The Clean Cut Throat Wound

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV--

I am a layman.

You are in the States.

Why not send a couple e-mails to pathology organizations in the US, asking for experts.

1. Then ask if a probe into a bullet hole is ever blocked, by shifting internal organs, muscles, etc.

2. Do bullets always follow a straight line through a human body? 

I sent an e-mail to a pathology organization, but as I am offshore, I think my e-mails go into a spam folder. 

Can a bullet entering to the right of T3 on a downward angle leave a hairline fracture at T1?

Don’t be surprised if you don’t get an answer to a question that insults their intelligence.

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Griffith]

Here's the basic point: We now know, due in great part to ARRB materials, that the autopsy report's description of a path from the back wound to the throat wound is nothing but Humes's post-autopsy speculation and fabrication, that by the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point. We also now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat.

We further now know that on the night of the autopsy, one or more of the autopsy doctors called Dr. Perry and angrily pressured him to change his description of the throat wound. We know this from two independent sources: Nurse Audrey Bell and journalist Martin Steadman. Nurse Bell spoke with Perry the day after the assassination. Steadman spoke with Perry about a week after the assassination. Perry told both of them that on the night of the autopsy, he received angry calls from Bethesda badgering and threatening him to stop calling the throat wound an entrance wound. Neither Bell nor Steadman was aware of the other's account. (Note, too, that Dr. Perry himself stated in 1964 and again in 1998 that he spoke with Humes on Friday, 11/22.)

The throat wound was a typical entry wound. It was small (3-5 mm), neat, and punched-in. The 11/22/1963 Parkland Hospital reports describe the wound as a "puncture" wound. Dr. Perry repeatedly stated during a televised news conference on 11/22 that the throat wound was an entry wound. Dr. Carrico noted to the HSCA that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound, clearly indicating the bullet traveled from front to back. Dr. Nathan Jacobs made the same point in 1967. 

[Gerry Down]

42 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Dr. Carrico noted to the HSCA that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound, clearly indicating the bullet traveled from front to back. Dr. Nathan Jacobs made the same point in 1967. 

This can be explained by a temporary cavitation inside JFKs neck due to the passage of the bullet.

[Charles Blackmon]

15 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

This can be explained by a temporary cavitation inside JFKs neck due to the passage of the bullet.

Your opinion surely outranks the opinion of medical doctors.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Here's the basic point: We now know, due in great part to ARRB materials, that the autopsy report's description of a path from the back wound to the throat wound is nothing but Humes's post-autopsy speculation and fabrication, that by the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point. We also now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat.

We further now know that on the night of the autopsy, one or more of the autopsy doctors called Dr. Perry and angrily pressured him to change his description of the throat wound. We know this from two independent sources: Nurse Audrey Bell and journalist Martin Steadman. Nurse Bell spoke with Perry the day after the assassination. Steadman spoke with Perry about a week after the assassination. Perry told both of them that on the night of the autopsy, he received angry calls from Bethesda badgering and threatening him to stop calling the throat wound an entrance wound. Neither Bell nor Steadman was aware of the other's account. (Note, too, that Dr. Perry himself stated in 1964 and again in 1998 that he spoke with Humes on Friday, 11/22.)

The throat wound was a typical entry wound. It was small (3-5 mm), neat, and punched-in. The 11/22/1963 Parkland Hospital reports describe the wound as a "puncture" wound. Dr. Perry repeatedly stated during a televised news conference on 11/22 that the throat wound was an entry wound. Dr. Carrico noted to the HSCA that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound, clearly indicating the bullet traveled from front to back. Dr. Nathan Jacobs made the same point in 1967. 

MG-

OK let's run with it.

As a premise, let's accept the JFK throat wound is an entrance wound. 

And then what? Where is the exit? Did the bullet vanish?

 

[Gerry Down]

2 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Your opinion surely outranks the opinion of medical doctors.

Medical doctors are not trained forensic pathologists.

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Here's the basic point: We now know, due in great part to ARRB materials, that the autopsy report's description of a path from the back wound to the throat wound is nothing but Humes's post-autopsy speculation and fabrication, that by the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point. We also now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat.

We further now know that on the night of the autopsy, one or more of the autopsy doctors called Dr. Perry and angrily pressured him to change his description of the throat wound. We know this from two independent sources: Nurse Audrey Bell and journalist Martin Steadman. Nurse Bell spoke with Perry the day after the assassination. Steadman spoke with Perry about a week after the assassination. Perry told both of them that on the night of the autopsy, he received angry calls from Bethesda badgering and threatening him to stop calling the throat wound an entrance wound. Neither Bell nor Steadman was aware of the other's account. (Note, too, that Dr. Perry himself stated in 1964 and again in 1998 that he spoke with Humes on Friday, 11/22.)

The throat wound was a typical entry wound. It was small (3-5 mm), neat, and punched-in. The 11/22/1963 Parkland Hospital reports describe the wound as a "puncture" wound. Dr. Perry repeatedly stated during a televised news conference on 11/22 that the throat wound was an entry wound. Dr. Carrico noted to the HSCA that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound, clearly indicating the bullet traveled from front to back. Dr. Nathan Jacobs made the same point in 1967. 

So there was a bit of a soap opera where Humes was trying to get Perry to change his description of the throat wound as being an entrance wound. Humes seems to have first thought a bullet fragment from the head shot exited the throat but then decided a better explanation was the bullet that entered the back had exited the throat.

Did Humes know during the autopsy that there had been a throat wound prior to the tracheotomy? Dr. Livingstone says he phoned Humes prior to the autopsy and told him about this wound. If that's true then apparently while the autopsy was going on the autopsy doctors thought a bullet fragment had exited the throat.

This would explain why there were so many different drafts of the autopsy report.

Not sure why Humes then tried to pretend his midnight phonecall with Dr. Perry was such a revelation to him about there being a throat wound. Dr Livingstone had told him that before the autopsy had even begun.

[Charles Blackmon]

5 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Medical doctors are not trained forensic pathologists.

Then who is the trained forensic pathologist?

[Cliff Varnell]

On 6/4/2023 at 12:22 PM, Gerry Down said:

Humes probably saw something like it on the recent James Bond movie and his imagination ran wild. 

Dick Tracy.

https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/Athnel_Jones

This is why folks are afraid of citing the possibility JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds.  Even great researchers like Gaeton Fonzi laughed it off.

[Cliff Varnell]

On 6/4/2023 at 2:55 PM, Charles Blackmon said:

If you are talking about Cliff V, I have no idea if his theory is correct or not but I have followed his posts and he has not backpedaled on anything. Throwing out accusations does not earn you credibility points. 

Thank you, Charles.  Much appreciated.

Need to point out the theory belongs to Humes et al.  Arguably the most widely ignored diagnosis in the history of medicine.

[Cliff Varnell]

On 6/4/2023 at 12:05 PM, Cory Santos said:

Just admit you had no clue about this until my prior house guest Cliff schooled you.  It’s ok.  

Cory, when I asked you to fix the drip in the cabana I didn’t mean kick me out.

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

So there was a bit of a soap opera where Humes was trying to get Perry to change his description of the throat wound as being an entrance wound. Humes seems to have first thought a bullet fragment from the head shot exited the throat but then decided a better explanation was the bullet that entered the back had exited the throat.

Did Humes know during the autopsy that there had been a throat wound prior to the tracheotomy? Dr. Livingstone says he phoned Humes prior to the autopsy and told him about this wound. If that's true then apparently while the autopsy was going on the autopsy doctors thought a bullet fragment had exited the throat.

This would explain why there were so many different drafts of the autopsy report.

Not sure why Humes then tried to pretend his midnight phonecall with Dr. Perry was such a revelation to him about there being a throat wound. Dr Livingstone had told him that before the autopsy had even begun.

The reason for the three drafts of the autopsy report was that Humes knew the back wound had no exit point and was unwilling (or unable) to admit that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Once he knew Oswald was dead and that there would be no trial, he knew he could away with making the false claim that the throat wound was the back wound's exit point. He burned his original autopsy notes partly to conceal the fact that the back wound had no exit point. 

During the autopsy, Humes was careful to pretend that he didn't know about the throat wound. He had already been warned that under no circumstances could he admit that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Hours earlier, Dr. Perry had stated in a televised news conference in Dallas that there was a throat wound and that it was an entry wound, and numerous journalists were at that news conference. So the plotters knew they had a serious problem and had to make the throat entry wound go away.

That's why Humes and others called Perry during the autopsy and angrily badgered and threatened him. Perry said he was threatened with losing his medical license if he repeated his conclusion that the throat wound was an entry wound. That's also why a Secret Service agent badgered and pressured Perry in the weeks leading up to his WC testimony.  

Getting back to the autopsy, once Humes knew that the back wound had no exit point, he knew it was imperative that he not reveal the existence of the throat wound, much less that it was an entry wound. In order to sell his throat-exit-wound lie, he had to invent the myth that he didn't know about the throat wound until he spoke with Perry the day after the autopsy. 

There was no serious challenge to Humes's lies about the back wound and the throat wound until 1966, when Harold Weisberg discovered the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy. 

[Charles Blackmon]

32 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

The reason for the three drafts of the autopsy report was that Humes knew the back wound had no exit point and was unwilling (or unable) to admit that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Once he knew Oswald was dead and that there would be no trial, he knew he could away with making the false claim that the throat wound was the back wound's exit point. He burned his original autopsy notes partly to conceal the fact that the back wound had no exit point. 

During the autopsy, Humes was careful to pretend that he didn't know about the throat wound. He had already been warned that under no circumstances could he admit that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Hours earlier, Dr. Perry had stated in a televised news conference in Dallas that there was a throat wound and that it was an entry wound, and numerous journalists were at that news conference. So the plotters knew they had a serious problem and had to make the throat entry wound go away.

That's why Humes and others called Perry during the autopsy and angrily badgered and threatened him. Perry said he was threatened with losing his medical license if he repeated his conclusion that the throat wound was an entry wound. That's also why a Secret Service agent badgered and pressured Perry in the weeks leading up to his WC testimony.  

Getting back to the autopsy, once Humes knew that the back wound had no exit point, he knew it was imperative that he not reveal the existence of the throat wound, much less that it was an entry wound. In order to sell his throat-exit-wound lie, he had to invent the myth that he didn't know about the throat wound until he spoke with Perry the day after the autopsy. 

There was no serious challenge to Humes's lies about the back wound and the throat wound until 1966, when Harold Weisberg discovered the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy. 

Apologize if you have already addressed this, but what is your theory as to what kind of weapon would result in a shallow back wound? And where did the bullet (or whatever it was) that damaged the throat go?  

[Gerry Down]

54 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

The reason for the three drafts of the autopsy report was that Humes knew the back wound had no exit point and was unwilling (or unable) to admit that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Once he knew Oswald was dead and that there would be no trial, he knew he could away with making the false claim that the throat wound was the back wound's exit point. He burned his original autopsy notes partly to conceal the fact that the back wound had no exit point. 

During the autopsy, Humes was careful to pretend that he didn't know about the throat wound. He had already been warned that under no circumstances could he admit that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Hours earlier, Dr. Perry had stated in a televised news conference in Dallas that there was a throat wound and that it was an entry wound, and numerous journalists were at that news conference. So the plotters knew they had a serious problem and had to make the throat entry wound go away.

That's why Humes and others called Perry during the autopsy and angrily badgered and threatened him. Perry said he was threatened with losing his medical license if he repeated his conclusion that the throat wound was an entry wound. That's also why a Secret Service agent badgered and pressured Perry in the weeks leading up to his WC testimony.  

Getting back to the autopsy, once Humes knew that the back wound had no exit point, he knew it was imperative that he not reveal the existence of the throat wound, much less that it was an entry wound. In order to sell his throat-exit-wound lie, he had to invent the myth that he didn't know about the throat wound until he spoke with Perry the day after the autopsy. 

There was no serious challenge to Humes's lies about the back wound and the throat wound until 1966, when Harold Weisberg discovered the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy. 

I thought there was some eyewitness account which said that at the autopsy the autopsy doctors were discussing the possibility that a fragment from the head shot exited the throat. Can't remember who said that. Maybe it was Richard Lipsey.

So did Humes, Boswell and Finck all deny later on that they had any idea during the autopsy that the throat wound was anything other than a tracheotomy?

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

I thought there was some eyewitness account which said that at the autopsy the autopsy doctors were discussing the possibility that a fragment from the head shot exited the throat. Can't remember who said that. Maybe it was Richard Lipsey.

So did Humes, Boswell and Finck all deny later on that they had any idea during the autopsy that the throat wound was anything other than a tracheotomy?

Oh, Humes was certainly willing to posit a head-shot fragment exiting the throat, but not a bullet, at least for a time. During the autopsy, he pretended he had no idea that a bullet had entered or exited the throat, but, for a time, he was willing to describe the throat wound as an exit point for a head-shot fragment. We know that one of the first two drafts of the autopsy report, in fact, said that a fragment from the head shot exited the throat. 

Later, Humes claimed that he only found out about the throat wound when he spoke with Perry the day after the autopsy. Boswell contradicted himself on aspects of this story once or twice but pretty much stuck to it. In his HSCA interview, Finck chose his words carefully about when he knew of the throat wound. He said he "probably" did not know about it until after the autopsy. When he was then asked where he thought the back-wound bullet had gone by the end of the autopsy, if he didn't know about the throat wound during the autopsy, he said, "It is hard to say now, but I don't know."