The Clean Cut Throat Wound

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

JFKs throat wound was described by the Parkland doctors as a relatively clean cut circular wound. This fooled them into thinking it must have been an entrance wound. However a bullet entering JFKs back and exiting his throat would also create such a clean cut exit wound on the throat IF it was shored up by a shirt held firm by a neck tie. This is called shoring and explains how an exit wound on JFKs throat could be so clean cut.

The same principle can be found in woodworking. Check out 3 minutes 30 seconds on this video which shows how shoring can transform a rough cut into a smooth cut:

 

It looks like someone used your jigsaw over the small clean entrance wound and Perry's small clean cut for the tracheostomy.  I've thought for some time they may have been digging for the bullet from the front entrance wound and/or creating the appearance of an exit wound for the bullet that entered 4-6" lower in the back.  Very bright and colorful saw pictures.

 

[Michael Crane]

[Gerry Down]

17 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

It looks like someone used your jigsaw over the small clean entrance wound and Perry's small clean cut for the tracheostomy.  I've thought for some time they may have been digging for the bullet from the front entrance wound and/or creating the appearance of an exit wound for the bullet that entered 4-6" lower in the back.  Very bright and colorful saw pictures.

 

They dissected the throat wound. They probably would have dissected the back wound too but for Dr. Burkley giving too many orders.

[Michael Crane]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

Why did the FBI take Oswalds rifle but not his pistol?

Its almost as if the FBI were treating the case as two separate murders - the Presidents which they were interested in and Tippits which they were not interested in and were leaving that to the DPD. 

JEH can answer this question alot better than I can.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Were those photos taken of a gunshot wound through a living person or a cadaver that had been dead for months? 

Living tissue would have more elasticity to it, would bow out more at the exit point of the bullet where the exit hole would be made, and therefore would constrict more once the skin returned to its original position after the bullet had exited - creating a smaller exit hole. 

The more the skin bows out before the bullet breaks through, the smaller the hole will look once the skin retracts back to its original position after the bullet has made its hole and left the body. 

This would explain why the Parkland doctors estimated the hole looked around 5mm in diameter. 

Petty was a forensic pathologist. He did not fire on cadavers. He wrote his textbook during his stint on the HSCA FPP. IOW, he knew the "shored exit" argument was bs, or that the throat wound was much much bigger than anyone who saw it remembered. 

[Gerry Down]

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Petty was a forensic pathologist. He did not fire on cadavers. He wrote his textbook during his stint on the HSCA FPP. IOW, he knew the "shored exit" argument was bs, or that the throat wound was much much bigger than anyone who saw it remembered. 

Petty prob never used a jigsaw in his life. 

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

They dissected the throat wound. They probably would have dissected the back wound too but for Dr. Burkley giving too many orders.

There was nothing to dissect. It was an injury to the skin and fascia--i.e. on the outside of the body. While mucky-mucks may have interfered with a dissection of the neck, no one said anything about the back wound, because the doctors were 100% convinced on the night if the autopsy that there was no wound track. They only invented one later after talking to Perry, and after Oswald's death. 

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Petty prob never used a jigsaw in his life. 

What are you talking about? Charles Petty was presumed to be the most experienced member of the HSCA FPP when it came to gunshot wounds.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

A couple of basic (common-sense) facts that CTers never want to acknowledge:

1. There were no bullets in Kennedy.

2. There wasn't enough damage in Kennedy to account for a bullet just stopping on a dime inside JFK's body, let alone TWO missiles performing such a ridiculous task. (And by far the favored theory amongst CTers is the proverbial "Two Bullets Entered JFK But Neither One Exited" load of bunk.)

And, of course, the Clark Panel DID find a "track" between the throat wound and the back wound:

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report."  -- Clark Panel Report

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

(Now awaiting Pat Speer's regularly scheduled trashing of the Clark Panel's report and its top member.)

 

The "track" they thought they saw came from above in the direction of the EOP bullet hole. Lattimer also saw this "track". He realized it started way up on the neck, however, and decided JFK was actually a hunchback. 

[Gerry Down]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

What are you talking about? Charles Petty was presumed to be the most experienced member of the HSCA FPP when it came to gunshot wounds.

If Petty was familiar with cutting wood with a jigsaw he would understand more clearly the principle of shoring as outlined in the video of my opening post.

I see no evidence the Petty gunshot wounds image you posted was of living tissue rather than a months old cadaver.

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, Gerry Down said:

If Petty was familiar with cutting wood with a jigsaw he would understand more clearly the principle of shoring as outlined in the video of my opening post.

I see no evidence the Petty gunshot wounds image you posted was of living tissue rather than a months old cadaver.

Well, I see no evidence you have ever read a book on forensic pathology or have a clue about this stuff. 

[David Von Pein]

On 3/1/2023 at 9:51 PM, Pat Speer said:

...the doctors were 100% convinced on the night if the autopsy that there was no wound track. They only invented one later after talking to Perry, and after Oswald's death. 

But don't forget the one thing that the autopsy surgeons relied on (probably above all others) that resulted in those doctors concluding that the bullet exited Kennedy's throat (after Humes talked to Dr. Perry on Saturday morning, that is):

Common sense.

It's just a shame that that particular commodity is in such short supply amongst JFKA conspiracy theorists.

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Gerry Down]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, I see no evidence you have ever read a book on forensic pathology or have a clue about this stuff. 

The HSCA FPP read alot of forensic pathology books between them and they upheld the SBT - a bullet passing through JFKs neck and exiting his throat.

I'm deferring to their expertise as it looks to me like JFK and Connally clearly react at the same time on the Zapruder film. So I see no reason to contradict the HSCA FPP findings.

[Ron Bulman]

42 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

They dissected the throat wound. They probably would have dissected the back wound too but for Dr. Burkley giving too many orders.

They did not dissect the throat wound, not the one in the temple.  Per words from the gallery.

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Why did the FBI take Oswalds rifle but not his pistol?

Its almost as if the FBI were treating the case as two separate murders - the Presidents which they were interested in and Tippits which they were not interested in and were leaving that to the DPD. 

The FBI took the pistol at the same time as the rifle. It was taken to the FBI lab by Vincent Drain on the 23rd then resubmitted on the 27th. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62271#relPageId=189