NEW 11/22/63 VIDEO of Dr. Malcolm Perry!

[James DiEugenio]

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Jim, this still floors me.  The afternoon press conference, this, Jim Gochenauer > Elmer Moore, the surgeon friend in Washington State, for years Perry refused to comment, then, it was an entry wound, no question.  Four strikes and they're out for the Warren Omission.  

As I have said, the Kennedy case was politicized very early in the process, like within literally hours.  Wade was one of earliest purveyors of BS about the print evidence, the gunshot residue test and declaring Oswald as the killer that weekend. Even Percy Foreman--the guy who would later sell out  out James Earl Ray-- said that with what Wade was doing was outrageous.

Then when Hoover and Moore stepped in, it was now extended to Washington.  And the practice of adulteration and misrepresentation of the evidence was now sanctified by the people who were supposed to be adjudicating the case.

I have always said that the Kennedy case exists in a kind of Bermuda Triangle where all the rules of evidence and testimony are suspended and at times reversed in a quasi Orwellian way.

In the real world what happened to Perry would be a clear case of witness intimidation and obstruction of Justice.  But not only were none of those who interfered called to justice, they actually were protected and used further in the inquiry.  Moore being a prime example.

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 4/4/2024 at 2:54 AM, Nick Bartetzko said:

Don't know about the answer to those tiny metallic fragments. But the clincher for me as to it being an entry wound has always been Dr Perry telling Weisberg in 1966 (in the book Post Mortem)  that the throat wound had "a ring of bruising, as they always do". I've put that in quotes, but I'm going from memory as I don't have the book available at the moment

In the video, Perry said that the wound had the “appearance” of an entrance, not that it definitely WAS an entrance. As for the “ring of bruising,” I would want to know 1) the source, to verify that he actually said that and in what context, and 2) whether such bruising could occur with an exit as well as an entrance. Supposing that it was an entrance, the question then becomes, where did the bullet go? Given that C3/C4 (where Custer was said the fragments were located, is higher in the neck than the throat wound, either a missile (in this case a small bullet fragment) was traveling downward from the back of the head, or leaving one to wonder where the bullet went. Given the “king size fragment” that fell out of the body during the autopsy, per Custer, I really don’t think that it would have exited from the back wound. The alternative trajectory is that it travelled UPWARDS towards the back of the head (apparently leaving fragments in its wake), which makes absolutely ZERO sense. So the most logical explanation that I can see is that the throat wound was caused by one of a number of small fragments that traveled downward from the back of the head, or that that the C3/C4 fragments broke off from the larger missile traveling downward. I propose that the throat wound and fragments  were from an “internal ricochet” of a fragment (or fragments) off the back of the skull, from the original forehead entry shot.

Edited April 5 by Denise Hazelwood
Fixed typo.

[Denny Zartman]

3 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

In the video, Perry said that the wound had the “appearance” of an entrance, not that it definitely WAS an entrance. As for the “ring of bruising,” I would want to know 1) the source, to verify that he actually said that and in what context, and 2) whether such bruising could occur with an exit as well as an entrance. Supposing that it was an entrance, the question then becomes, where did the bullet go? Given that C3/C4 (where Custer was said the fragments were located, is higher in the neck than the throat wound, either a missile (in this case a small bullet fragment) was traveling downward from the back of the head, or leaving one to wonder where the bullet went. Given the “king size fragment” that fell out of the body during the autopsy, per Custer, I really don’t think that it would have exited from the back wound. The alternative trajectory is that it travelled UPWARDS towards the back of the head (apparently leaving fragments in its wake), which makes absolutely ZERO sense. So the most logical explanation that I can see is that the throat wound was caused by one of a number of small fragments that traveled downward from the back of the head, or that that the C3/C4 fragments broke off from the larger missile traveling downward. I propose that the throat wound and fragments  were from an “internal ricochet” of a fragment (or fragments) off the back of the skull, from the original forehead entry shot.

Do you have any medical experience of your own in observing and treating gunshot wounds in person? These people saw and treated gunshot wounds every day, and, in my opinion, it's a bit insulting to them to imply that they couldn't tell a bullet entrance wound from a fragment exit wound.

And I'll never in my life understand why so many people on this forum are willing to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays. How many problems with them need to be pointed out before we reasonably start treating them with skepticism instead of the reflexive "I'm going to trust these over the witnesses observations" attitude that I seem to see here every day?

[Denise Hazelwood]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

Do you have any medical experience of your own in observing and treating gunshot wounds in person? These people saw and treated gunshot wounds every day, and, in my opinion, it's a bit insulting to them to imply that they couldn't tell a bullet entrance wound from a fragment exit wound.

No, I am not a medical doctor. However, I do have a lot of experience in research, not to mention linguistics and other analytical areas, and I know that people often get misquoted or misrepresented. I also know that people are human and make mistakes. Dr. Perry, for example, said that the throat wound had the APPEARANCE of an entrance, not that it WAS an entrance. There is a difference in the meaning. Linguistically, “appearance” gives some wiggle room that it it might LOOK like an entrance due to the small size, but could have been something else entirely. An ER doctor also is not an autopsy doctor. Perry did not dissect JFK to know for certain—although in this case, the autopsy doctors did a crappy job, as I think we can agree. I also don’t know whether Perry actually said that the throat wound had a “ring of bruising” or if that might be you misattributing that to him. Is a “ring of bruising” the same thing as an “abrasion rim”? Or just an indicator of projectile damage? Even an “abrasion rim” doesn’t necessarily mean an entrance, however, although it would make it more likely, assuming the wound was above the level of the neck and collar. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556119/)

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

And I'll never in my life understand why so many people on this forum are willing to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays. How many problems with them need to be pointed out before we reasonably start treating them with skepticism instead of the reflexive "I'm going to trust these over the witnesses observations" attitude that I seem to see here every day?

No, I don’t trust the autopsy photos. There’s plenty of reason to doubt their authenticity.

 

[Ron Bulman]

I've told this story before on here before, maybe it's appropriate again in this thread.  I also never considered myself a real researcher.  I've been to Dealy Plaza several times as I used to live not far away, never dug in any files other than on line a little.  I read a good bit and try to interpret it using what logic I have. 

Somewhere around the 50th anniversary of JFK's death, a year or two before or after 2013 I asked a question of Dr. Robert McClellan.  He came to the mid-sized Tarleton State University where I worked to speak on his experiences on 11/22/63 in the new three-story nursing building, replete with the reflecting pool between it and the science building where I worked.  It was in the main lecture hall which held I think held about 200-300.

Getting off at 5:00, it starting at 6:00, I was early.  Got a seat on the third row, not up front on purpose.  He came in about 10 minutes early, several people greeted him, then they thinned out.  So, I went down and introduced myself as from the Biology Department in the science building across the pond.  I told him I might need to leave before his talk was over to meet my wife and didn't want him to think I didn't care or for him to feel insulted.  He said he understood and thanked me for coming.

I was engrossed and stayed for the whole thing.

When he was done speaking and asked for questions, I raised my hand among others.  He pointed at me.

I asked, Dr. McClellan, Dr Perry in the press conference immediately after the attempts to save JFK's life, the wound in the throat was one of entrance, from the front, three times.  He later said it could be an exit wound.  Do you think someone might have convinced Dr. Perry to alter his opinion?

I think the question might have caught him by surprise.  He hesitated a second or two.  When he said Yes, there was an audible gasp from the audience. 

An administrator/organizer of the event thanked me for coming and my question on the way out.

[Robert Morrow]

On 4/5/2024 at 12:43 AM, James DiEugenio said:

As I have said, the Kennedy case was politicized very early in the process, like within literally hours.  Wade was one of earliest purveyors of BS about the print evidence, the gunshot residue test and declaring Oswald as the killer that weekend. Even Percy Foreman--the guy who would later sell out  out James Earl Ray-- said that with what Wade was doing was outrageous.

Then when Hoover and Moore stepped in, it was now extended to Washington.  And the practice of adulteration and misrepresentation of the evidence was now sanctified by the people who were supposed to be adjudicating the case.

I have always said that the Kennedy case exists in a kind of Bermuda Triangle where all the rules of evidence and testimony are suspended and at times reversed in a quasi Orwellian way.

In the real world what happened to Perry would be a clear case of witness intimidation and obstruction of Justice.  But not only were none of those who interfered called to justice, they actually were protected and used further in the inquiry.  Moore being a prime example.

Who was Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade?

1) He used to work for LYNDON JOHNSON.

2) He used to be an FBI agent for J. EDGAR HOOVER, who lived as a neighbor of LBJ for 19 years from 1943-1961 and was a good friend of the Johnson family.

3) He was a former Navy roommate of and good friend of JOHN CONNALLY, who, of course, was a longtime friend and inner circle political ally of LBJ. John Connally spent a lot of time stateside with LBJ in California during WWII. LBJ was basically screwing his mistress Alice Glass in California while he was taking photographs and I think, speech lessons, for his political career.

Henry Wade used to work for both Lyndon Johnson and the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover. And he was John Connally’s roommate in the Navy

QUOTE

He studied law at the University of Texas, joined the Navy, became an FBI agent, worked for Lyndon Johnson, and then in 1950 was elected Dallas County prosecutor, a job he held down without challenge for 36 years.

UNQUOTE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/08/21/roe-v-wades-forgotten-loser-the-story-of-dallas-prosecutor-henry-wade/

[“Roe v. Wade’s forgotten loser: The remarkable story of Dallas prosecutor Henry Wade,” Michael Rosenweld, Washington Post, 9-5-2018]

Henry Wade was a Navy roommate of John Connally during WWII and they were good friends. Connally, of course, was a longtime LBJ inner circle aide and supporter

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/pdf/WH5_Wade.pdf

Henry Wade, Warren Commission testimony of June 8, 1964:

QUOTE

John Connally, you know, was shot also – and he was, he used to be a roommate of mine in the Navy and we were good friends, and are now – and the first thing I did then was went out to the hospital to see how he was getting along.

UNQUOTE

Edited April 9 by Robert Morrow

[Robert Morrow]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:01 PM, Vince Palamara said:

 

That is very nice. How do we know that Dr. Malcolm Perry's interview with ABC occurred on 11/22/1963? I am not doubting this. I merely want to footnote this properly.

[Pat Speer]

26 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

That is very nice. How do we know that Dr. Malcolm Perry's interview with ABC occurred on 11/22/1963? I am not doubting this. I merely want to footnote this properly.

I don't know if we know it. But there is no mention of Oswald's death, so it would have to be before 11-24. And it was found in a batch of footage from 11-22. 

[Robert Morrow]

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

I don't know if we know it. But there is no mention of Oswald's death, so it would have to be before 11-24. And it was found in a batch of footage from 11-22. 

Thank you. And if anyone can nail this interview down to 11-22-1963 please let me know. I seriously doubt the reporters were tracking down Dr. Perry for an interview on 11-23-1963. He was probably sleeping in on Saturday morning after having been on the phone with Bethesda that night.

[Ron Bulman]

I think Perry came in fairly early on Saturday, per a nurse's testimony or statement.  She asked how he slept the night before because he looked a little haggard.  He mentioned calls from Bethesda.  ?

[Robert Morrow]

32 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I think Perry came in fairly early on Saturday, per a nurse's testimony or statement.  She asked how he slept the night before because he looked a little haggard.  He mentioned calls from Bethesda.  ?

Perry may indeed have come in early Saturday. He was getting calls from Bethesda threatening him not to say JFK's throat wound came from the front. See the following:

Reporter Martin Steadman recounts how Dr. Malcolm Perry immediately came under intimidation to change his story on JFK’s neck wound right after his Parkland doctors’ press conference on the afternoon of 11-22-63.

 Martin Steadman in 1963 was a reporter for the New York Herald Tribune.

 http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm

QUOTE

         There were no more glitches, and when Ferretti arrived a day later I was pretty much free to roam again.  In fact, there were occasions when I wanted Fred to accompany me.  One such memorable evening was an interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry at his home.  Dr. Perry was among the team of doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital when a mortally wounded President Kennedy was rushed into Emergency Room One.

           The meeting with Dr. Perry occurred the evening of December 2.  Fred and I were joined by Stan Redding, a first-class crime reporter for the Houston Chronicle.  I’d taken a liking to Redding as soon as I met him; he was my kind of reporter.  Speculation and suspicion and insinuation were never part of his game.  He was interested in facts, only facts.  But he was a keen political observer as well as a seasoned police reporter.  It was no secret in Texas that the President and the First Lady had come to their state because Texas polls showed Kennedy was in trouble for re-election in 1964.  Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater held a comfortable lead, despite the fact Vice-President Lyndon Johnson was a Texan.  And the Goldwater edge in the polls also applied to other states in the South and Southwest at that time.  Stan Redding spoke softly when he allowed an opinion, but I’ll never forget what he said:  “Those three bullets shot Barry Goldwater right out of the saddle.”  He was noting that Texan Lyndon Johnson was now the President, and Senator Goldwater would be matched against a man of the South in the new polls.  How bright was Redding’s political crystal ball in November 1963?  Johnson led Barry Goldwater in the first wave of new national polls, and Johnson buried Goldwater in November 1964, in a landslide.    

           Our meeting with Dr. Perry was after dinnertime at his home, and I remember a little girl playing with her toys on the living room floor as the three reporters and her father talked about how he tried to save a President’s life.  She was oblivious to the gravity of the conversation, playing quietly with her toys throughout.

         Dr. Perry had become a controversial figure in the assassination story--to his dismay.  With the President lying on his back on a gurney, fighting for breath in his dying moments, Dr. Perry tried to create an air passage with an incision across what he believed to be an entrance wound at the front of Kennedy’s neck.  The President was pronounced dead soon after, but the doctor’s incision at the throat had forever foreclosed a conclusion that the wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound.

          Late that Friday afternoon, the Parkland Hospital officials held a news conference for the hundreds of reporters who had descended on Dallas.  Dr. Perry spoke of his efforts to save the President and his belief that his incision was across an entrance wound.  The controversy didn’t erupt until government officials in Washington later said all three shots at the President had been fired from a sixth floor window of a building behind the President’s limousine.

         So little more than a week later, three reporters were speaking quietly to the surgeon at the center of the dispute.  As far as I know, it was the first and only such private interview with Dr. Perry.  None of us in his living room that night took out a notebook or a pencil.  It was a conversation with a clearly reluctant surgeon who had done his best in a crisis and who had agonized about it since.

           Dr. Perry said he believed it was an entrance wound because the small circular hole was clean, with no edges.  In the course of the conversation, he was asked and answered that he had treated hundreds of gunshot victims in the Emergency Rooms at Parkland Memorial Hospital.   At another point he said he was a hunter by hobby, and he was very familiar with guns and ammunition.  He said he could tell at a glance the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound with its ragged edges. 

         But he told us that throughout that night, he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound.  He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not.   They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back.  They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not.  They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front.  When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise.  They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said.

         When he was finished, there was only one question left.  I asked him if he still believed it was an entrance wound.  The question hung there for a long moment.

          “Yes,” he said.

         Ultimately Dr. Perry appeared as a witness before the Warren Commission.  In substance he testified that he realized he had no proof the bullet hole in the President’s neck was an entrance wound, and he conceded that the Bethesda doctors who autopsied the President would know better because they had all of the forensic evidence and he had but a fleeting recollection. 

          I can’t fault Dr. Perry for his testimony before the Warren Commission.  Surely it occurred to him there was no point in holding out for a belief that couldn’t be proved.  And just as surely, this 34-year-old surgeon with an exemplary record and a brilliant future knew his life would be forever shadowed by conspiracy theories that relied heavily on a bullet fired from the front.  He testified only as he most certainly had to testify.  But I’ll never forget what he said to three reporters that night in Dallas.

         The interview in Dr. Perry’s living room was the most memorable moment, but there were other disturbing bits and pieces of information from my time in Dallas.

UNQUOTE

[Vince Palamara]

On 4/6/2024 at 1:51 AM, Robert Morrow said:

That is very nice. How do we know that Dr. Malcolm Perry's interview with ABC occurred on 11/22/1963? I am not doubting this. I merely want to footnote this properly.

Hi, Robert! JUST seeing your post/comment right now (I am not on every day and, even when I am, hours can go by before I see someone's response/reply, so bear with me). I believe it is from 11/22/63 (the evening) BUT there is a chance it is from early 11/23/63. In the big scheme of things, I am not sure that it matters too much. That said, it is at the end of an ABC video labelled as footage from 11/22/63.

Jefferson Morley enthusiastically wrote me about the video in an e-mail and here is my response (that may clear up some other issues, as well):

"Hi- someone sent me an MP4 of this (just the Perry part) that apparently came from a young man named Alex Harris who found it on an extended video (the first part features several uninteresting interviews with others). Alex is 15 or so (!!!) and presented at Lancer. He has a You Tube channel called The JFK Theorist. He wasn’t too happy that I posted it (I didn’t know it was discovered by him) BUT his version was largely ignored when he posted it 3 weeks ago because he only has 3K subscribers (I have 20K) and it is buried at the end of largely uninteresting footage at the start. His version has 700 views….my Perry-only edit has 12K-plus-and-counting.  As I told Alex, I make zero money on these mostly copyrighted (by others) videos and share them for free as a labor of love and to get the truth out there. I apologized to him and gave him full credit on the first pinned comment on my version of the video and on The Education Forum. My view on this is simple- it is 60-plus years later…no more proprietary items held close to the vest! And, frankly, neither Alex NOR I shave copyrights to an ABC video made before we were born LOL!  I think he was “bummed” that “my” version received all the attention, but the alternative was this- it was buried and ignored on a modest you tube channel. Vince

Edited April 8 by Vince Palamara

[Robert Morrow]

2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Hi, Robert! JUST seeing your post/comment right now (I am not on every day and, even when I am, hours can go by before I see someone's response/reply, so bear with me). I believe it is from 11/22/63 (the evening) BUT there is a chance it is from early 11/23/63. In the big scheme of things, I am not sure that it matters too much. That said, it is at the end of an ABC video labelled as footage from 11/22/63.

Jefferson Morley enthusiastically wrote me about the video in an e-mail and here is my response (that may clear up some other issues, as well):

"Hi- someone sent me an MP4 of this (just the Perry part) that apparently came from a young man named Alex Harris who found it on an extended video (the first part features several uninteresting interviews with others). Alex is 15 or so (!!!) and presented at Lancer. He has a You Tube channel called The JFK Theorist. He wasn’t too happy that I posted it (I didn’t know it was discovered by him) BUT his version was largely ignored when he posted it 3 weeks ago because he only has 3K subscribers (I have 20K) and it is buried at the end of largely uninteresting footage at the start. His version has 700 views….my Perry-only edit has 12K-plus-and-counting and 42K-plus-and-counting on Tik Tok! As I told Alex, I make zero money on these mostly copyrighted (by others) videos and share them for free as a labor of love and to get the truth out there. I apologized to him and gave him full credit on the first pinned comment on my version of the video and on The Education Forum. My view on this is simple- it is 60-plus years later…no more proprietary items held close to the vest! And, frankly, neither Alex NOR I shave copyrights to an ABC video made before we were born LOL!  I think he was “bummed” that “my” version received all the attention, but the alternative was this- it was buried and ignored on a modest you tube channel. Vince

Vince, both you and young Alex Harris have done a FINE job in getting this historically important video out to the masses! I agree with you, no proprietary information held close to the vest on the JFK assassination. When I find something useful/educational I immediately email blast it to my list of 1,000 JFK assassination researchers.

Other authors are free to sit on research for 20-30 years while they write their book which may or may not end up being published.

I have sent young Alex information on how to contact moderator Sandy Larsen so hopefully Alex Harris can be a member with posting privileges at Education Forum.

I think young Alex just wanted to make sure he got credit for finding this nugget of a video.

 

[Vince Palamara]

1 minute ago, Robert Morrow said:

Vince, both you and young Alex Harris have done a FINE job in getting this historically important video out to the masses! I agree with you, no proprietary information held close to the vest on the JFK assassination. When I find something useful/educational I immediately email blast it to my list of 1,000 JFK assassination researchers.

Other authors are free to sit on research for 20-30 years while they write their book which may or may not end up being published.

I have sent young Alex information on how to contact moderator Sandy Larsen so hopefully Alex Harris can be a member with posting privileges at Education Forum.

I think young Alex just wanted to make sure he got credit for finding this nugget of a video.

 

Exactly! I made sure he received credit via the first pinned comment on the video and the link to his video, as well as on here (and on Facebook).

[Ron Bulman]

On 4/4/2024 at 9:38 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Where has this been the last Sixty One years as W said?  Did anyone ever see it on 11/22/63?  Was it immediately squelched and confiscated?

Why is Sisco of UPI doing this interview, apparently for ABC, if Oakes only did Nellie Connally on Sunday that weekend?

Who owned ABC in 1963?

After looking around a little, maybe the better last question is who was president of ABC News in 1963?  In January it was still James Hagerty, since 1961.  After that, Elmer Lower, who hired Peter Jennings among others.

Hagerty was still a VP at ABC into the 1970's. 

 He became the press secretary to Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey in 1943, and handled Dewey's presidential campaigns in 1944 and in 1948.^[2] He was in charge of candidate Eisenhower's press office in the 1952 campaign, leading to his appointment as Press Secretary in January 1953. He introduced television cameras to press conferences in 1955. He occasionally handled political assignments from Eisenhower, such as liaison with the Senate.  Wikipedia.  

He was Ike's press secretary and apparently somewhat of a confidant/advisor in some respects?  In such capacity might he have been aware of CIA interaction with the press, E.G. Operation Mockingbird?  Maybe he knew Dulles?  

If Dulles and associates operating from his home on the Farm, monitoring all news that afternoon evening saw this how would they react?  If say Dulles, Angleton, or Helms called Hagerty immediately and said kill this now and bury it . . .

Speculation.