Need honest explanation for "Stare of Death" autopsy photo

[Dave Chrisman]

I have always been puzzled by the aforementioned image. Gerry Down's "Clean Cut Throat Wound" thread inspired me to start this topic.
In my mind, I'm looking for a very basic analysis of the photo. The KISS principle.

The Parkland doctor removed the breathing tube and the wound/incision "closed of its own volition". Closed, not larger, gaping and irregular.
Therefore, a closed wound is the way it should have showed up at Bethesda for the autopsy.

My questions are such:  Why does the throat wound look like this in the photo? Was it dissected? If so, where is the photo pre-dissection? Why would
you take a photo after mutilating the wound but not before? Autopsy photos are supposed to explain and prove something. No pre-dissection photo means
an explanation of the original wound is hearsay and is useless in a court of law. Remember, this is before Oswald is dead. I DGAF who you are or how 
"reputable" you are, no image of the throat wound looking as it left Parkland casts doubt on evidence in juror's minds (and mine).

I look forward to genuine responses and please don't hi-jack the thread as was Gerry's with poison dart talk. Thank you.

[Micah Mileto]

Dr. Perry and McClelland described cutting through the strap muscles on the front of the neck, and those muscles are some centimeters apart. Usually in a tracheostomy, strap muscles are pulled aside rather than cut through, but Perry and McClelland indicated that Kennedy's trachea was slightly deviated, which complicated the situation.

 

That's the official story on why the incision looks so large and wide.

[Gerry Down]

36 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Dr. Perry and McClelland described cutting through the strap muscles on the front of the neck, and those muscles are some centimeters apart. 

Did they cut one strap muscle or both?

[Micah Mileto]

Just now, Gerry Down said:

Did they cut one strap muscle or both?

Perry stated “...at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea. I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea...” (WC Vol. 6, pp. 7-18, Perry’s 3/25/1964 testimony [text]), “...Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea” (WC Vol. 3, pp. 366-390, Perry's 3/30/1964 testimony [text]). When Dr. Robert McClelland testified on 3/21/1964, he stated “...as I say, all I did was simply assist Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter in doing the tracheotomy. All three of us worked together in making an incision in the neck, tracting the neck muscles out of the way, and making a small opening into the trachea near the spot where the trachea had already been blasted or torn open by the fragment of the bullet, and inserting a large metal tracheotomy tube into this hole, and after this the breathing apparatus was attached to this instead of the previous tube which had been placed here”, “That damage consisted mainly of a large amount of contusion and hematoma formation in the tissue lateral to the right side of the trachea and the swelling and bleeding around this site was to such extent that the trachea was somewhat deviated to the left side, not a great deal, but to a degree at least that it required partial cutting of some of the neck muscles in order to get good enough exposure to put in the tracheotomy tube…” (WC Vol. 6, pp. 30-36 [text]).

Edited June 1, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[W. Niederhut]

Not to hijack this discussion about the throat wound, but the most telling wound seen on the "Death Stare" photo, as I recall, is the obvious entry wound in the right upper forehead.

That was the entry wound that knocked JFK's head violently backward, while blasting the occipital (Harper) skull fragment behind the limo.

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Perry stated “...at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea. I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea...” (WC Vol. 6, pp. 7-18, Perry’s 3/25/1964 testimony [text]), “...Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea” (WC Vol. 3, pp. 366-390, Perry's 3/30/1964 testimony [text]). When Dr. Robert McClelland testified on 3/21/1964, he stated “...as I say, all I did was simply assist Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter in doing the tracheotomy. All three of us worked together in making an incision in the neck, tracting the neck muscles out of the way, and making a small opening into the trachea near the spot where the trachea had already been blasted or torn open by the fragment of the bullet, and inserting a large metal tracheotomy tube into this hole, and after this the breathing apparatus was attached to this instead of the previous tube which had been placed here”, “That damage consisted mainly of a large amount of contusion and hematoma formation in the tissue lateral to the right side of the trachea and the swelling and bleeding around this site was to such extent that the trachea was somewhat deviated to the left side, not a great deal, but to a degree at least that it required partial cutting of some of the neck muscles in order to get good enough exposure to put in the tracheotomy tube…” (WC Vol. 6, pp. 30-36 [text]).

Thanks. It doesn't sound like enough of a cut to match the throat wound seen in the autopsy photo. Humes must have disected the tracheotomy wound at the start of the autopsy. I don't know why he would do this.

Do you have any idea?

Is it standard practice at autopsies to disect wounds created by emergency procedures in the emergency room to make sure they were done correctly? The function of the autopsy is to establish the cause of death, so you could see why the tracheotomy wound might have had to be disected to make sure it had been done correctly and to ensure the tracheotomy had not contributed to the cause of death. For example some tracheotomys have resulted in death when the tracheotomy pipe was inserted the wrong way, such as into the oesophagus rather than the airway.

I wonder if Humes disected the tracheotomy wound to check for any evidence the tracheotomy pipe might have been inadvertently put into the oesophagus which would have contributed to the cause of death by depriving Kennedy of air in the emergency room.

[Micah Mileto]

Just now, Gerry Down said:

Thanks. It doesn't sound like enough of a cut to match the throat wound seen in the autopsy photo. Humes must have disected the tracheotomy wound at the start of the autopsy. I don't know why he would do this.

Do you have any idea?

Is it standard practice at autopsies to disect wounds created by emergency procedures in the emergency room to make sure they were done correctly? The function of the autopsy is to establish the cause of death, so you could see why the tracheotomy wound might have had to be disected to make sure it had been done correctly and to ensure the tracheotomy had not contributed to the cause of death. For example some tracheotomys have resulted in death when the tracheotomy pipe was inserted the wrong way, such as into the oesophagus rather than the airway.

I wonder if Humes disected the tracheotomy wound to check for any evidence the tracheotomy pipe might have been inadvertently put into the oesophagus which would have contributed to the cause of death by depriving Kennedy of air in the emergency room.

According to the official story, the trach incision was made that large not just because the trachea was deviated, but also because it doubled as an exploratory incision to check whether the bullet could've damaged the major blood vessels.

 

There are Parkland witness statements suggesting that the cut was made smaller than it appears in the photographs/autopsy report, and there are witness statements denying such a difference.

Officially, the torso wounds were not dissected at the autopsy, but there are autopsy witness statements suggesting that the throat was indeed dissected, but if that were true, then that would be evidence for a cover-up.

 

John Ebersole's statements in the late 70's indicated the autopsy began with the trach incision already suture shut.

 

Paul O'Connor claimed the incision was even more gaping than it appears in the photos, and that he could see the esophagus past the incision - no medical incision would be long or deep enough to see the esophagus.

 

I have a 400 page report about this coming out one of these months.

 

 

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

the most telling wound seen on the "Death Stare" photo, as I recall, is the obvious entry wound in the right upper forehead.

So, the thing you say is an "obvious entry wound" in the Stare Of Death photograph was somehow completely missed (or ignored?) by all of the autopsy physicians?

How can anyone truly believe such a thing?

Edited June 1, 2023 by David Von Pein

[W. Niederhut]

39 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So, the thing you say is an "obvious entry wound" in the Stare Of Death photograph was somehow completely missed (or ignored?) by all of the autopsy physicians?

How can anyone truly believe such a thing?

It's amazing how much time some people on this forum waste discussing the falsified, pseudo-autopsy "findings."

 

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

the falsified, pseudo-autopsy "findings."

And your proof that the autopsy was "falsified" is.......?

 

[W. Niederhut]

9 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And your proof that the autopsy was "falsified" is.......?

 

Seriously?

Have you ever attended an autopsy?

The Bethesda autopsy was a complete fraud, organized to promote the false Lone Nut narrative.

They didn't even have a qualified, reputable pathologist-- for an autopsy on the President of the United States!

[Gerry Down]

13 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Seriously?

Have you ever attended an autopsy?

The Bethesda autopsy was a complete fraud, organized to promote the false Lone Nut narrative.

They didn't even have a qualified, reputable pathologist-- for an autopsy on the President of the United States!

You can thank Mrs Kennedy for that.

[David Von Pein]

37 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Seriously?

Have you ever attended an autopsy?

The Bethesda autopsy was a complete fraud, organized to promote the false Lone Nut narrative.

They didn't even have a qualified, reputable pathologist-- for an autopsy on the President of the United States!

I asked for your proof that the autopsy was "falsified". You provided nothing but your opinion.

Wanna try again?

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

27 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

You can thank Mrs Kennedy for that.

Really.

The President of the US has been assassinated, by unknown parties, possibly conspirators. Very serious business. 

And so officials defer to a widow's emotional request, made under horrible duress, and foreclose a serious, sustained first-rate autopsy, and the calling in of national experts?

Even a made-for-TV movie...would try harder. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

I asked for proof that the autopsy was "falsified". You provided nothing but your opinion.

Wanna try again?

 

1) Their claims about the head wounds were completely inconsistent with the observations of the Parkland physicians.

2) The inexperienced clown who conducted the autopsy didn't even preserve his notes, as I recall, and his work was being supervised by cigar smoking military brass-- non-physicians.

They also ended up with the wrong brain.

It was like the scene from Young Frankenstein, where Marty Feldman retrieves a brain belonging to Abby Normal.