Why No Neck/Throat Exit Wound?

[Donald Willis]

13 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The Warren Commission, in late 1964, issued its 888-page Final Report on the assassination of President John Kennedy. The Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had murdered JFK, and in so doing, had acted alone. Also within that report rests one of the most controversial so-called "theories" in history -- the "Single-Bullet Theory".

The "SBT" has been battered from proverbial pillar to post by conspiracy theorists for multiple decades now since JFK's tragic death in 1963. And it's been an undeserved bad rap, too, in my opinion. Because the SBT is almost certainly the only conceivable (accurate) scenario to explain the injuries sustained by victims JFK and John B. Connally in Dallas on 11/22/63.

Lacking the SBT, so many weird and incredible and, frankly, impossible, things would have had to have taken place in Dealey Plaza, it would make a Max Fleischer cartoon seem believable by comparison.

[Continued here....]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/Where Is The SBT Alternative?

 

You don't believe in Betty Boop?

[Michael Griffith]

On 1/21/2024 at 9:26 AM, Fred Dent said:

(I'm new, so please go easy on me...)

After spending hundreds of hours in the JFK vortex as an earnest student of the assassination, there is one question that I cannot seem to find an answer to:

If JFK was shot in the neck/throat from the front, why is there no exit wound in the back of the neck?  Because the neck is a relatively small section of our anatomy, it seems that a bullet would easily pass through and create a visible exit wound.  However, there doesn't seem to be much discussion around this topic that I can find in my searching and reading of the case.  

Perhaps this has been addressed by other researchers.  If so, I would appreciate being pointed to any discussions or articles related to this topic.

Fred Dent

A few points:

-- Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out that the doctors at Parkland Hospital described a
laceration of the pharynx and trachea larger than the small wound at the anterior surface of the neck, indicating that the bullet had traveled from the front of the neck to the back (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

-- Autopsy x-ray tech Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments in the neck (Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, ARRB, Transcript of Proceedings, October 28, 1997, pp. 168-170). Custer noted that when he drew attention to the bullet fragments in the C3/C4 area during the autopsy, he was told to “mind my own business” (p. 169).

-- The greatly enlarged tracheotomy wound could indicate that fragments were retrieved from beyond the throat wound during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery documented by Doug Horne, former chief analyst of military records for the ARRB. 

-- Some have suggested that the missile that hit the throat may have been a fragment of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield. 

-- The throat wound was small (3-5 mm), roundish, and, most important, punched inward. Nurse Henchliffe told the WC that the throat wound looked like an entry wound, and that in all her years as a nurse and having seen many gunshot wounds, she had never seen an exit wound that looked like the throat wound.

Edited January 22 by Michael Griffith

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

A few points:

-- Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out that the doctors at Parkland Hospital described a
laceration of the pharynx and trachea larger than the small wound at the anterior surface of the neck, indicating that the bullet had traveled from the front of the neck to the back (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

Check.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

-- Autopsy x-ray tech Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments in the neck (Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, ARRB, Transcript of Proceedings, October 28, 1997, pp. 168-170). Custer noted that when he drew attention to the bullet fragments in the C3/C4 area during the autopsy, he was told to “mind my own business” (p. 169).

HSCA:

These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed.  </q>

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

-- The greatly enlarged tracheotomy wound could indicate that fragments were retrieved from beyond the throat wound during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery documented by Doug Horne, former chief analyst of military records for the ARRB. 

Other than the Stare-of-Death autopsy photo what’s the proof there was a “greatly enlarged tracheotomy?  I’m not challenging the point, just curious.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

-- Some have suggested that the missile that hit the throat may have been a fragment of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield. 

Glass shows up on x-ray.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

-- The throat wound was small (3-5 mm), roundish, and, most important, punched inward. Nurse Henchliffe told the WC that the throat wound looked like an entry wound, and that in all her years as a nurse and having seen many gunshot wounds, she had never seen an exit wound that looked like the throat wound.

Check.

[Cliff Varnell]

Good to see Sandy Larsen and Ron Bulman agree with the autopsists about the possibility of a high tech hit on JFK.

The resistance to this scenario has long puzzled me.  It’s as if the JFKA Critical Community can’t take CIA-Conspiracy for an answer.