Need honest explanation for "Stare of Death" autopsy photo

[Gerry Down]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

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. 

Let's get real. She and RFK didn't want a proper autopsy in case it would get out that JFK had lied about having Addisons disease. 

[David Von Pein]

5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

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

But the autopsy findings are completely CONSISTENT with the BEST AUTOPSY EVIDENCE there is---the autopsy photographs and X-rays.

 

5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

They also ended up with the wrong brain.

The ultra-silly "wrong brain" myth refuses to die, I see. ~sigh~

Edited June 2, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Gerry Down]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But the autopsy findings are completely CONSISTENT with the BEST AUTOPSY EVIDENCE there is---the autopsy photographs and X-rays.

 

The ultra-silly "wrong brain" myth refuses to die, I see. ~sigh~

Great link. So the extra brain weight was due to swelling. Makes sense.

Though Bugliosi gets one thing wrong. According to James Jenkins, JFKs brain was BOTH immersed and injected with formalin to speed up the amount of time it would become fixed for examination.

[Ron Bulman]

46 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Great link. So the extra brain weight was due to swelling. Makes sense.

Though Bugliosi gets one thing wrong. According to James Jenkins, JFKs brain was BOTH immersed and injected with formalin to speed up the amount of time it would become fixed for examination.

Swelling does not equate to the amount of brain matter missing per multiple credible witnesses.  Kinney and Hill, Parkland, Bethesda.

[Micah Mileto]

Just now, David Von Pein said:

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

Wanna try again?

 

The chest tubes, perhaps?

[Gerry Down]

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Swelling does not equate to the amount of brain matter missing per multiple credible witnesses.  Kinney and Hill, Parkland, Bethesda.

I don't know. The HSCA overhead picture we have of the brain has the cerebellum sticking out in an unusual way for an overhead shot of a brain. This could be because of a significant amount of swelling.

JFK was still breathing for about 15 to 20  minutes after 12:30 so that would be alot of time for the brain to swell. Might explain why some people who saw JFK in the limo st parkland thought a significant about if brain matter was gone. Perhaps it was but then the brain swelled after this.

[Pete Mellor]

Away from trach incision etc., what I have wondered about the 'stare of death' photograph is just that...the open eyes stare.

Not certain where I read this some time ago, but didn't some member of the Parkland hospital nursing staff, or perhaps Aubrey Rike, close JFK's eyes before he was placed in the casket at Parkland?

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

I don't know. The HSCA overhead picture we have of the brain has the cerebellum sticking out in an unusual way for an overhead shot of a brain. This could be because of a significant amount of swelling.

JFK was still breathing for about 15 to 20  minutes after 12:30 so that would be alot of time for the brain to swell. Might explain why some people who saw JFK in the limo st parkland thought a significant about if brain matter was gone. Perhaps it was but then the brain swelled after this.

 

How much brain swelling was noted in the autopsy or brain exam?

 

[Dave Chrisman]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand, hi-jacked.   I do sincerely appreciate those who have genuinely responded.

I am not a doctor or a JFKA researcher. I am simply looking to see if anyone has an answer, or answers, in layman's terms as to why JFK's throat looks like this in the autopsy photo. I have read many books covering the autopsy photos, but I don't recall any giving a simple reason for the mutilated throat wound in the autopsy photo.

Did it look like this when the body left Parkland? Have the attending Parkland doctors or nurses said this is how the throat looked when the body left? Is the autopsy photo pre or post dissecting?

Again, thank you to all genuine answers.

[Micah Mileto]

Just now, Dave Chrisman said:

 

One of the primary pieces of evidence for an altered throat wound is Lifton’s reported 1966 interviews with Parkland doctors, where they were each asked to recall the length of the tracheostomy incision. Drs. Charles Carrico, Charles Baxter, Marion Jenkins, and Gene Akin were reportedly interviewed on 1/8/1966, Robert McClelland on 11/9/1966, Ronald Jones on 11/10/1966, and Paul Peters on 11/12/1966. It reads in Best Evidence, starting with Carrico (Link):

 

[…Part III. A Search for New Evidence, Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda]

 

On November 8, 1966, I telephoned him, introducing myself as a UCLA graduate student attending a legal seminar held by "Professor Wesley Liebeler, who was on the Warren Commission." I told him I was doing a paper on the tracheotomy operation.

"Dr. Perry testified that he made this incision in the neck... you were there when this happened, correct?"
 

"Right."
 

"Could you tell me approximately the length of the tracheotomy incision that was made?"
 

"Gee. It's been a while. Probably-it would just be a guess-between two and three centimeters, which is close to an inch."
 

"Between two and three centimeters?"
 

"Yes."
 

I asked: "Do you think the incision that Dr. Perry made might have been, let's say, four centimeters?"
 

Replied Carrico: "Oh, I really don't know. But it, that would probably be the upper limit. I doubt if it was that large."

As with Perry, the confident tone of Dr. Carrico carried the message that he did not need more than an inch to insert the tracheotomy tube.
 

The next doctor was Charles Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy.
 

I posed the question:

LIFTON: Now, about what was the length of the incision?
 

BAXTER: Oh, it's roughly an inch and a half.
 

LIFTON: ...you could see the incision before they placed the tracheotomy tube into the incision?
 

BAXTER: Oh, yes. Yes.
 

LIFTON: So at that time you remember it as being an inch and a half [3.8cm]?
 

BAXTER: Yeah, roughly.¹

 

The assassination, I commented, was three years before. How sure was he of the details? "It's pretty vivid," replied Baxter, adding: "It's such a common operation that it's just standard. I think he probably had the most standard of standard operations . .. you do exactly what you're trained to do . . . if it wasn't standard, I don't know what it would have been."

 

Besides asking each doctor about the incision length, I also sought his reaction to an 8cm (3.2in) incision.

 

I asked Jenkins: "Do you think the incision could have been three and a quarter inches?" "No, I don't think so," he replied.²

 

Dr. Carrico responded: "Jiminy Christmas. How big is eight centimeters?" "Three and a quarter inches," I replied (actually it is 3.2 inches). Replied Carrico: "It would be certainly the exception. It would have to be an unusual circumstance."³

 

Carrico asked me if the autopsy report gave the incision length, but I dodged the question.

 

I asked Baxter if he ever made tracheotomy incisions that were three inches long: "No, we seldom do. You don't need that much."⁴

 

Dr. Peters told me of his most vivid recollection. The incision had been made when he walked into the room, and Dr. Perry had one, possibly two, fingers in it. Quantifying his recollection of length was difficult. Dr. Peters estimated: "With two fingers, there's about, well, an inch and three quarters . . . at most, it was two inches."⁵

 

In the course of my inquiries about length, I developed some contrary data, and evidence that doctors at Parkland were discussing my calls.

 

The problem first arose with McClelland. I had trouble reaching him, and had to leave my name. When I did reach him, I had the feeling he was anticipating what I was going to ask. When I came to the question of incision length, his reply agreed exactly with Dr. Humes' testimony: "In centimeters, that would be something like eight centimeters, seven or eight centimeters."⁶ I asked McClelland whether he thought that was the usual length of a tracheotomy. McClelland, a professor of surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital, replied: "That's about the usual length, uh huh."⁷ McClelland then admitted he had heard about Liebeler and his course. Curious to see just how far McClelland would go to allay my suspicions, I asked: "Would you say that if eight [centimeters] is the normal size, would you say they sometimes run up to, let's say, ten to twelve centimeters?" (Twelve centimeters is 4.8 inches.)

 

"Oh, they might. They might," replied Professor McClelland. "You just make whatever's necessary to get into the neck. And it's conceivable that in certain people with rather short stocky necks, that you might have to make an incision that large a size."⁸

 

Try as I might, I found it difficult to imagine having to make a tracheotomy incision nearly five inches long to get into someone's neck. I concluded that Dr. McClelland, whose statements about the throat wound being an entry had received such widespread publicity, did not wish to become further embroiled in the assassination controversy.

 

Dr. Jones was the only other doctor who gave me an answer that agreed with Humes' testimony: "Probably two and a half or three inches, somewhere along in there. . . "⁹ He also told me that Dr. McClelland had told him I had called and asked about the length of the incision.

 

During these interviews, another criterion for estimating the incision length arose. Dr. Carrico explained that a tracheotomy tube had a flange—a piece of material perpendicular to the tube, that permits the tube to "sit" on the patient's neck. To keep the tube in place, straps from the flange are often tied around the neck. Carrico suggested that I determine what kind of tracheotomy tube was used and measure the flange. If the incision didn't extend beyond the flange, that would provide at least an upper limit. Dr. Carrico said he had no recollection of whether this particular incision extended beyond the flanges, but that normally it didn't. I decided to ask this question of the remaining doctors on my list.

 

Dr. Baxter said he didn't think the incision could be seen beyond the flange, whose width he estimated at 1 1/4 inches, at most."¹⁰ Jenkins didn't know.¹¹ McClelland said the incision did extend from the flange.¹² Jones, who had talked with McClelland, said the same thing.¹³ Dr. Akin, who had given me a 2 1/2-inch incision estimate, was nevertheless emphatic that the incision would not show beyond the flange. "Tracheotomy tubes are far too wide for an incision to be showing beyond that, unless an unreasonably large incision has been made."¹⁴

 

What, then, was the flange size on the tracheotomy tube used on President Kennedy? The tube was not saved, but Dr. Baxter told me it was definitely a plastic one, and it was either a number seven, eight, or nine. I checked a medical catalog and found the maximum width was 4cm. *

 

My flange-length research corroborated the estimates I received from Drs. Perry and Carrico that the tracheotomy incision was "2-3cm" long.

 

[...]

 

* In 1973, Parkland Memorial Hospital was renovating the emergency room area, and offered to sell the National Archives implements used in the emergency room—not the implements used on November 22, 1963. One item provided was a plastic tracheotomy tube. At my request, the Archivist measured the flange length. It was 1 1/4 inches long (1 1/4 inches is 3.1 centimeters).

 

[...]

 

Dr. McClelland goaded me into asking the question with his talk of a 7-8cm incision as being “usual.” I asked him about the edges:

 

LIFTON: . . . Could you tell me, if you were going to describe the edges of the incision, do you have any idea . . . were they smooth edges? Was it a smooth incision?

 

MCCLELLAND: Well ... as I say, when I got there, the incision had been made; and according to Dr. Perry's statement to me as I walked in the room, the first thing he said to me was that there was a wound in the neck, through which he had made the incision. Just as an extension of this wound . . . So I actually did not see the edges of the tracheotomy where it had extended it. And it was smooth, uh, since it was made, of course, with a knife [emphasis added].¹⁷

 

A few days later, I talked with Dr. Peters:

 

LIFTON: In what words would you best describe the edges of that incision?

 

PETERS: Oh, I guess "sharp."

 

LIFTON: Sharp?

 

PETERS: Yeah.

 

LIFTON: In other words, because it was made with a knife by a surgeon?

 

PETERS: That's right. It was a fairly neat incision, pretty close to the midline.¹⁸

 

Dr. Jones used the same word: “sharp.”¹⁹

[Micah Mileto]

13 hours 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?

Who is to say whether the autopsy pathologists could have honestly missed a large wound? There is an extensive discussion of that possibility here: https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/comments/jz45jj/small_wounds_in_the_front_of_jfks_head_part_11/

 

[Dave Chrisman]

58 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

One of the primary pieces of evidence for an altered throat wound is Lifton’s reported 1966 interviews with Parkland doctors, where they were each asked to recall the length of the tracheostomy incision. Drs. Charles Carrico, Charles Baxter, Marion Jenkins, and Gene Akin were reportedly interviewed on 1/8/1966, Robert McClelland on 11/9/1966, Ronald Jones on 11/10/1966, and Paul Peters on 11/12/1966. It reads in Best Evidence, starting with Carrico (Link):

 

[…Part III. A Search for New Evidence, Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda]

 

On November 8, 1966, I telephoned him, introducing myself as a UCLA graduate student attending a legal seminar held by "Professor Wesley Liebeler, who was on the Warren Commission." I told him I was doing a paper on the tracheotomy operation.

"Dr. Perry testified that he made this incision in the neck... you were there when this happened, correct?"
 

"Right."
 

"Could you tell me approximately the length of the tracheotomy incision that was made?"
 

"Gee. It's been a while. Probably-it would just be a guess-between two and three centimeters, which is close to an inch."
 

"Between two and three centimeters?"
 

"Yes."
 

I asked: "Do you think the incision that Dr. Perry made might have been, let's say, four centimeters?"
 

Replied Carrico: "Oh, I really don't know. But it, that would probably be the upper limit. I doubt if it was that large."

As with Perry, the confident tone of Dr. Carrico carried the message that he did not need more than an inch to insert the tracheotomy tube.
 

The next doctor was Charles Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy.
 

I posed the question:

LIFTON: Now, about what was the length of the incision?
 

BAXTER: Oh, it's roughly an inch and a half.
 

LIFTON: ...you could see the incision before they placed the tracheotomy tube into the incision?
 

BAXTER: Oh, yes. Yes.
 

LIFTON: So at that time you remember it as being an inch and a half [3.8cm]?
 

BAXTER: Yeah, roughly.¹

 

The assassination, I commented, was three years before. How sure was he of the details? "It's pretty vivid," replied Baxter, adding: "It's such a common operation that it's just standard. I think he probably had the most standard of standard operations . .. you do exactly what you're trained to do . . . if it wasn't standard, I don't know what it would have been."

 

Besides asking each doctor about the incision length, I also sought his reaction to an 8cm (3.2in) incision.

 

I asked Jenkins: "Do you think the incision could have been three and a quarter inches?" "No, I don't think so," he replied.²

 

Dr. Carrico responded: "Jiminy Christmas. How big is eight centimeters?" "Three and a quarter inches," I replied (actually it is 3.2 inches). Replied Carrico: "It would be certainly the exception. It would have to be an unusual circumstance."³

 

Carrico asked me if the autopsy report gave the incision length, but I dodged the question.

 

I asked Baxter if he ever made tracheotomy incisions that were three inches long: "No, we seldom do. You don't need that much."⁴

 

Dr. Peters told me of his most vivid recollection. The incision had been made when he walked into the room, and Dr. Perry had one, possibly two, fingers in it. Quantifying his recollection of length was difficult. Dr. Peters estimated: "With two fingers, there's about, well, an inch and three quarters . . . at most, it was two inches."⁵

 

In the course of my inquiries about length, I developed some contrary data, and evidence that doctors at Parkland were discussing my calls.

 

The problem first arose with McClelland. I had trouble reaching him, and had to leave my name. When I did reach him, I had the feeling he was anticipating what I was going to ask. When I came to the question of incision length, his reply agreed exactly with Dr. Humes' testimony: "In centimeters, that would be something like eight centimeters, seven or eight centimeters."⁶ I asked McClelland whether he thought that was the usual length of a tracheotomy. McClelland, a professor of surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital, replied: "That's about the usual length, uh huh."⁷ McClelland then admitted he had heard about Liebeler and his course. Curious to see just how far McClelland would go to allay my suspicions, I asked: "Would you say that if eight [centimeters] is the normal size, would you say they sometimes run up to, let's say, ten to twelve centimeters?" (Twelve centimeters is 4.8 inches.)

 

"Oh, they might. They might," replied Professor McClelland. "You just make whatever's necessary to get into the neck. And it's conceivable that in certain people with rather short stocky necks, that you might have to make an incision that large a size."⁸

 

Try as I might, I found it difficult to imagine having to make a tracheotomy incision nearly five inches long to get into someone's neck. I concluded that Dr. McClelland, whose statements about the throat wound being an entry had received such widespread publicity, did not wish to become further embroiled in the assassination controversy.

 

Dr. Jones was the only other doctor who gave me an answer that agreed with Humes' testimony: "Probably two and a half or three inches, somewhere along in there. . . "⁹ He also told me that Dr. McClelland had told him I had called and asked about the length of the incision.

 

During these interviews, another criterion for estimating the incision length arose. Dr. Carrico explained that a tracheotomy tube had a flange—a piece of material perpendicular to the tube, that permits the tube to "sit" on the patient's neck. To keep the tube in place, straps from the flange are often tied around the neck. Carrico suggested that I determine what kind of tracheotomy tube was used and measure the flange. If the incision didn't extend beyond the flange, that would provide at least an upper limit. Dr. Carrico said he had no recollection of whether this particular incision extended beyond the flanges, but that normally it didn't. I decided to ask this question of the remaining doctors on my list.

 

Dr. Baxter said he didn't think the incision could be seen beyond the flange, whose width he estimated at 1 1/4 inches, at most."¹⁰ Jenkins didn't know.¹¹ McClelland said the incision did extend from the flange.¹² Jones, who had talked with McClelland, said the same thing.¹³ Dr. Akin, who had given me a 2 1/2-inch incision estimate, was nevertheless emphatic that the incision would not show beyond the flange. "Tracheotomy tubes are far too wide for an incision to be showing beyond that, unless an unreasonably large incision has been made."¹⁴

 

What, then, was the flange size on the tracheotomy tube used on President Kennedy? The tube was not saved, but Dr. Baxter told me it was definitely a plastic one, and it was either a number seven, eight, or nine. I checked a medical catalog and found the maximum width was 4cm. *

 

My flange-length research corroborated the estimates I received from Drs. Perry and Carrico that the tracheotomy incision was "2-3cm" long.

 

[...]

 

* In 1973, Parkland Memorial Hospital was renovating the emergency room area, and offered to sell the National Archives implements used in the emergency room—not the implements used on November 22, 1963. One item provided was a plastic tracheotomy tube. At my request, the Archivist measured the flange length. It was 1 1/4 inches long (1 1/4 inches is 3.1 centimeters).

 

[...]

 

Dr. McClelland goaded me into asking the question with his talk of a 7-8cm incision as being “usual.” I asked him about the edges:

 

LIFTON: . . . Could you tell me, if you were going to describe the edges of the incision, do you have any idea . . . were they smooth edges? Was it a smooth incision?

 

MCCLELLAND: Well ... as I say, when I got there, the incision had been made; and according to Dr. Perry's statement to me as I walked in the room, the first thing he said to me was that there was a wound in the neck, through which he had made the incision. Just as an extension of this wound . . . So I actually did not see the edges of the tracheotomy where it had extended it. And it was smooth, uh, since it was made, of course, with a knife [emphasis added].¹⁷

 

A few days later, I talked with Dr. Peters:

 

LIFTON: In what words would you best describe the edges of that incision?

 

PETERS: Oh, I guess "sharp."

 

LIFTON: Sharp?

 

PETERS: Yeah.

 

LIFTON: In other words, because it was made with a knife by a surgeon?

 

PETERS: That's right. It was a fairly neat incision, pretty close to the midline.¹⁸

 

Dr. Jones used the same word: “sharp.”¹⁹

Thank you, Micah. 

The excerpts you provided are exactly what confuse me. In regards to the large head wound blow out, the Parkland doctors/nurses/body handlers are almost unanimous with their respective descriptions. The throat wound condition pre-Bethesda is very vague and contradicting. Yes, there are quotes of differing sizes and such.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but it seems at some point, the Parkland staff would have been presented with that photo and asked their opinion of the wound. Has that ever occurred? Possibly the ARRB or HSCA?

[Michael Griffith]

On 6/1/2023 at 7:32 AM, Dave Chrisman said:

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.

One thing to keep in mind about the throat wound is that Dr. Charles Carrico told the HSCA that the damage he saw beneath the surface of the wound proved that the bullet must have been traveling from front to back:

          . . . there was some damage to the trachea behind it [the wound], so the
thing must have been going from front to back. (7 HSCA 270)

Similarly, Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out in a January 1967 letter to Ramparts that the Parkland doctors described a laceration of the pharynx and trachea larger than the throat wound, and that this indicated the bullet had entered the throat, not exited it (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

Finally, any discussion on the throat wound needs to include the fact that we now have truly massive evidence, from multiple independent and mutually corroborating sources, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors knew beyond any doubt that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. In relation to this fact, we also now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. 

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Micah Mileto]

Just now, Dave Chrisman said:

Thank you, Micah. 

The excerpts you provided are exactly what confuse me. In regards to the large head wound blow out, the Parkland doctors/nurses/body handlers are almost unanimous with their respective descriptions. The throat wound condition pre-Bethesda is very vague and contradicting. Yes, there are quotes of differing sizes and such.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but it seems at some point, the Parkland staff would have been presented with that photo and asked their opinion of the wound. Has that ever occurred? Possibly the ARRB or HSCA?

Yes, many witnesses were shown the photographs. But pasting all of that information here would take up multiple pages - from my unfinished manuscript of "The Case For An Altered Throat Wound".

 

The HSCA only showed Dr. Perry the sketch reproduction of the autopsy photos, and their report does not say whether or not he agreed with the size and shape of the trach.

 

The ARRB failed to show the photos to the Parkland witnesses.

 

Only private researchers have tried asking the witnesses their full opinion on the photos.

 

There is contradictory information on Perry's opinion of the photos - Groden claimed that Perry rejected the trach seen in the photos in a 1979 interview.

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

6 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Away from trach incision etc., what I have wondered about the 'stare of death' photograph is just that...the open eyes stare.

Not certain where I read this some time ago, but didn't some member of the Parkland hospital nursing staff, or perhaps Aubrey Rike, close JFK's eyes before he was placed in the casket at Parkland?

Yes, Kennedy's eyes were closed at Parkland.