Jump to content
The Education Forum

Possible origin of throat wound?

Ron Ecker

Recommended Posts

In his WC testimony, SS agent Roy Kellerman stated that JFK had four wounds. In doing so, he answers the question about the location of an entry wound in the back of the head. It was in the hairline below the large exit wound.

Could a bullet entering at the hairline have exited the throat, without leaving a large exit wound, and thus account for the origin of the throat wound?

Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy.

Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.


Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?

Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed.

Mr. SPECTER. All right.

Representative FORD. Above the ear and back?

Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?

Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him.

Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?

Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger.


Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was the position of that opening with respect to the portion of the skull which you have described as being removed or absent?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, I am going to have to describe it similar to this. Let's say part of your skull is removed here; this is below.

Mr. SPECTER. You have described a distance of approximately an inch and a half, 2 inches, below.

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is correct; about that, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. All right. What other wounds, if any, did you notice on the President?

Mr. KELLERMAN. The other wound that I noticed was on his shoulder.

Mr. SPECTER. Which shoulder.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right shoulder.

Mr. SPECTER. And was it--what was its general position with respect to the breadth of the back?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right straight.

Mr. SPECTER. No. Upper shoulder, lower shoulder; how far below the lower neckline would you say?

Mr. KELLERMAN. The upper neckline, sir, in that large muscle between the shoulder and the neck, just below it.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that opening?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Again about the size of a little finger.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, have you described three wounds which you have observed?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is three. The fourth one I will have to collaborate with--the medical people in Dallas said that he had entry in the throat or an exit.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, Al will not tolerate an anti-Castro, Mafia or corrupt police viewpoint. For that position to be condoned, even supported, renders this forum useless.


I think his Al's position may be accepted or rejected by anyone as he/she wishes. The trouble I see is that if you you do not agree with Al, you are "part of the problem" or an "idiot". In other words Al seems to think his position is gospel.  But there are enough ballistics experts who do not see eye to eye with him on everything. 


Obviously Al doesn't follow rule "v", since anyone who believes there are dirty cops is labeled "rediculous." He also doesn't follow the rule of logic, given his Catch-22 argument that no one who confesses, such as Tosh, could be genuine, and given the projection of his own performance in Latin America for which he certainly would never confess. He doesn't think anyone else should be allowed to comment, but when I posted new information about the massacre of dozens of police at Caro Quintero's ranch near Vera Cruz and asked for him to comment, he would not. So the Catch-22: as we search for the truth, he shuts down historians who didn't engage in murderous acts themselves in Latin America or have records of ongoing police abuse in America. Anyone who was there and admits it, must not have actually been there.

On Lancer, Al gave an ultimatum for certain people to be kicked off the forum, including the one he referred to on this forum as a "Nazi" (attacks don't get more personal than that; and he has made that statement on this forum). When not a single person spoke in support of him, he was silenced. That's history. Now, as Wim cited, people who don't kneel down before Al's murderous expertise are labeled "fantasy chasers," which is not considered personal attack here. He uses profanity and that's acceptable language here.

I don't sit back for police abuse, on the streets or on-line. That's not anti-establishment; that's pro-freedom.

Tim Carroll

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
  • Create New...