oh, well thank you, Dr. Perry, I-

 

Perry: [inaudible]

 

Caller: Yeah, I- I’ll tell her.

 

Perry: [inaudible]

Edited November 22, 2021 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

Couldn't finish "The Case For An Altered Throat Wound" today. Stay tuned.

[Micah Mileto]

I do find it very strange that nobody through the years thought to directly ask Perry to fully explain if he got a chance to lay his eyes on the pleura. No wonder Perry didn't like dealing with "conspiracy theorists" aka people who ask specific questions. Does my quote above not look as if Perry was reading through a script really fast (not saying he was, but the tone is similar, who knows if he really ended the interview because he had to go to work).

Edited November 23, 2021 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

On 3/15/2018 at 2:38 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Not so. He did not seem to infer the presence of blood and air in the right mediastinum.”  He said he saw it there. He also said he saw no injury to the lung or pleural space.  He also said the blood could have hidden any small injuries – but he did say he saw the structures themselves.

 

What he did infer was that the blood and air in the R mediastinum could be indicative of a wound in the right hemithorax:

 

“I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.  Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax…”  (Previously I quoted Dr Perry’s testimony from Volume 3.  But this quote is from Volume 6, p.10:)

 

Of course we have no way of knowing what Dr. Perry actually saw. We only know what he said he saw. And some of his comments are more ambiguous than others.  The best we can do is present the most relevant testimony – and to not characterize it falsely.

 

 

 

Wait, didn't Perry only say he thought there was blood and air in the right mediastinum, because there was blood bubbling out of the original throat wound?

[Micah Mileto]

On 3/15/2018 at 3:33 PM, Andrej Stancak said:

Dear Mrs. Cranor:

My name is Stancak, for your information. 

Dr. Perry could not see the mediastinum , the lungs or the pleura, from the level of the 2nd tracheal ring. This area is still in the neck, not in the chest. A wide incision at the level of the 2nd tracheal ring would not help in seeing the mediastinum either. Please view the anatomical sketch I posted in my previous post.

I am not a surgeon, however, I have conducted several tracheostomies in rats during my junior lectureship period at a medical faculty. I know how bleeding in the vicinity of trachea looks like.

You now see that an incision of 3-4 cm was enough for Dr. Perry to see the medial aspects of the carotid arteries, and in particular to check if there was any bleeding from the carotid arteries. As there was none, it was not necessary to make a longer incision than 3-4 cm. Even if Dr. Perry made your collar type of incision, which he never admitted doing it, he would not see the mediastinum from that level of the trachea. I have quoted Dr. Perry's statement which confirms this view. Dr. Perry saw frothing of blood with bubbles of air. The air could only come from the trachea or from the punctured lungs. He could exclude the trachea, and he could then infer on the source of the bleeding and air bubbling from their direction. It was on the right side, so it could only be the right superior mediastinum. I am copying again the relevant part of Dr. Perry's testimony:

Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.
As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves. But in the presence of this large amount of blood in this area, one would be unable to detect small injuries to the underlying structures. The air was indicated by the fact that there was some frothing of this blood present, bubbling which could have been due to the tracheal injury or an underlying injury to the lung. 

My mistake of not realising that an incision of 3-4 cm was enough to inspect the carotid arteries in the vicinity of the gunshot was admitted by me. I thought for a moment, from your description of the collar incision theory, that a wide incision was necessary to view the arteries on sides of the neck, and only later I realised that this was not necessary because the carotid arteries run in parallel with the trachea. A moment of stupidity on my side for which I apologise.

Of course, there is a variety of contradictory testimonies and also different views about the appearance of the frontal neck wound, and your view is one them.

 

Mrs. Cranor may have invented a new game called "let's find a quote from Perry where he specifically says he laid eyes on the pleural area". I can't find any. Are we sure we aren't falling victim to some kind of kindergarten trick? Perry said that he DID NOT see evidence of damage to the pleural area or major blood vessels. He didn't say that he tried looking, he just said that he didn't see it. I didn't see it either. Perry DID NOT specifically say that he actually saw the inside of the pleural area. Perry did say that he thought there was "blood and air" or "bloody air" in the mediastinum because blood was frothing out of the throat wound. "Hematoma" doesn't mean the appearance of a bruise, it just means localized bleeding outside of blood vessels.

[Steven Kossor]

In my reading of Perry’s report at the 2:15 pm press conference, he doesn’t mention his tracheotomy incision at all.  He only talks about the endotracheal intubation performed by Carrico.  It appears that he realized that JFK was already dead when he cut into the throat and just distanced himself asap from the implication of that action by telling only about Carrico’s work (which appears to have fooled Perry & others into believing that JFK was still alive).  The tales told after 2:15 pm on 11/22/63 just muddied the water further in the search for cover.  Or so it seems to me.  

[Micah Mileto]

6 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

In my reading of Perry’s report at the 2:15 pm press conference, he doesn’t mention his tracheotomy incision at all.  He only talks about the endotracheal intubation performed by Carrico.  It appears that he realized that JFK was already dead when he cut into the throat and just distanced himself asap from the implication of that action by telling only about Carrico’s work (which appears to have fooled Perry & others into believing that JFK was still alive).  The tales told after 2:15 pm on 11/22/63 just muddied the water further in the search for cover.  Or so it seems to me.  

Neither the press conference nor any of the early Parkland reports specifically mention an incision being made on the neck, they just use the word "tracheotomy" or "tracheostomy". The definition of that word is strained when we are talking about a pre-existing hole in the trachea.

[Steven Kossor]

Malcolm Perry actually spelled out E-N-D-O-T-R-A-C-H-E-A-L for a reporter in the 2:15 pm press conference to be certain that he was referring to the procedure performed by Dr. Carrico before Perry arrived at the ER, which involved the passage of a tube into the mouth and down the throat (endotracheal) to create an airway.  The problem was, Carrico's insertion of the endotracheal tube was incorrect (the cuff was inflated above the level of the wound, so it did not seal the trachea) and Perry removed it to do the tracheotomy incision in the neck to improve the President's respiration capacity.  Since JFK was already dead (he was "cyanotic" meaning that his body had been deprived of oxygen for several minutes), Carrico's insertion of the endotracheal tube sent the inaccurate message to the doctors who arrived soon afterward that JFK was still alive.  Perry's initiation of a tracheotomy incision, assisted by Drs. McClelland and Baxter, on a dead body was an action that Perry and the other doctors were distancing themselves from by the time of the 2:15 pm press conference.  The reports of "agonal respiration" filed by several of the ER doctors were apparently made to justify Carrico's insertion of the endotracheal tube, but the description of JFK's body and the extensive nature of his brain injuries at the time of its arrival at Parkland are incompatible with any respiratory (or circulatory) activity being present for at least a few minutes prior to the time Dr. Carrico inserted the endotracheal tracheotomy tube into JFK's throat.  His reasons for performing a medical procedure on a dead body remain obscure.  Neurologist Kemp Clark (who pronounced JFK dead) backed up Carrico's action when he later wrote in a Trauma text book edited by Parkland's Dr. Tom Shires, that the most important thing in a case of a gunshot wound to the head is to establish respiration; more important than controlling bleeding, apparently, according to Dr Clark.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Steven Kossor
spelling error

[Micah Mileto]

3 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

Malcolm Perry actually spelled out E-N-D-O-T-R-A-C-H-E-A-L for a reporter in the 2:15 pm press conference to be certain that he was referring to the procedure performed by Dr. Carrico before Perry arrived at the ER, which involved the passage of a tube into the mouth and down the throat (endotracheal) to create an airway.  The problem was, Carrico's insertion of the endotracheal tube was incorrect (the cuff was inflated above the level of the wound, so it did not seal the trachea) and Perry removed it to do the tracheotomy incision in the neck to improve the President's respiration capacity.  Since JFK was already dead (he was "cyanotic" meaning that his body had been deprived of oxygen for several minutes), Carrico's insertion of the endotracheal tube sent the inaccurate message to the doctors who arrived soon afterward that JFK was still alive.  Perry's initiation of a tracheotomy incision, assisted by Drs. McClelland and Baxter, on a dead body was an action that Perry and the other doctors were distancing themselves from by the time of the 2:15 pm press conference.  The reports of "agonal respiration" filed by several of the ER doctors were apparently made to justify Carrico's insertion of the endotracheal tube, but the description of JFK's body and the extensive nature of his brain injuries at the time of its arrival at Parkland are incompatible with any respiratory (or circulatory) activity being present for at least a few minutes prior to the time Dr. Carrico inserted the endotracheal tracheotomy tube into JFK's throat.  His reasons for performing a medical procedure on a dead body remain obscure.  Neurologist Kemp Clark (who pronounced JFK dead) backed up Carrico's action when he later wrote in a Trauma text book edited by Parkland's Dr. Tom Shires, that the most important thing in a case of a gunshot wound to the head is to establish respiration; more important than controlling bleeding, apparently, according to Dr Clark.

That's a double-whammy of a theory right there - not only does it put the tracheotomy into question, it gives an answer for why, if there was a blow-out in the occipital area, the Parkland staff claimed JFK appeared to be breathing.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Micah Mileto

[David Lifton]

On 3/16/2018 at 12:57 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Jim:

the collar incision in the drawing shown in Mrs. Cranor article appears lower in the neck than the incision/gash seen in the autopsy photograph.

11/25/21 - 4:45 PST

Hi Andrej: If you would, please send me your email address, so that I may communicate with you privately (should I wish to do that). Please send your email address to me at:  dlifton@earthlink.net.  (Take care with the spelling: Again: dlifton@earthlink.net).   FYI: There's considerably more information that I have, but I don't wish to publish it on the London Education Forum.  Thanks.  DSL 

P.S.  Quoting from your post:  QUOTE: Miss Cranor's misinterpretation of the final appearance of the neck wound as being the result of a wide collar incision was outrageous and prompted me to respond. At some point, I realized that she and James DiEugenio, for some incomprehensible to me reason, disliked your work and were willing to invent (the) most outrageous ideas to refute it. UNQUOTE.     Yes, Andrej, I agree, and this is one (of several) areas which I would like to expand upon, but in private.  Thanks.  DSL

[David Lifton]

On 3/12/2018 at 9:46 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Milicent Cranor is one of the best we have on the medical evidence.  Her articles are always acute and well documented.

Here, she looked up Malcolm Perry's writings on the subject to argue her case.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ricochet-of-a-lie-and-kennedy-s-throat-wound

DSL Comment:  No, Jim DiEugenio," Milicent Cranor is certainly not "the best we have on the medical evidence." (And who is "we", anyway?  Are you now the self-appointed head of some faculty?  Is she (Milicent) the "mother hen" of some kind of medico-legal fraternity?)    If Milicent Cranor was rational and sober (and if she could free herself from the adulation she has had, for years, for Gary Aguilar), she would face the basic fact that JFK's wounds were altered prior to autopsy. (Which is why the two FBI agents present at the autopsy, Sibert and, O'Neill, reported hat it was "apparent" that JFK's body had, as in ("already had") "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  An which is why the Bethesda head wound is 400% larger than the Dallas head wound).  Instead, Milicent spends her time attempting to construct a case that President Kennedy had an unusually "wide" tracheotomy.  (Yeah, sure!).  Is that why Dr. Perry told me, on 10/27/66, that his trach incision was "2 - 3 cm." in width, confirmed by Dr. Carrico?  (Who added that it had "smooth" edges? Whereas the Bethesda autopsy reported it was "6.5" cm in width, and had had "widely gaping irregular edges"? See Ch 11 of B.E. where all this data is spelled out).    And is that why, when Commander Humes, the Bethesda autopsy physician,  was under oath, in March 1966, he testified that it was "7 - 8 cm" in width? 

What kind of "research" is that?  Let me flash back some decades ago, when I first met Cranor, spending hours alone with her, in her apartment.  Its obvious from the books on her shelves, that she was (and probably still is) a wanna-be physicist.  I'm glad she's not working as a "detective advisor" to a deputy chief of the New York City police department. Her views ought to be based on the evidence, and not designed to be affected by -- or congruent with -- those of some opthamologist that she has a crush on.  (DSL, 12/10/2021)

[Micah Mileto]

On 12/10/2021 at 3:31 PM, David Lifton said:

 

Mr. L,

 

Would it be accurate to say that, it is incorrect to dismiss your early Parkland Dr. interviews on the short trach incision, because the average human trachea is only 2.7 cm in max diameter, and your early interviews gave figures of about 2-4 centimeters?

Earlier I was wondering if the Drs. could have been misunderstanding the purpose of your questions, and only gave you the length of their incision in the trachea instead of the length of the incisions across all throat tissues. But a FOUR centimeter incision across the trachea would be like slicing it all the way through, no? So the Drs. earlier estimations must have been describing the incisions across all throat tissues?

Edited December 12, 2021 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

On 12/10/2021 at 3:31 PM, David Lifton said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySO0pLcN5ww&

At 45:28 into this 2015 interview with Dr. Robert McClelland, he says   "We know that he had a little wound in his neck, next to but not through the windpipe".

 

Do you have any idea what this could mean? I have sensed before, while reading earlier Parkland medical statements, some hesitation or vagueness in describing damage to the trachea. Is it possible the trachea was not pierced at all, but rather just the tissue next to it? I was under the impression that the official story had the bullet piercing the right side of the trachea, leaving an open wound, and that the trachea ended up (officially) having both a pre-existing defect from a bullet and the surgical defect made over it. Maybe the Parkland witnesses just had a hard time making out the nature of the injuries under the blood and darkness or just couldn't remember?

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by Micah Mileto