Michael Crane Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 Well,I have been away from the forum and did not know that. Thanks for reposting Vince.I find this a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted April 9 Author Share Posted April 9 21 minutes ago, Michael Crane said: Well,I have been away from the forum and did not know that. Thanks for reposting Vince.I find this a big deal. My pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 On 4/8/2024 at 2:12 AM, Nick Bartetzko said: As to those fragments in the throat, I have no idea. There was a reason for the throat gash... to start disposing of evidence contrary to any shots other than from the rear. Where did those fragments come from, what happened to all the other bullets, fragments, photos, xrays, evidence that are missing?? The greatest mystery to me has always been what projectile caused the throat wound are where did it originate from. I've been to Dealey Plaza twice and imo it did not come from behind the picket fence. C3/C4 (where Custer testified to seeing metal fragments in the now missing neck X-ray) is above the level of the throat wound, which means that the track would have to have been either up towards the back of the head (which makes no sense) or down from the back of the head (which makes better sense). This is confirmed by mortician Thomas Robinson, who was “adamant” about having seen the throat wound probed from the back of the head. I contend that the throat wound was caused by a fragment that made an internal ricochet off the inside of the skull at the back of the head and then angled downward to the throat wound location. It had the appearance of an entrance due to its small size (still larger than the fragment but not as large as an intact bullet would have made on exiting). The “ring of bruising” can be explained by the shirt collar and tie “shoring up” the wound, per the article I linked above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 (edited) On 4/7/2024 at 2:27 AM, Keven Hofeling said: The following (in italics and bold) is likely what Dr. McClelland had in mind when answering your question the way that he did: "...Steadman went on to reveal something rather surprising. Perry said that during that night (of November 22, 1963), he got a series of phone calls to his home from the doctors at Bethesda. They were very upset about his belief that the neck wound was one of entrance. They asked him if the Parkland doctors had turned over the body to see the wounds in Kennedy’s back. Perry replied that they had not. They then said: how could he be sure about the neck wound in light of that? They then told him that he should not continue to say that he cut across an entrance wound, when there was no evidence of a shot from the front. When Perry insisted that he could only say what he thought to be true, something truly bizarre happened. Perry said that one or more of the autopsy doctors told him that he would be brought before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they threatened to take away his license. After Perry finished this rather gripping tale, everyone was silent for a moment. Steadman then asked him if he still thought the throat wound was one of entrance. After a second or so, Perry said: yes, he did. What is so remarkable about this story is that it blows the cover off of the idea that the autopsy doctors did not know about the anterior neck wound until the next day. Not only did they know about it that night, they were trying to cover it up that night. But things always get worse in the JFK case. And this issue does also, because, if the reader can comprehend it, that night was not the first time Perry was told to revise his story—or to just plain shut up. Bill Garnet and Jacque Lueth have written, produced, and directed a documentary called The Parkland Doctors. It was shown at the CAPA Houston mock trial a few years back, but only to those in attendance, not to the viewing audience. Robert Tanenbaum is the host of the documentary. He let me see it at his home two years ago. It is a good and valuable film, since it features seven of the surviving doctors at that time, 2018. Towards the end of the program, Dr. Robert McClelland made a bracing comment about Perry. He said that as Perry was walking out of the afternoon press conference, a man in a suit and tie grabbed him by the arm. After he got his attention, he forcefully said to Malcolm, “Don’t you ever say that again!” I turned to Tanenbaum and said: “This is about ninety minutes after Kennedy was pronounced dead.” Tanenbaum said, “Jim, they knew within the hour.” At the very least, someone knew that there had to be a cover story snapped on. Malcolm Perry was a victim of a large-scale crime. The evidence above indicates that the cover up was planned with the conspiracy. I would love to know who that well-dressed man who accosted him was. One last point. When Elmer Moore was asked to appear before the Church Committee, he brought a lawyer with him. (DiEugenio, p. 168)..." Monday, 24 May 2021 05:00 'THE ORDEAL OF MALCOLM PERRY' Written by James DiEugenio "Using recent evidence discovered by Rob Couteau, Jim DiEugenio revisits the experiences of Parkland Hospital Dr. Malcolm Perry regarding the anterior neck wound he observed in President Kennedy and the concerted and persistent efforts to manipulate his testimony and obscure the clear evidence of a frontal entrance wound." https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry QUOTE Perry said that one or more of the autopsy doctors told him that he would be brought before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they threatened to take away his license. UNQUOTE Going after a doctor's medical license is a very big threat. It is right below threatening to murder the doctor. Think about that. This was going on during the NIGHT following the JFK assassination. Governmental pressure was coming to bear in a bullying manner to wipe away any talking about JFK getting shot from the front and it was IMMEDIATELY going on in real time. Who are the people pushing this? Lyndon Johnson's aides and J. Edgar Hoover. LBJ aide Cliff Carter called Dallas DA Henry Wade (who used to work for both LBJ and Hoover) and telling him that the public must be told that THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION. 1) No conspiracy in the JFK assassination. 2) Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. 3) All shots to JFK and Connally came from one man from the rear. And as you mentioned, this hardcore cover up behavior was immediately following the Drs. Perry and Kemp Parkland press conference. The sun had not even set in Dallas on 11/22/63 and the government (run by Lyndon Johnson and not Allen Dulles, btw) was already threatening people to lie about the evidence of the JFK assassination. Edited April 9 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 On 4/6/2024 at 10:44 PM, W. Niederhut said: Interesting, Ron. I think C.D. Jackson also worked in some capacity as a public relations man in the Eisenhower administration, so he probably knew Hagerty. C.D. Jackson was a former OSS man (during WWII) who later served as Henry Luce's CEO of Life magazine. A lot of Allen Dulles's CIA associates were OSS men during WWII, and they were highly skilled in mass media psy ops. Spartacus bio on C.D. Jackson is very helpful: C. D. Jackson (spartacus-educational.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 (edited) 4 hours ago, Robert Morrow said: QUOTE Perry said that one or more of the autopsy doctors told him that he would be brought before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they threatened to take away his license. UNQUOTE Going after a doctor's medical license is a very big threat. It is right below threatening to murder the doctor. Think about that. This was going on during the NIGHT following the JFK assassination. Governmental pressure was coming to bear in a bullying manner to wipe away any talking about JFK getting shot from the front and it was IMMEDIATELY going on in real time. Who are the people pushing this? Lyndon Johnson's aides and J. Edgar Hoover. LBJ aide Cliff Carter called Dallas DA Henry Wade (who used to work for both LBJ and Hoover) and telling him that the public must be told that THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION. 1) No conspiracy in the JFK assassination. 2) Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. 3) All shots to JFK and Connally came from one man from the rear. And as you mentioned, this hardcore cover up behavior was immediately following the Drs. Perry and Kemp Parkland press conference. The sun had not even set in Dallas on 11/22/63 and the government (run by Lyndon Johnson and not Allen Dulles, btw) was already threatening people to lie about the evidence of the JFK assassination. It didn't happen, Robert. The only credible source for such a thing if I recall is a very aged McClelland, and he was probably confusing the subtle harassment of SS agent Elmer Moore in December--which at the time he welcomed. Yes, believe it or not, the Parkland doctors were grateful to be brought into the loop and shown the autopsy report by Moore. They were professionals, and didn't want to look like idiots, and knew full well that the recollections of emergency room doctors aren't worth spit when compared to the weight given pathologists--who have hours and days to inspect the body. In any event, no one scared Perry into silence after the press conference. He described the throat wound as one giving the appearance of an entrance wound to Kritzberg, and in the interview above, and actually said as much the rest of his life. He never once said the wound looked like an exit wound. Let's not forget that an entrance on the throat was propped up for days afterwards, to such an extent that White House sources were telling newsman JFK turned to look over his shoulder when first struck. And that the FBI had the throat wound as an exit for a bone fragment for at least a month after the shooting. The single-bullet theory was months off. And let's be clear, there was a medical cover-up of the throat wound, but it didn't begin for months afterwards. And it wasn't to make the wound an exit--that move was performed by Dr. Humes on the 23d. No, it appears that someone--Katzenbach?--thought it best the public be told Perry was misquoted by newsman when he described the wound as an entrance. Because it sure smells that no one could find a copy of the press conference transcript...for years and years... I also find it interesting that, according to Perry's own testimony, he was interviewed numerous times on Saturday the 23rd. We can suspect then that some transcripts and notes on these interviews are still to surface. From chapter 3 at patspeer.com: Time Out: A Quick Glimpse of the Warren Commission at Work. Elsewhere, on 3-30-64, Dr. Malcolm Perry testifies before the Warren Commission. Despite his stated objective of finding a transcript for Dr. Perry’s November 22nd press conference, Arlen Specter has failed to obtain one, and instead interviews Dr. Perry about his recollections of the press conference. Not surprisingly, Perry’s memory is that he made no solid statements about Kennedy’s wounds, and that the media misrepresented what he said. While it might sound overly-conspiratorial to suggest that Specter and the Warren Commission would deliberately mislead the public by using the flawed recollections of witnesses when concrete evidence was available, the fact is they have employed this technique before. On 3-16-64, when the autopsy doctors testified about Kennedy’s wounds, they were asked to do so without referring to the autopsy photos and x-rays taken for the express purpose of assisting them with their testimony.Even worse, Specter asked them to create drawings based purely upon their recollections of the President’s wounds, and then placed these drawings into evidence. Here, then, is Dr. Perry’s testimony about the press conference: Dr. Perry - Mr. Specter, I would preface this by saying that, as you know, I have been interviewed on numerous occasions subsequent to that time, and I cannot recall with accuracy the questions that were asked. They, in general, were similar to the questions that were asked here. The press were given essentially the same, but in no detail such as have been given here. I was asked, for example, what I felt caused the President's death, the nature of the wound, from whence they came, what measures were taken for resuscitation, who were the people in attendance, at what time was it determined that he was beyond our help. Mr. Specter - What responses did you give to questions relating to the source of the bullets, if such questions were asked? Dr. Perry - I could not. I pointed out that both Dr. Clark and I had no way of knowing from whence the bullets came. Mr. Specter - Were you asked how many bullets there were? Dr. Perry - We were, and our reply was it was impossible with the knowledge we had at hand to ascertain if there were 1 or 2 bullets, or more. We were given, similarly to the discussion here today, hypothetical situations. "Is it possible that such would have been the case, or such and such?" If it was possible that there was one bullet. To this, I replied in the affirmative, it was possible and conceivable that it was only one bullet, but I did not know. Mr. Specter - What would the trajectory, or conceivable course of one bullet have been, Dr. Perry, to account for the injuries which you observed in the President, as you stated it? Dr. Perry - Since I observed only two wounds in my cursory examination, it would have necessitated the missile striking probably a bony structure and being deviated in its course in order to account for these two wounds. Mr. Specter - What bony structure was it conceivably? Dr. Perry - It required striking the spine. Mr. Specter - Did you express a professional opinion that that did, in fact, happen or it was a matter of speculation that it could have happened? Dr. Perry - I expressed it as a matter of speculation that this was conceivable. But, again, Dr. Clark and I emphasize that we had no way of knowing. Mr. Specter - Have you now recounted as specifically as you can recollect what occurred at that first press conference or is it practical for you to give any further detail to the contents of that press conference? Dr. Perry - I do not recall any specific details any further than that-- Representative Ford - Mr. Specter was there ever a recording kept of the questions and answers at that interview, Dr. Perry? Dr. Perry - This was one of the things I was mad about, Mr. Ford. There were microphones, and cameras, and the whole bit, as you know, and during the course of it a lot of these hypothetical situations and questions that were asked to us would often be asked by someone on this side and recorded by some one on this, and I don't know who was recorded and whether they were broadcasting it directly. There were tape recorders there and there were television cameras with their microphones. I know there were recordings made but who made them I don't know and, of course, portions of it would be given to this group and questions answered here and, as a result, considerable questions were not answered in their entirety and even some of them that were asked, I am sure were misunderstood. It was bedlam. Representative Ford - I was thinking, was there an official recording either made by the hospital officials or by the White House people or by any government agency? Dr. Perry - Not to my knowledge. Representative Ford - A true recording of everything that was said, the questions asked, and the answers given? Dr. Perry - Not to my knowledge. Mr. Dulles - Was there any reasonably good account in any of the press of this interview? Dr. Perry - No, sir. Representative Ford - May I ask-- Dr. Perry - I have failed to see one that was asked. Representative Ford - In other words, you subsequently read or heard what was allegedly said by you and by Dr. Clark and Dr. Carrico. Were those reportings by the news media accurate or inaccurate as to what you and others said? Dr. Perry - In general, they were inaccurate. There were some that were fairly close, but I, as you will probably surmise, was pretty full after both Friday and Sunday, and after the interviews again, following the operation of which I was a member on Sunday, I left town, and I did not read a lot of them, but of those which I saw I found none that portrayed it exactly as it happened. Nor did I find any that reported our statements exactly as they were given. They were frequently taken out of context. They were frequently mixed up as to who said what or identification as to which person was who. Representative Ford - This interview took place on Sunday, the 24th, did you say? Dr. Perry - No, there were several interviews, Mr. Ford. We had one in the afternoon, Friday afternoon, and then I spent almost the entire day Saturday in the administrative suite at the hospital answering questions to people of the press, and some medical people of the American Medical Association. And then, of course, Sunday, following the operation on Oswald, I again attended the press conference since I was the first in attendance with him. And, subsequently, there was another conference on Monday conducted by the American Medical Association, and a couple of more interviews with some people whom I don't even recall. Representative Ford - Would you say that these errors that were reported were because of a lack of technical knowledge as to what you as a physician were saying, or others were saying? Dr. Perry - Certainly that could be it in part, but it was not all. Certainly a part of it was lack of attention. A question would be asked and you would incompletely answer it and another question would be asked and they had gotten what they wanted without really understanding, and they would go on and it would go out of context. For example, on the speculation on the ultimate source of bullets, I obviously knew less about it than most people because I was in the hospital at the time and didn't know the circumstances surrounding it until it was over. I was much too busy and yet I was quoted as saying that the bullet, there was probably one bullet, which struck and deviated upward which came from the front, and what I had replied was to a question, was it conceivable that this could have happened, and I said yes, it is conceivable. I have subsequently learned that to use a straight affirmative word like "yes" is not good relations; that one should say it is conceivable and not give a straight yes or no answer. "It is conceivable" was dropped and the "yes" was used, and this was happening over and over again. Of course, Shires, for example, who was the professor and chairman of the department was identified in one press release as chief resident. (NOTE: Dr. Perry’s insistence that his words were taken out of context at the press conference is self-serving and inaccurate. Nobody trapped him into saying anything that he didn’t suggest with his own statements. Many years later, a transcript to this press conference was located at the Johnson Library. This transcript was subsequently published as ARRB Medical Document 41. From this transcript: “DR. MALCOM PERRY…There are two wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say. QUESTION- Where was the entrance wound? DR. MALCOLM PERRY- There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say. QUESTION- Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him? DR. MALCOLM PERRY- It appeared to be coming at him...") Moments later, Arlen Specter returns to the topic of the November 22nd press conference: Mr. Specter - “we have been trying diligently to get the tape records of the television interviews, and we were unsuccessful. I discussed this with Dr. Perry in Dallas last Wednesday, and he expressed an interest in seeing them, and I told him we would make them available to him prior to his appearance, before deposition or before the Commission, except our efforts at CBS and NBC, ABC and everywhere including New York, Dallas and other cities were to no avail. The problem is they have not yet cataloged all of the footage which they have, and I have been advised by the Secret Service, by Agent John Howlett, that they have an excess of 200 hours of transcripts among all of the events and they just have not cataloged them and could not make them available. (NOTE: Specter was not telling the whole story. On 3-18-64, J. Lee Rankin, Specter's boss, wrote James J. Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, to ask for his help in acquiring a recording or transcript of Dr. Perry's press conference. On 3-25-64, Rowley wrote back telling Rankin that no video tape or transcript of Perry's comments could be located. This letter was published as CD 678. It seems possible, then, that Specter was only pretending that the problem was that the footage had not yet been catalogued, and that he was pretending this so Perry wouldn't be unnerved by the fact all the tapes of his press conference had miraculously vanished. There's also this. When eventually published by the ARRB as medical document 41, the transcript to the press conference had an interesting stamp on its final page. It read "Received U.S. Secret Service Office of the Chief" with the date of 11-26-63, 11:40 AM. Well, hell. This could mean a number of things. None of them good. Either Rowley was so incompetent that he failed to realize he had a transcript to the press conference when contacted by Rankin, or he was so forgetful that he failed to remember giving this transcript to Johnson for his Library, or he knew damn well he still had or used to have a copy of the transcript, and deliberately withheld this information from Rankin and the commission.) Mr. Dulles - Do you intend to catalog them? Mr. Specter - Yes, they do, Mr. Dulles. They intend to do that eventually in their normal process, and the Secret Service is trying to expedite the news media to give us those, and it was our thought as to the film clips, which would be the most direct or the recordings which would be the most direct, to make comparisons between the reports in the news media and what Dr. Perry said at that time, and the facts which we have from the doctors through our depositions and transcript today. Representative Ford - Can you give us any time estimate when this catalog and comparison might be made? Mr. Specter - Only that they are working on it right now, have been for sometime, but it may be a matter of a couple of weeks until they can turn it over. (NOTE: These last few exchanges are priceless. Dulles asks Specter if he plans on going through the transcripts and he responds by saying that the Secret Service is going to help him. He then estimates that it should only take a few weeks. As stated, Rowley had already told Rankin they'd looked but that no recording or transcript could be located. It seems possible then that Dulles and Specter were putting on a show. No one knows what became of the original recordings of the press conference. Certainly someone had a tape recorder running. But none has ever surfaced. It seems possible then that they were made to disappear.) (Discussion off the record.) (God only knows what they talked about.) Mr. McCloy - Mr. Chairman, I have some doubt as to the present propriety of making, of having the doctor make, comments in respect to a particular group of newspaper articles. There have been comments, as we all know, around the world, of great variety and great extent, and it would be practically impossible, I suppose, to check all of the accounts and in failing to check one would not wish to have it suggested that others, the accuracy of others was being endorsed. I would suggest that the staff make an examination of the files that we have of the comments, together with such tape recordings as may have been taken of the actual press conferences, and after that examination is made we can then determine, perhaps a little more effectively, what might be done to clarify this situation so that it would conform to the actual statements that the doctor has made. Mr. Dulles - Well, Mr. McCloy, it is quite satisfactory with me and I agree with you we cannot run down all of the rumors in all of the press and it is quite satisfactory with me to wait and see whether we have adequate information to deal with this situation when we get in the complete tapes of the various television, radio and other appearances, so that we have a pretty complete record of what these two witnesses and others have said on the points we have been discussing here today. So I quite agree we will await this presentation to the doctors until we have had a further chance to review this situation. What I wanted to be sure was that when we are through with this we do have in our files and records adequate information to deal with a great many of the false rumors that have been spread on the basis of false interpretation of these appearances before television, radio, and so forth and so on. And with that, Dr. Perry’s public and properly quoted description of Kennedy’s throat wound as an “entrance wound” is successfully disposed of as a “false rumor” spread by an over-zealous media... Edited April 9 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 (edited) 3 hours ago, Pat Speer said: It didn't happen, Robert. The only credible source for such a thing if I recall is a very aged McClelland, and he was probably confusing the subtle harassment of SS agent Elmer Moore in December--which at the time he welcomed. Yes, believe it or not, the Parkland doctors were grateful to be brought into the loop and shown the autopsy report by Moore. They were professionals, and didn't want to look like idiots, and knew full well that the recollections of emergency room doctors aren't worth spit when compared to the weight given pathologists--who have hours and days to inspect the body. In any event, no one scared Perry into silence after the press conference. He described the throat wound as one giving the appearance of an entrance wound to Kritzberg, and in the interview above, and actually said as much the rest of his life. He never once said the wound looked like an exit wound. Let's not forget that an entrance on the throat was propped up for days afterwards, to such an extent that White House sources were telling newsman JFK turned to look over his shoulder when first struck. And that the FBI had the throat wound as an exit for a bone fragment for at least a month after the shooting. The single-bullet theory was months off. And let's be clear, there was a medical cover-up of the throat wound, but it didn't begin for months afterwards. And it wasn't to make the wound an exit--that move was performed by Dr. Humes on the 23d. No, it appears that someone--Katzenbach?--thought it best the public be told Perry was misquoted by newsman when he described the wound as an entrance. Because it sure smells that no one could find a copy of the press conference transcript...for years and years... I also find it interesting that, according to Perry's own testimony, he was interviewed numerous times on Saturday the 23rd. We can suspect then that some transcripts and notes on these interviews are still to surface. From chapter 3 at patspeer.com: Time Out: A Quick Glimpse of the Warren Commission at Work. Elsewhere, on 3-30-64, Dr. Malcolm Perry testifies before the Warren Commission. Despite his stated objective of finding a transcript for Dr. Perry’s November 22nd press conference, Arlen Specter has failed to obtain one, and instead interviews Dr. Perry about his recollections of the press conference. Not surprisingly, Perry’s memory is that he made no solid statements about Kennedy’s wounds, and that the media misrepresented what he said. While it might sound overly-conspiratorial to suggest that Specter and the Warren Commission would deliberately mislead the public by using the flawed recollections of witnesses when concrete evidence was available, the fact is they have employed this technique before. On 3-16-64, when the autopsy doctors testified about Kennedy’s wounds, they were asked to do so without referring to the autopsy photos and x-rays taken for the express purpose of assisting them with their testimony.Even worse, Specter asked them to create drawings based purely upon their recollections of the President’s wounds, and then placed these drawings into evidence. Here, then, is Dr. Perry’s testimony about the press conference: Dr. Perry - Mr. Specter, I would preface this by saying that, as you know, I have been interviewed on numerous occasions subsequent to that time, and I cannot recall with accuracy the questions that were asked. They, in general, were similar to the questions that were asked here. The press were given essentially the same, but in no detail such as have been given here. I was asked, for example, what I felt caused the President's death, the nature of the wound, from whence they came, what measures were taken for resuscitation, who were the people in attendance, at what time was it determined that he was beyond our help. Mr. Specter - What responses did you give to questions relating to the source of the bullets, if such questions were asked? Dr. Perry - I could not. I pointed out that both Dr. Clark and I had no way of knowing from whence the bullets came. Mr. Specter - Were you asked how many bullets there were? Dr. Perry - We were, and our reply was it was impossible with the knowledge we had at hand to ascertain if there were 1 or 2 bullets, or more. We were given, similarly to the discussion here today, hypothetical situations. "Is it possible that such would have been the case, or such and such?" If it was possible that there was one bullet. To this, I replied in the affirmative, it was possible and conceivable that it was only one bullet, but I did not know. Mr. Specter - What would the trajectory, or conceivable course of one bullet have been, Dr. Perry, to account for the injuries which you observed in the President, as you stated it? Dr. Perry - Since I observed only two wounds in my cursory examination, it would have necessitated the missile striking probably a bony structure and being deviated in its course in order to account for these two wounds. Mr. Specter - What bony structure was it conceivably? Dr. Perry - It required striking the spine. Mr. Specter - Did you express a professional opinion that that did, in fact, happen or it was a matter of speculation that it could have happened? Dr. Perry - I expressed it as a matter of speculation that this was conceivable. But, again, Dr. Clark and I emphasize that we had no way of knowing. Mr. Specter - Have you now recounted as specifically as you can recollect what occurred at that first press conference or is it practical for you to give any further detail to the contents of that press conference? Dr. Perry - I do not recall any specific details any further than that-- Representative Ford - Mr. Specter was there ever a recording kept of the questions and answers at that interview, Dr. Perry? Dr. Perry - This was one of the things I was mad about, Mr. Ford. There were microphones, and cameras, and the whole bit, as you know, and during the course of it a lot of these hypothetical situations and questions that were asked to us would often be asked by someone on this side and recorded by some one on this, and I don't know who was recorded and whether they were broadcasting it directly. There were tape recorders there and there were television cameras with their microphones. I know there were recordings made but who made them I don't know and, of course, portions of it would be given to this group and questions answered here and, as a result, considerable questions were not answered in their entirety and even some of them that were asked, I am sure were misunderstood. It was bedlam. Representative Ford - I was thinking, was there an official recording either made by the hospital officials or by the White House people or by any government agency? Dr. Perry - Not to my knowledge. Representative Ford - A true recording of everything that was said, the questions asked, and the answers given? Dr. Perry - Not to my knowledge. Mr. Dulles - Was there any reasonably good account in any of the press of this interview? Dr. Perry - No, sir. Representative Ford - May I ask-- Dr. Perry - I have failed to see one that was asked. Representative Ford - In other words, you subsequently read or heard what was allegedly said by you and by Dr. Clark and Dr. Carrico. Were those reportings by the news media accurate or inaccurate as to what you and others said? Dr. Perry - In general, they were inaccurate. There were some that were fairly close, but I, as you will probably surmise, was pretty full after both Friday and Sunday, and after the interviews again, following the operation of which I was a member on Sunday, I left town, and I did not read a lot of them, but of those which I saw I found none that portrayed it exactly as it happened. Nor did I find any that reported our statements exactly as they were given. They were frequently taken out of context. They were frequently mixed up as to who said what or identification as to which person was who. Representative Ford - This interview took place on Sunday, the 24th, did you say? Dr. Perry - No, there were several interviews, Mr. Ford. We had one in the afternoon, Friday afternoon, and then I spent almost the entire day Saturday in the administrative suite at the hospital answering questions to people of the press, and some medical people of the American Medical Association. And then, of course, Sunday, following the operation on Oswald, I again attended the press conference since I was the first in attendance with him. And, subsequently, there was another conference on Monday conducted by the American Medical Association, and a couple of more interviews with some people whom I don't even recall. Representative Ford - Would you say that these errors that were reported were because of a lack of technical knowledge as to what you as a physician were saying, or others were saying? Dr. Perry - Certainly that could be it in part, but it was not all. Certainly a part of it was lack of attention. A question would be asked and you would incompletely answer it and another question would be asked and they had gotten what they wanted without really understanding, and they would go on and it would go out of context. For example, on the speculation on the ultimate source of bullets, I obviously knew less about it than most people because I was in the hospital at the time and didn't know the circumstances surrounding it until it was over. I was much too busy and yet I was quoted as saying that the bullet, there was probably one bullet, which struck and deviated upward which came from the front, and what I had replied was to a question, was it conceivable that this could have happened, and I said yes, it is conceivable. I have subsequently learned that to use a straight affirmative word like "yes" is not good relations; that one should say it is conceivable and not give a straight yes or no answer. "It is conceivable" was dropped and the "yes" was used, and this was happening over and over again. Of course, Shires, for example, who was the professor and chairman of the department was identified in one press release as chief resident. (NOTE: Dr. Perry’s insistence that his words were taken out of context at the press conference is self-serving and inaccurate. Nobody trapped him into saying anything that he didn’t suggest with his own statements. Many years later, a transcript to this press conference was located at the Johnson Library. This transcript was subsequently published as ARRB Medical Document 41. From this transcript: “DR. MALCOM PERRY…There are two wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say. QUESTION- Where was the entrance wound? DR. MALCOLM PERRY- There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say. QUESTION- Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him? DR. MALCOLM PERRY- It appeared to be coming at him...") Moments later, Arlen Specter returns to the topic of the November 22nd press conference: Mr. Specter - “we have been trying diligently to get the tape records of the television interviews, and we were unsuccessful. I discussed this with Dr. Perry in Dallas last Wednesday, and he expressed an interest in seeing them, and I told him we would make them available to him prior to his appearance, before deposition or before the Commission, except our efforts at CBS and NBC, ABC and everywhere including New York, Dallas and other cities were to no avail. The problem is they have not yet cataloged all of the footage which they have, and I have been advised by the Secret Service, by Agent John Howlett, that they have an excess of 200 hours of transcripts among all of the events and they just have not cataloged them and could not make them available. (NOTE: Specter was not telling the whole story. On 3-18-64, J. Lee Rankin, Specter's boss, wrote James J. Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, to ask for his help in acquiring a recording or transcript of Dr. Perry's press conference. On 3-25-64, Rowley wrote back telling Rankin that no video tape or transcript of Perry's comments could be located. This letter was published as CD 678. It seems possible, then, that Specter was only pretending that the problem was that the footage had not yet been catalogued, and that he was pretending this so Perry wouldn't be unnerved by the fact all the tapes of his press conference had miraculously vanished. There's also this. When eventually published by the ARRB as medical document 41, the transcript to the press conference had an interesting stamp on its final page. It read "Received U.S. Secret Service Office of the Chief" with the date of 11-26-63, 11:40 AM. Well, hell. This could mean a number of things. None of them good. Either Rowley was so incompetent that he failed to realize he had a transcript to the press conference when contacted by Rankin, or he was so forgetful that he failed to remember giving this transcript to Johnson for his Library, or he knew damn well he still had or used to have a copy of the transcript, and deliberately withheld this information from Rankin and the commission.) Mr. Dulles - Do you intend to catalog them? Mr. Specter - Yes, they do, Mr. Dulles. They intend to do that eventually in their normal process, and the Secret Service is trying to expedite the news media to give us those, and it was our thought as to the film clips, which would be the most direct or the recordings which would be the most direct, to make comparisons between the reports in the news media and what Dr. Perry said at that time, and the facts which we have from the doctors through our depositions and transcript today. Representative Ford - Can you give us any time estimate when this catalog and comparison might be made? Mr. Specter - Only that they are working on it right now, have been for sometime, but it may be a matter of a couple of weeks until they can turn it over. (NOTE: These last few exchanges are priceless. Dulles asks Specter if he plans on going through the transcripts and he responds by saying that the Secret Service is going to help him. He then estimates that it should only take a few weeks. As stated, Rowley had already told Rankin they'd looked but that no recording or transcript could be located. It seems possible then that Dulles and Specter were putting on a show. No one knows what became of the original recordings of the press conference. Certainly someone had a tape recorder running. But none has ever surfaced. It seems possible then that they were made to disappear.) (Discussion off the record.) (God only knows what they talked about.) Mr. McCloy - Mr. Chairman, I have some doubt as to the present propriety of making, of having the doctor make, comments in respect to a particular group of newspaper articles. There have been comments, as we all know, around the world, of great variety and great extent, and it would be practically impossible, I suppose, to check all of the accounts and in failing to check one would not wish to have it suggested that others, the accuracy of others was being endorsed. I would suggest that the staff make an examination of the files that we have of the comments, together with such tape recordings as may have been taken of the actual press conferences, and after that examination is made we can then determine, perhaps a little more effectively, what might be done to clarify this situation so that it would conform to the actual statements that the doctor has made. Mr. Dulles - Well, Mr. McCloy, it is quite satisfactory with me and I agree with you we cannot run down all of the rumors in all of the press and it is quite satisfactory with me to wait and see whether we have adequate information to deal with this situation when we get in the complete tapes of the various television, radio and other appearances, so that we have a pretty complete record of what these two witnesses and others have said on the points we have been discussing here today. So I quite agree we will await this presentation to the doctors until we have had a further chance to review this situation. What I wanted to be sure was that when we are through with this we do have in our files and records adequate information to deal with a great many of the false rumors that have been spread on the basis of false interpretation of these appearances before television, radio, and so forth and so on. And with that, Dr. Perry’s public and properly quoted description of Kennedy’s throat wound as an “entrance wound” is successfully disposed of as a “false rumor” spread by an over-zealous media... No, Mr. Speer, it is not true that "...the only credible source for such a thing...is a very aged McClelland..." The source is New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman who, along with investigative reporter Fred Ferretti and Houston Chronicle reporter Stan Redding, interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry on the evening of December 2, 1963. In Martin J. Steadman's article entitled "50 Years from that Fateful Day in Dallas...," he wrote as follows (See highlighted paragraph below): http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm "...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 [the evening of the assassination - KH], 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. [emphasis not in original] 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...." '50 YEARS FROM THAT FATEFUL DAY IN DALLAS...' | By Martin J. Steadman | http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm The article I had originally provided in a post on this thread which referenced the highlighted passage above, and which @Robert Morrow was quoting from, is a very good article on the subject by @James DiEugenio using evidence discovered by @Rob Couteau (and which references your work on SS agent Elmer Moore), as follows: 'THE ORDEAL OF MALCOLM PERRY' | By James DiEugenio | Monday, 24 May 2021 05:00 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry "Using recent evidence discovered by Rob Couteau, Jim DiEugenio revisits the experiences of Parkland Hospital Dr. Malcolm Perry regarding the anterior neck wound he observed in President Kennedy and the concerted and persistent efforts to manipulate his testimony and obscure the clear evidence of a frontal entrance wound." Edited April 9 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said: No, Mr. Speer, it is not true that "...the only credible source for such a thing...is a very aged McClelland..." The source is New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman who, along with investigative reporter Fred Ferretti and Houston Chronicle reporter Stan Redding, interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry on the evening of December 2, 1963. In Martin J. Steadman's article entitled "50 Years from that Fateful Day in Dallas...," he wrote as follows (See highlighted paragraph below): http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm "...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 [the evening of the assassination - KH], 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. [emphasis not in original] 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...." '50 YEARS FROM THAT FATEFUL DAY IN DALLAS...' | By Martin J. Steadman | http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm The article I had originally provided in a post on this thread which referenced the highlighted passage above, and which @Robert Morrow was quoting from, is a very good article on the subject by @James DiEugenio using evidence discovered by @Rob Couteau (and which references your work on SS agent Elmer Moore), as follows: 'THE ORDEAL OF MALCOLM PERRY' | By James DiEugenio | Monday, 24 May 2021 05:00 | https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry "Using recent evidence discovered by Rob Couteau, Jim DiEugenio revisits the experiences of Parkland Hospital Dr. Malcolm Perry regarding the anterior neck wound he observed in President Kennedy and the concerted and persistent efforts to manipulate his testimony and obscure the clear evidence of a frontal entrance wound." Ok. Thanks. My apologies to Dr. McClelland, who repeated something like this in JFK: What the Doctors Saw. It was originally someone else's aged recollection. But the fact remains that it wasn't true. 1. No one involved in the autopsy called Perry during the autopsy. They should have but they didn't. The official story is that Humes--by his lonesome--called Perry the next morning. And this makes the most sense. IF they had called Perry during the autopsy and told him he was to say the throat wound was an entrance, not exit, well, wouldn't they have told the FBI--the Federal Agency responsible--that there was a throat wound? That they believed was an exit? Of course they would. The doctors' failure to know about and properly study the throat wound was a colossal failing--and incredibly embarrassing to the military and the doctors personally. It's not something they would make up for no reason. 2. Humes was a military doctor and would not have any authority over Perry's medical license. Now, if the story was that someone like Burkley or Katzenbach or some LBJ hatchet-man like Valenti had threatened Perry it would be a heckuva lot more believable. 3. Perry and others continued claiming the throat wound appeared to be an entrance for not only days afterwards, but the rest of their lives. There was no cover-up of the throat wound, outside the one I mentioned earlier--where the transcript in which Perry mistakenly said it was a throat wound and not that it appeared to be a throat wound conveniently disappeared. Edited April 9 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 (edited) 3 hours ago, Pat Speer said: Ok. Thanks. My apologies to Dr. McClelland, who repeated something like this in JFK: What the Doctors Saw. It was originally someone else's aged recollection. But the fact remains that it wasn't true. 1. No one involved in the autopsy called Perry during the autopsy. They should have but they didn't. The official story is that Humes--by his lonesome--called Perry the next morning. And this makes the most sense. IF they had called Perry during the autopsy and told him he was to say the throat wound was an entrance, not exit, well, wouldn't they have told the FBI--the Federal Agency responsible--that there was a throat wound? That they believed was an exit? Of course they would. The doctors' failure to know about and properly study the throat wound was a colossal failing--and incredibly embarrassing to the military and the doctors personally. It's not something they would make up for no reason. 2. Humes was a military doctor and would not have any authority over Perry's medical license. Now, if the story was that someone like Burkley or Katzenbach or some LBJ hatchet-man like Valenti had threatened Perry it would be a heckuva lot more believable. 3. Perry and others continued claiming the throat wound appeared to be an entrance for not only days afterwards, but the rest of their lives. There was no cover-up of the throat wound, outside the one I mentioned earlier--where the transcript in which Perry mistakenly said it was a throat wound and not that it appeared to be a throat wound conveniently disappeared. Pat Speer wrote: Quote Ok. Thanks. My apologies to Dr. McClelland, who repeated something like this in JFK: What the Doctors Saw. It was originally someone else's aged recollection. But the fact remains that it wasn't true. Really? And on what basis are you impugning the credibility of New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman and his account of his December 2, 1963 interview of Dr. Malcolm Perry other than that it is inconvenient for the PatSpeer.com version of the fraudulent autopsy and cover-up? http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm "...But [Dr. Malcolm Perry] told us that throughout that night [the evening of the assassination - KH], 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...." [emphasis not in original] '50 YEARS FROM THAT FATEFUL DAY IN DALLAS...' | By Martin J. Steadman | http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm Pat Speer wrote: Quote 1. No one involved in the autopsy called Perry during the autopsy. They should have but they didn't. The official story is that Humes--by his lonesome--called Perry the next morning. And this makes the most sense. IF they had called Perry during the autopsy and told him he was to say the throat wound was an entrance, not exit, well, wouldn't they have told the FBI--the Federal Agency responsible--that there was a throat wound? That they believed was an exit? Of course they would. The doctors' failure to know about and properly study the throat wound was a colossal failing--and incredibly embarrassing to the military and the doctors personally. It's not something they would make up for no reason. No, Mr. Speer, the government cover-up story does not "make the most sense." The fingerprints of "cover-up" are all over the autopsy and the question of whether or not the pathologists had contemporaneous knowledge of the throat wound, and whether or not the pathologists communicated with Dr. Malcolm Perry about the throat wound the evening of the assassination and threatened to report him to the medical board. For example, Parkland Nurse Audrey Bell told Harrison Livingstone in 1991 that “Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound,” and in a 2009 blog entry by Doug Horne, Horne wrote the following: "...What most of the public does not know---and what is detailed in my book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," is that late on the night of President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital, Federal officials located at Bethesda began harrassing Dr. Perry on the telephone in an attempt to get him to change his mind about having seen an entry wound in the President's throat earlier in the day. Nurse Audrey Bell told me in 1997 that Dr. Perry complained to her the next morning (on Saturday, November 23, 1963) that he had gotten almost no sleep the night before, because unnamed persons at Bethesda had been pressuring him on the telephone all night long to get him to change his opinion about the nature of the bullet wound in the throat, and to redescribe it as an exit, rather than an entrance. In his 1981 book "Best Evidence," David Lifton documented that the Secret Service confiscated videotapes of the Parkland hospital press conference from at least one local television station, and that Secret Service Chief James Rowley had informed the Warren Commission in 1964 that no videotapes or transcripts of the press conference could be found. But as Lifton revealed, a White House verbatim transcript of the press conference (White House Transcript 1327-C) later surfaced. In my own book, "Inside the ARRB," I reveal that Chief Rowley lied to the Warren Commission when he said no transcripts could be found, for on the last page of transcript 1327-C, the document is stamped as received by Rowley's office on November 26, 1963. His statement to the Warren Commission was therefore false. A graduate student, James Gochenaur, revealed to both the Church Committee and to the HSCA in the mid-1970s that Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore had confessed to him in 1970 that he had "leaned on Dr. Perry" shortly after the Bethesda autopsy to get him to stop describing the bullet wound in President Kennedy's throat as an entrance wound. (The Bethesda autopsy report concluded it was an exit wound.) According to Gochenaur, Moore also told him that the Secret Service had to investigate the assassination in an expected, predetermined way or they would "get their heads chopped off." Moore, unfortunately, also told Gochenaur that sometimes he thought President Kennedy was "a traitor" because he was "giving things away to the Russians." [According to Arlen Specter, this same Elmer Moore was present when Chief Justice Warren, Gerald Ford, and he interviewed Jack Ruby in Dallas; and Arlen Specter also revealed in 2003 (at a conference in Pittsburgh) that Elmer Moore was the Secret Service Agent who showed him an undocumented photograph of President Kennedy's back wound during the May 1964 re-enactment of the Dallas motorcade conducted by the Warren Commission.] Unfortunately, after Federal officials at Bethesda (on November 22-23, 1963) and Elmer Moore (between November 29-December 11, 1963) "leaned on" Dr. Perry, he spent the remainder of his life straddling the fence and saying that the bullet wound in JFK's throat "could have been either" an entrance or an exit wound. But that is not what he said on the afternoon of the assassination, before there was an official explanation for the crime to fall in line with. White House Transcript 1327-C makes that very clear, as I reveal in my book, in Chapters 7 and 9. Former Chief Operating Room nurse Audrey Bell related to me in 1997 that Dr. Perry was in a state of torment on November 23, 1963, after being pressured by Federal officials all night long to change his mind, because, as he put it, "my professional credibility is at stake." Sadly, he appears to have decided for the remainder of his life that discretion was the better part of valor. The story does not end here. The chief prosector at the President's autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, described the throat wound in the autopsy report as having "widely gaping, irregular edges," and in his Warren Commission testimony, Humes said the gaping wound in the throat was 7 to 8 cm wide. In contrast, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, a third year resident at Parkland in 1963, told ABC's "20/20" news magazine in 1992 that after the tracheostomy tube and flange were removed from the President's neck following his death, that the very small incision made by Dr. Perry closed of its own volition, and that the bullet wound had NOT been obliterated and was still clearly visible. When Dr. Crenshaw viewed the widely published bootleg autopsy photo (from Bethesda Naval hospital) showing the incision in JFK's neck, he expressed the opinion to ABC's "20/20" that the incision in that photograph was DOUBLE the width of the incision Dr. Perry originally made on the President's body. The descriptions of the incision in the anterior neck, provided by Dr. Humes and Dr. Crenshaw, together constitute de facto evidence that JFK's throat wound was tampered with prior to the start of the Navy autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. President Kennedy's body was in the custody of the U.S. Secret Service while enroute Washington D.C. from Dallas, Texas..." 'Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Key Parkland Hospital Witness to JFK's Wounds, Dies' InsideTheARRB | By Doug Horne | December 8, 2009 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html And in the following extremely well documented excerpt from Dr. Gary Aguilar's "HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG," Dr. Aguilar chronicled accounts of contemporaneous knowledge of the throat wound at the Bethesda autopsy -- and in several cases, the 11/22/1963 phone calls from Bethesda to Malcolm Perry -- by pathologist James Humes, pathologist J. Thornton Boswell, historian William Manchester, Parkland doctor Paul Peters, pathologist Robert Karnei, radiologist John Ebersole, Coast Guardsman George Barnum, General Philip C. Wehle's personal aide, Richard A. Lipsey, and Dr. Malcolm Perry himself: "...The Case for the Autopsists Not Being Ignorant of Kennedy’s Throat Wound During the Autopsy The absence of word about Kennedy’s throat wound in the FBI report is far from proof of the surgeons’ ignorance. It only proves the doctors either didn’t know about the throat wound before the agents left, or that the surgeons kept quiet, and perhaps with good reason. Given their manifest lack of expertise in this sort of work, the surgeons might have wanted kept to their own counsels, lest they later be forced to confront an accurate, federal accounting of their errors and misjudgments. Moreover, the agents didn’t stick it out the entire night; they left the morgue at about 1:00 AM. And although by then the morticians were busy at work, there is evidence the autopsists were still engaged. Internal CBS memorandum reporting on Dr. Humes' admission that a path had been traced from back wound to throat wound during the autopsy. (see ARRB MD #16) In the mid 1960’s, Humes confided to a personal friend that, as a once-secret, internal Columbia Broadcasting System memo put it, “Although initially in the autopsy procedure the back wound could only be penetrated to finger length, a probe later was made – when no FBI men were present – that traced the path of the bullet from the back going downwards, then upwards slightly, then downwards again exiting at the throat. One X-ray photo taken, Humes said, clearly shows the above, as it was apparently taken with a mental probe stick of some kind that was left in the body to show the wound’s path.”[39] While several tantalizing details in this account will be explored in more detail later, its relevance here is that the agents didn’t see everything the surgeons saw or did. Moreover, unless they’d had some word about a bullet wound in the throat, Humes would hardly have passed a probe from the back to JFK’s throat if he’d had no reason to believe a wound lay there. What, then, about the report of the President’s physician? If he actually knew, why is Burkley also silent on the throat wound? It turns out that Burkley is silent about all of JFK’s wounds; his report concerns itself more with what Burkley did than what he saw. For example, regarding Kennedy’s injuries, Burkley speaks only about what he witnessed at Parkland: “I immediately entered the room, went to the head of the table and viewed the President. It was evident that death was imminent and that he was in a hopeless condition.”[40] It is scarcely a surprise Burkley is mum about the throat wound when he says nothing about JFK’s huge skull injuries. And, finally, what about Boswell’s technician, Jenkins? Boswell was never asked whether he confided in Jenkins during the autopsy. So, in light of the tenseness of the situation, it is quite possible that Boswell could have known of the wound, or strongly suspected it, without telling Jenkins about it. In fact, Boswell’s subsequent statements seem to bear that out. A reasonable case can be also made for the opposite conclusion: that knowledge of the throat wound had indeed seeped into JFK’s morgue. Perhaps the earliest evidence comes from a respected outsider. Although as per his custom he does not name his source, the famously well-connected historian William Manchester may have been the first to come up with it in his 1967 book, The Death of a President. Manchester discovered that the course of events that makes the most sense to us today is in fact what actually happened: that the autopsy team had indeed heard Perry’s comments on the afternoon of the murder, and that they had dutifully communicated with Dallas during the post mortem. “They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. Unlike the physicians at Parkland, they had turned the President over and seen the smaller hole in the back of his neck. They were positive that Perry had seen an exit wound. The deleterious effects of confusion were already evident. Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors who had been in Trauma Room No. 1.”[41] (authors’ emphasis. One imagines that Manchester intended to convey that the autopsists hoped the pictures would satisfy the Texas doctors that the throat wound Perry had called an entrance wound was instead an exit wound.) Transcript of Nov. 22 afternoon press conference given by Parkland Hospital physicians Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark. (see ARRB MD #41) Manchester gave a compelling reason for the autopsists’ concern about comments emanating from the doctors in Dallas: “Bethesda’s physicians anticipated that their findings would later be subjected to the most.”[42] Ironically, Dallas was generous with reasons for a searching scrutiny of the autopsists’ claimed ignorance of the throat wound. Parkland witness, Paul Peters, MD, told Boston Globe journalist, Ben Bradlee, that “We did find out almost immediately (sic) after President Kennedy was taken to Bethesda that there was a hole in the neck that we had not seen a the time … But it was only a few (sic) hours later when we began to get calls back to (sic) from Bethesda … See it was only, it was only going to be a few (sic) hours before I would know that the bullets were fired from behind.”[43] Author Harrison Livingstone reported another Parkland source for nighttime contact between the morgue and Dallas. In a 1991 interview, Livingstone said that Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell told him, “Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound.”[44] In 1966 even Dr. Boswell himself weighed in, echoing Manchester by apparently disgorging to a stringer for the Baltimore Sun, who reported that, “before the autopsy had began, the pathologists had been apprised of JFK's wounds and what had been done to him at Parkland. In particular, Boswell said: ‘We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered the back of the neck, traversed the neck and exited anteriorly.’”[45] (author’s emphasis) Under oath in 1996, Boswell told the ARRB much the same thing. “Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself?”, he was asked. “Oh, yes,” Boswell answered.[46] [On the other hand, Pierre Finck told the ARRB that at the end of the evening they had not concluded a throat transit.[47]] But regarding what they knew before they plunged in, Boswell seemed to give a slightly different version to the ARRB than he had the Baltimore Sun. He was asked, “Prior to the time you first saw the President Kennedy’s body, had you heard any communications about the nature of the wounds that he had suffered?” “I don’t think specifically. I think just the fact that he had a head wound,” Boswell responded.[48] Boswell kept to Humes’ claim the calls to Dallas happened the next day. “When was the first conversation with doctors in Dallas?” he was asked in 1996 by the ARRB. “Saturday morning,” Boswell answered.[49] Boswell’s account seems to contradict the comments of another pathologist who was present during the autopsy, though not as a member of the surgical team, Robert Karnei, MD. During an interview, author Harrison Livingstone clumsily commented to Karnei about the autopsists’ alleged ignorance: “They didn’t know there was a bullet hole in the throat. All they saw was the trach (sic) incision.” Karnei: “Right. Once they talked to the doctors in Dallas, this is around midnight, I think.” Livingstone: “No, it was the next day when he called Perry.” Karnei: “Next day?” Livingstone: “Yes. The body was already gone.” Karnei: “I was convinced they talked to somebody that night, and finally decided that had to be the exit wound. Pierre Finck, I think, talked to somebody … For some reason I thought they had discovered that around midnight. Maybe it was the next day.”[50] Karnei was not the only morgue physician who was confused about information from Dallas and when the team had decided there had been a bullet wound in JFK’s throat. In the suppressed HSCA interview of autopsy radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, Ebersole told the medical panel that Humes was in telephone contact with Dallas doctors during the autopsy. (see ARRB MD #60. p. 64) After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole, MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy – that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound – corresponding to the back entrance wound – was solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy.[52] By the later stages of the autopsy, Admiral Burkley was apparently talking to others about a wound in JFK’s throat, according to a Bethesda witness reported by author David Lifton. On 11/29/63, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote up a memo that concerned a conversation he had had with Admiral Burkley at Bethesda Hospital on the night of the autopsy. Barnum reported that Burkley had told him Kennedy had been hit twice, “The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat … .”[53] Barnum’s account is incomprehensible without accepting that Burkley’s remark suggests that either there was knowledge of the throat wound or, as per Boswell and Karnei, that a throat wound had been inferred by the autopsy team. Either way, Humes’ assertion to the Warren Commission to the effect a throat wound only dawned on him the next day, after a call to Dallas, seems open to dispute. Other witnesses add to the doubts. General Philip C. Wehle's personal aide,[54] Richard A. Lipsey, a witness to the autopsy, told the HSCA that sometime during the autopsy the prosectors concluded that three bullets had struck the President. “Lipsey said that one bullet entered the upper back of the President and did not exit,” the HSCA reported, and that, “one entered in the rear of the head and exited the throat; and one entered and exited in the right, top portion of the head, causing a massive head wound.”[55] Although this is not what finally made it into the autopsy report, it is hard to understand how a non-physician would recall linking the head wound to the throat wound unless he’d heard of a wound in the throat from the surgeons. Then there is the odd answer of tracheotomist, Malcolm Perry, MD, one that called to mind Dr. Peters’ previously cited comment that, “it was only a few (sic) hours later when we began to get calls back to (sic) from Bethesda”: Arlen Specter asked: “And will you relate the circumstances of the calls indicating first the time when they occurred.” Perry: “Dr. Humes called me twice on Friday afternoon, separated by about 30-minute intervals, as I recall. The first one, I, somehow think I recall the first one must have been around 1500 hours, but I'm not real sure about that; I'm not positive of that at all, actually.” Specter hastened to correct Perry, following up with: Specter: “Could it have been Saturday morning?” Perry: “Saturday morning – was it? It's possible. I remember talking with him twice. I was thinking it was shortly thereafter.”[56] While Perry’s turnabout may have come completely from the heart, that his instantaneous recall of a contact on Friday happened to match the recollections of so many others is surely quite a coincidence...." [39] CBS Memorandum from Bob Richer to Les Midgley, 1/10/67. Reproduced in: The Effectiveness of Public Law 102-526, The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, Hearing Before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, November 17, 1993, p. 233. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document # 16. [40] Affidavit of Admiral George Burkley. In: Warren Commission Exhibit # 1126. 22H93-97. [41] William Manchester. The Death of a President. New York: Penguin Books, 1977, p. 432 – 433. [42] William Manchester. The Death of a President. New York: Penguin Books, 1977, p. 432 – 433. [43] Tape recorded interview of 1 May 1981; transcript supplied by Harrison Livingstone. [44] Harrison Livingstone. High Treason 2. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992, p. 121. [45] Richard H. Levine, 25 November 1966, page 1. [46] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 34. [47] ARRB interview with Pierre Finck, p. 91 “miniscript,” or p. 18 of published text. [48] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 30. [49] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 27. [50] Harrison Livingstone. High Treason 2. New York: Carroll and Graf, 1992, p. 186. [51] See transcript of David Mantik’s interview with John Ebersole in: James Fetzer, ed., Murder in Dealey Plaza. Chicago: Catfeet Press 2000, p. 437. [52] HSCA Agency File # 013617. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document # 60. [53] David Lifton. Best Evidence. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1980, p. 671. [54] HSCA-V7:9. [55] HSCA-V7:20, footnote #95. See also a now-declassified audio recording of the HSCA's interview with Lipsey from 1-18-78. [56] 6H16. [Mr. SPECTER. And did you and I sit down and talk about the purpose of this deposition and the questions which I would be asking you on the record, before this deposition started? 'HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG' By Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham | May 2003 | https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm Pat Speer wrote: Quote 2. Humes was a military doctor and would not have any authority over Perry's medical license. Now, if the story was that someone like Burkley or Katzenbach or some LBJ hatchet-man like Valenti had threatened Perry it would be a heckuva lot more believable. Nothing has been said that implies that any of the pathologists themselves claimed to have authority over Perry's license to practice medicine. What New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman wrote that Dr. Malcolm Perry told him was as follows: "...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...." As you are not a professional, and have no experience with licensure, or regulating agencies, such as medical boards, you don't understand how the disciplinary process works. Complaints are made to the medical board, and the board conducts investigations, and sometimes has hearings. Complaints made by other doctors, such as autopsy pathologists, would be taken more seriously by the board than other garden variety complaints, and this is what the Bethesda autopsy pathologists were threatening to do. Dr. Perry's account of this is perfectly credible. Pat Speer wrote: Quote 3. Perry and others continued claiming the throat wound appeared to be an entrance for not only days afterwards, but the rest of their lives. Are you pretending not to know about the turnarounds that Dr. Perry did in his Warren Commission and HSCA testimony, and about Dr. Perry's well-known reluctance to be interviewed and to participate in JFKA conferences and other related activities? Malcolm Perry's colleague and friend, Dr. Donald W. Miller, in 2013 wrote about the intimidation that Dr. Perry had undergone, about Perry's revisions of his position on the throat wound before the Warren Commission and HSCA, and about Perry's well-known reluctance to speak of the matter as follows: "...I have had the unique experience of personally knowing ... the Texas surgeon who performed a tracheotomy on Kennedy after he was shot, Dr. Malcolm Perry.... Dr. Perry was the first physician to speak publicly about the President’s injuries in a televised news conference an hour after his death. A newsman asked him, “Where was the entrance wound?” Dr. Perry informed the American public and the world that “There was an entrance wound in the neck…It [the bullet] appeared to be coming at him…,” which he repeated two more times at the news conference. This did not sit well with the Warren Commission. The bullet hole in Kennedy’s neck had to be an exit wound for Oswald to be the assassin. Presented with its single bullet theory when testifying before the Commission several months later, Dr. Perry obligingly changed his view of the matter and said that the bullet wound he observed in the neck “certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.”... ...Dr. Perry publicly changed his view of the neck wound for the Warren Commission after a Secret Service Agent came to Dallas, threatened him, and coerced him to testify that it was an exit wound. In 1970, that Agent, Elmer Moore, confessed to a friend that he had acted “on orders from Washington.” He regretted that he had “badgered Dr. Perry into making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck.” As ordered, he said, “I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we’d get our heads cut off.” The friend he admitted this to was (appropriately enough) a University of Washington graduate student named Jim Gochenaur. Thirteen years later, Dr. Perry and I performed surgery on a patient with a thoracoabdominal aneurysm. I removed the thoracic, or chest part of the aneurysm, and Dr. Perry, the abdominal part. When the residents were closing the incisions Malcolm and I sat together alone in the surgeons’ lounge drinking coffee. Dr. Perry had always refused to discuss the Kennedy assassination, but that night, after we had been operating together for many hours on a complex case, I once again asked him about it. This time, however, Dr. Perry told me that the bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck was, in fact, unquestionably a wound of entrance. A year later, when called to testify to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Dr. Perry once again publicly supported the government’s single-bullet-theory official truth and agreed with the committee that the bullet wound in the neck must be an exit wound, explaining that the wound was so small that he had initially mistaken it for an entrance wound. But in 1986, Dr. Perry told another physician, Dr. Robert Artwohl, that it was in fact an entrance wound...." 'Reflections on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 50 Years Later' By Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD | November 16, 2013 | https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/donald-w-miller-jr-md/jfk-thought-control-and-thought-crimes/ Pat Speer wrote: Quote There was no cover-up of the throat wound, outside the one I mentioned earlier--where the transcript in which Perry mistakenly said it was a throat wound and not that it appeared to be a throat wound conveniently disappeared. I know, due to my familiarity with your website, that you are well aware of all of the information I presented above, and yet you still deny the bulk of the evidence showing the massive cover up of the fact that the throat wound was a wound of entrance. Well I think I have a pretty good guess about why that is. My suspicion is that it had to do with the fact that the information above all leads to the alteration of President Kennedy's throat wound that took place between the time that the body left Parkland Hospital and the start of the "official" autopsy at Bethesda, as explained by Doug Horne, as follows: "...The story does not end here. The chief prosector at the President's autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, described the throat wound in the autopsy report as having "widely gaping, irregular edges," and in his Warren Commission testimony, Humes said the gaping wound in the throat was 7 to 8 cm wide. In contrast, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, a third year resident at Parkland in 1963, told ABC's "20/20" news magazine in 1992 that after the tracheostomy tube and flange were removed from the President's neck following his death, that the very small incision made by Dr. Perry closed of its own volition, and that the bullet wound had NOT been obliterated and was still clearly visible. When Dr. Crenshaw viewed the widely published bootleg autopsy photo (from Bethesda Naval hospital) showing the incision in JFK's neck, he expressed the opinion to ABC's "20/20" that the incision in that photograph was DOUBLE the width of the incision Dr. Perry originally made on the President's body. The descriptions of the incision in the anterior neck, provided by Dr. Humes and Dr. Crenshaw, together constitute de facto evidence that JFK's throat wound was tampered with prior to the start of the Navy autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. President Kennedy's body was in the custody of the U.S. Secret Service while enroute Washington D.C. from Dallas, Texas..." 'Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Key Parkland Hospital Witness to JFK's Wounds, Dies' InsideTheARRB | By Doug Horne | December 8, 2009 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html And when Robert Groden first showed the autopsy photographs to Dr. Malcolm Perry, Perry had a similar reaction, saying "I didn't do that. That's a butcher job." From Robert Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference: […] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […] From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A: As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...] PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY DISAVOWS JAGGED THROAT WOUND Edited April 10 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted April 10 Author Share Posted April 10 ***ALEX HARRIS DISCOVERED THIS*** Please subscribe to his channel: https://www.youtube.com/@thejfktheorist1122 ***Alex gave me permission to upload this*** "Hello Vince, I don’t mind if you post the full Dr. Perry video again." Alex Harris, 4/8/24. Alex is a fantastic researcher! Amazing for someone so young, too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Pat Speer wrote: Really? And on what basis are you impugning the credibility of New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman and his account of his December 2, 1963 interview of Dr. Malcolm Perry other than that it is inconvenient for the PatSpeer.com version of the fraudulent autopsy and cover-up? http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm "...But [Dr. Malcolm Perry] told us that throughout that night [the evening of the assassination - KH], 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...." [emphasis not in original] '50 YEARS FROM THAT FATEFUL DAY IN DALLAS...' | By Martin J. Steadman | http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm Pat Speer wrote: No, Mr. Speer, the government cover-up story does not "make the most sense." The fingerprints of "cover-up" are all over the autopsy and the question of whether or not the pathologists had contemporaneous knowledge of the throat wound, and whether or not the pathologists communicated with Dr. Malcolm Perry about the throat wound the evening of the assassination and threatened to report him to the medical board. For example, Parkland Nurse Audrey Bell told Harrison Livingstone in 1991 that “Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound,” and in a 2009 blog entry by Doug Horne, Horne wrote the following: "...What most of the public does not know---and what is detailed in my book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," is that late on the night of President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital, Federal officials located at Bethesda began harrassing Dr. Perry on the telephone in an attempt to get him to change his mind about having seen an entry wound in the President's throat earlier in the day. Nurse Audrey Bell told me in 1997 that Dr. Perry complained to her the next morning (on Saturday, November 23, 1963) that he had gotten almost no sleep the night before, because unnamed persons at Bethesda had been pressuring him on the telephone all night long to get him to change his opinion about the nature of the bullet wound in the throat, and to redescribe it as an exit, rather than an entrance. In his 1981 book "Best Evidence," David Lifton documented that the Secret Service confiscated videotapes of the Parkland hospital press conference from at least one local television station, and that Secret Service Chief James Rowley had informed the Warren Commission in 1964 that no videotapes or transcripts of the press conference could be found. But as Lifton revealed, a White House verbatim transcript of the press conference (White House Transcript 1327-C) later surfaced. In my own book, "Inside the ARRB," I reveal that Chief Rowley lied to the Warren Commission when he said no transcripts could be found, for on the last page of transcript 1327-C, the document is stamped as received by Rowley's office on November 26, 1963. His statement to the Warren Commission was therefore false. A graduate student, James Gochenaur, revealed to both the Church Committee and to the HSCA in the mid-1970s that Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore had confessed to him in 1970 that he had "leaned on Dr. Perry" shortly after the Bethesda autopsy to get him to stop describing the bullet wound in President Kennedy's throat as an entrance wound. (The Bethesda autopsy report concluded it was an exit wound.) According to Gochenaur, Moore also told him that the Secret Service had to investigate the assassination in an expected, predetermined way or they would "get their heads chopped off." Moore, unfortunately, also told Gochenaur that sometimes he thought President Kennedy was "a traitor" because he was "giving things away to the Russians." [According to Arlen Specter, this same Elmer Moore was present when Chief Justice Warren, Gerald Ford, and he interviewed Jack Ruby in Dallas; and Arlen Specter also revealed in 2003 (at a conference in Pittsburgh) that Elmer Moore was the Secret Service Agent who showed him an undocumented photograph of President Kennedy's back wound during the May 1964 re-enactment of the Dallas motorcade conducted by the Warren Commission.] Unfortunately, after Federal officials at Bethesda (on November 22-23, 1963) and Elmer Moore (between November 29-December 11, 1963) "leaned on" Dr. Perry, he spent the remainder of his life straddling the fence and saying that the bullet wound in JFK's throat "could have been either" an entrance or an exit wound. But that is not what he said on the afternoon of the assassination, before there was an official explanation for the crime to fall in line with. White House Transcript 1327-C makes that very clear, as I reveal in my book, in Chapters 7 and 9. Former Chief Operating Room nurse Audrey Bell related to me in 1997 that Dr. Perry was in a state of torment on November 23, 1963, after being pressured by Federal officials all night long to change his mind, because, as he put it, "my professional credibility is at stake." Sadly, he appears to have decided for the remainder of his life that discretion was the better part of valor. The story does not end here. The chief prosector at the President's autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, described the throat wound in the autopsy report as having "widely gaping, irregular edges," and in his Warren Commission testimony, Humes said the gaping wound in the throat was 7 to 8 cm wide. In contrast, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, a third year resident at Parkland in 1963, told ABC's "20/20" news magazine in 1992 that after the tracheostomy tube and flange were removed from the President's neck following his death, that the very small incision made by Dr. Perry closed of its own volition, and that the bullet wound had NOT been obliterated and was still clearly visible. When Dr. Crenshaw viewed the widely published bootleg autopsy photo (from Bethesda Naval hospital) showing the incision in JFK's neck, he expressed the opinion to ABC's "20/20" that the incision in that photograph was DOUBLE the width of the incision Dr. Perry originally made on the President's body. The descriptions of the incision in the anterior neck, provided by Dr. Humes and Dr. Crenshaw, together constitute de facto evidence that JFK's throat wound was tampered with prior to the start of the Navy autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. President Kennedy's body was in the custody of the U.S. Secret Service while enroute Washington D.C. from Dallas, Texas..." 'Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Key Parkland Hospital Witness to JFK's Wounds, Dies' InsideTheARRB | By Doug Horne | December 8, 2009 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html And in the following extremely well documented excerpt from Dr. Gary Aguilar's "HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG," Dr. Aguilar chronicled accounts of contemporaneous knowledge of the throat wound at the Bethesda autopsy -- and in several cases, the 11/22/1963 phone calls from Bethesda to Malcolm Perry -- by pathologist James Humes, pathologist J. Thornton Boswell, historian William Manchester, Parkland doctor Paul Peters, pathologist Robert Karnei, radiologist John Ebersole, Coast Guardsman George Barnum, General Philip C. Wehle's personal aide, Richard A. Lipsey, and Dr. Malcolm Perry himself: "...The Case for the Autopsists Not Being Ignorant of Kennedy’s Throat Wound During the Autopsy The absence of word about Kennedy’s throat wound in the FBI report is far from proof of the surgeons’ ignorance. It only proves the doctors either didn’t know about the throat wound before the agents left, or that the surgeons kept quiet, and perhaps with good reason. Given their manifest lack of expertise in this sort of work, the surgeons might have wanted kept to their own counsels, lest they later be forced to confront an accurate, federal accounting of their errors and misjudgments. Moreover, the agents didn’t stick it out the entire night; they left the morgue at about 1:00 AM. And although by then the morticians were busy at work, there is evidence the autopsists were still engaged. Internal CBS memorandum reporting on Dr. Humes' admission that a path had been traced from back wound to throat wound during the autopsy. (see ARRB MD #16) In the mid 1960’s, Humes confided to a personal friend that, as a once-secret, internal Columbia Broadcasting System memo put it, “Although initially in the autopsy procedure the back wound could only be penetrated to finger length, a probe later was made – when no FBI men were present – that traced the path of the bullet from the back going downwards, then upwards slightly, then downwards again exiting at the throat. One X-ray photo taken, Humes said, clearly shows the above, as it was apparently taken with a mental probe stick of some kind that was left in the body to show the wound’s path.”[39] While several tantalizing details in this account will be explored in more detail later, its relevance here is that the agents didn’t see everything the surgeons saw or did. Moreover, unless they’d had some word about a bullet wound in the throat, Humes would hardly have passed a probe from the back to JFK’s throat if he’d had no reason to believe a wound lay there. What, then, about the report of the President’s physician? If he actually knew, why is Burkley also silent on the throat wound? It turns out that Burkley is silent about all of JFK’s wounds; his report concerns itself more with what Burkley did than what he saw. For example, regarding Kennedy’s injuries, Burkley speaks only about what he witnessed at Parkland: “I immediately entered the room, went to the head of the table and viewed the President. It was evident that death was imminent and that he was in a hopeless condition.”[40] It is scarcely a surprise Burkley is mum about the throat wound when he says nothing about JFK’s huge skull injuries. And, finally, what about Boswell’s technician, Jenkins? Boswell was never asked whether he confided in Jenkins during the autopsy. So, in light of the tenseness of the situation, it is quite possible that Boswell could have known of the wound, or strongly suspected it, without telling Jenkins about it. In fact, Boswell’s subsequent statements seem to bear that out. A reasonable case can be also made for the opposite conclusion: that knowledge of the throat wound had indeed seeped into JFK’s morgue. Perhaps the earliest evidence comes from a respected outsider. Although as per his custom he does not name his source, the famously well-connected historian William Manchester may have been the first to come up with it in his 1967 book, The Death of a President. Manchester discovered that the course of events that makes the most sense to us today is in fact what actually happened: that the autopsy team had indeed heard Perry’s comments on the afternoon of the murder, and that they had dutifully communicated with Dallas during the post mortem. “They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. Unlike the physicians at Parkland, they had turned the President over and seen the smaller hole in the back of his neck. They were positive that Perry had seen an exit wound. The deleterious effects of confusion were already evident. Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors who had been in Trauma Room No. 1.”[41] (authors’ emphasis. One imagines that Manchester intended to convey that the autopsists hoped the pictures would satisfy the Texas doctors that the throat wound Perry had called an entrance wound was instead an exit wound.) Transcript of Nov. 22 afternoon press conference given by Parkland Hospital physicians Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark. (see ARRB MD #41) Manchester gave a compelling reason for the autopsists’ concern about comments emanating from the doctors in Dallas: “Bethesda’s physicians anticipated that their findings would later be subjected to the most.”[42] Ironically, Dallas was generous with reasons for a searching scrutiny of the autopsists’ claimed ignorance of the throat wound. Parkland witness, Paul Peters, MD, told Boston Globe journalist, Ben Bradlee, that “We did find out almost immediately (sic) after President Kennedy was taken to Bethesda that there was a hole in the neck that we had not seen a the time … But it was only a few (sic) hours later when we began to get calls back to (sic) from Bethesda … See it was only, it was only going to be a few (sic) hours before I would know that the bullets were fired from behind.”[43] Author Harrison Livingstone reported another Parkland source for nighttime contact between the morgue and Dallas. In a 1991 interview, Livingstone said that Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell told him, “Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound.”[44] In 1966 even Dr. Boswell himself weighed in, echoing Manchester by apparently disgorging to a stringer for the Baltimore Sun, who reported that, “before the autopsy had began, the pathologists had been apprised of JFK's wounds and what had been done to him at Parkland. In particular, Boswell said: ‘We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered the back of the neck, traversed the neck and exited anteriorly.’”[45] (author’s emphasis) Under oath in 1996, Boswell told the ARRB much the same thing. “Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself?”, he was asked. “Oh, yes,” Boswell answered.[46] [On the other hand, Pierre Finck told the ARRB that at the end of the evening they had not concluded a throat transit.[47]] But regarding what they knew before they plunged in, Boswell seemed to give a slightly different version to the ARRB than he had the Baltimore Sun. He was asked, “Prior to the time you first saw the President Kennedy’s body, had you heard any communications about the nature of the wounds that he had suffered?” “I don’t think specifically. I think just the fact that he had a head wound,” Boswell responded.[48] Boswell kept to Humes’ claim the calls to Dallas happened the next day. “When was the first conversation with doctors in Dallas?” he was asked in 1996 by the ARRB. “Saturday morning,” Boswell answered.[49] Boswell’s account seems to contradict the comments of another pathologist who was present during the autopsy, though not as a member of the surgical team, Robert Karnei, MD. During an interview, author Harrison Livingstone clumsily commented to Karnei about the autopsists’ alleged ignorance: “They didn’t know there was a bullet hole in the throat. All they saw was the trach (sic) incision.” Karnei: “Right. Once they talked to the doctors in Dallas, this is around midnight, I think.” Livingstone: “No, it was the next day when he called Perry.” Karnei: “Next day?” Livingstone: “Yes. The body was already gone.” Karnei: “I was convinced they talked to somebody that night, and finally decided that had to be the exit wound. Pierre Finck, I think, talked to somebody … For some reason I thought they had discovered that around midnight. Maybe it was the next day.”[50] Karnei was not the only morgue physician who was confused about information from Dallas and when the team had decided there had been a bullet wound in JFK’s throat. In the suppressed HSCA interview of autopsy radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, Ebersole told the medical panel that Humes was in telephone contact with Dallas doctors during the autopsy. (see ARRB MD #60. p. 64) After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole, MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy – that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound – corresponding to the back entrance wound – was solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy.[52] By the later stages of the autopsy, Admiral Burkley was apparently talking to others about a wound in JFK’s throat, according to a Bethesda witness reported by author David Lifton. On 11/29/63, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote up a memo that concerned a conversation he had had with Admiral Burkley at Bethesda Hospital on the night of the autopsy. Barnum reported that Burkley had told him Kennedy had been hit twice, “The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat … .”[53] Barnum’s account is incomprehensible without accepting that Burkley’s remark suggests that either there was knowledge of the throat wound or, as per Boswell and Karnei, that a throat wound had been inferred by the autopsy team. Either way, Humes’ assertion to the Warren Commission to the effect a throat wound only dawned on him the next day, after a call to Dallas, seems open to dispute. Other witnesses add to the doubts. General Philip C. Wehle's personal aide,[54] Richard A. Lipsey, a witness to the autopsy, told the HSCA that sometime during the autopsy the prosectors concluded that three bullets had struck the President. “Lipsey said that one bullet entered the upper back of the President and did not exit,” the HSCA reported, and that, “one entered in the rear of the head and exited the throat; and one entered and exited in the right, top portion of the head, causing a massive head wound.”[55] Although this is not what finally made it into the autopsy report, it is hard to understand how a non-physician would recall linking the head wound to the throat wound unless he’d heard of a wound in the throat from the surgeons. Then there is the odd answer of tracheotomist, Malcolm Perry, MD, one that called to mind Dr. Peters’ previously cited comment that, “it was only a few (sic) hours later when we began to get calls back to (sic) from Bethesda”: Arlen Specter asked: “And will you relate the circumstances of the calls indicating first the time when they occurred.” Perry: “Dr. Humes called me twice on Friday afternoon, separated by about 30-minute intervals, as I recall. The first one, I, somehow think I recall the first one must have been around 1500 hours, but I'm not real sure about that; I'm not positive of that at all, actually.” Specter hastened to correct Perry, following up with: Specter: “Could it have been Saturday morning?” Perry: “Saturday morning – was it? It's possible. I remember talking with him twice. I was thinking it was shortly thereafter.”[56] While Perry’s turnabout may have come completely from the heart, that his instantaneous recall of a contact on Friday happened to match the recollections of so many others is surely quite a coincidence...." [39] CBS Memorandum from Bob Richer to Les Midgley, 1/10/67. Reproduced in: The Effectiveness of Public Law 102-526, The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, Hearing Before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, November 17, 1993, p. 233. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document # 16. [40] Affidavit of Admiral George Burkley. In: Warren Commission Exhibit # 1126. 22H93-97. [41] William Manchester. The Death of a President. New York: Penguin Books, 1977, p. 432 – 433. [42] William Manchester. The Death of a President. New York: Penguin Books, 1977, p. 432 – 433. [43] Tape recorded interview of 1 May 1981; transcript supplied by Harrison Livingstone. [44] Harrison Livingstone. High Treason 2. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992, p. 121. [45] Richard H. Levine, 25 November 1966, page 1. [46] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 34. [47] ARRB interview with Pierre Finck, p. 91 “miniscript,” or p. 18 of published text. [48] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 30. [49] ARRB interview with J. Thornton Boswell, p. 27. [50] Harrison Livingstone. High Treason 2. New York: Carroll and Graf, 1992, p. 186. [51] See transcript of David Mantik’s interview with John Ebersole in: James Fetzer, ed., Murder in Dealey Plaza. Chicago: Catfeet Press 2000, p. 437. [52] HSCA Agency File # 013617. Also reproduced in ARRB Medical Document # 60. [53] David Lifton. Best Evidence. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1980, p. 671. [54] HSCA-V7:9. [55] HSCA-V7:20, footnote #95. See also a now-declassified audio recording of the HSCA's interview with Lipsey from 1-18-78. [56] 6H16. [Mr. SPECTER. And did you and I sit down and talk about the purpose of this deposition and the questions which I would be asking you on the record, before this deposition started? 'HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG' By Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham | May 2003 | https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm Pat Speer wrote: Nothing has been said that implies that any of the pathologists themselves claimed to have authority over Perry's license to practice medicine. What New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman wrote that Dr. Malcolm Perry told him was as follows: "...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...." As you are not a professional, and have no experience with licensure, or regulating agencies, such as medical boards, you don't understand how the disciplinary process works. Complaints are made to the medical board, and the board conducts investigations, and sometimes has hearings. Complaints made by other doctors, such as autopsy pathologists, would be taken more seriously by the board than other garden variety complaints, and this is what the Bethesda autopsy pathologists were threatening to do. Dr. Perry's account of this is perfectly credible. Pat Speer wrote: Are you pretending not to know about the turnarounds that Dr. Perry did in his Warren Commission and HSCA testimony, and about Dr. Perry's well-known reluctance to be interviewed and to participate in JFKA conferences and other related activities? Malcolm Perry's colleague and friend, Dr. Donald W. Miller, in 2013 wrote about the intimidation that Dr. Perry had undergone, about Perry's revisions of his position on the throat wound before the Warren Commission and HSCA, and about Perry's well-known reluctance to speak of the matter as follows: "...I have had the unique experience of personally knowing ... the Texas surgeon who performed a tracheotomy on Kennedy after he was shot, Dr. Malcolm Perry.... Dr. Perry was the first physician to speak publicly about the President’s injuries in a televised news conference an hour after his death. A newsman asked him, “Where was the entrance wound?” Dr. Perry informed the American public and the world that “There was an entrance wound in the neck…It [the bullet] appeared to be coming at him…,” which he repeated two more times at the news conference. This did not sit well with the Warren Commission. The bullet hole in Kennedy’s neck had to be an exit wound for Oswald to be the assassin. Presented with its single bullet theory when testifying before the Commission several months later, Dr. Perry obligingly changed his view of the matter and said that the bullet wound he observed in the neck “certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.”... ...Dr. Perry publicly changed his view of the neck wound for the Warren Commission after a Secret Service Agent came to Dallas, threatened him, and coerced him to testify that it was an exit wound. In 1970, that Agent, Elmer Moore, confessed to a friend that he had acted “on orders from Washington.” He regretted that he had “badgered Dr. Perry into making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck.” As ordered, he said, “I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we’d get our heads cut off.” The friend he admitted this to was (appropriately enough) a University of Washington graduate student named Jim Gochenaur. Thirteen years later, Dr. Perry and I performed surgery on a patient with a thoracoabdominal aneurysm. I removed the thoracic, or chest part of the aneurysm, and Dr. Perry, the abdominal part. When the residents were closing the incisions Malcolm and I sat together alone in the surgeons’ lounge drinking coffee. Dr. Perry had always refused to discuss the Kennedy assassination, but that night, after we had been operating together for many hours on a complex case, I once again asked him about it. This time, however, Dr. Perry told me that the bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck was, in fact, unquestionably a wound of entrance. A year later, when called to testify to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Dr. Perry once again publicly supported the government’s single-bullet-theory official truth and agreed with the committee that the bullet wound in the neck must be an exit wound, explaining that the wound was so small that he had initially mistaken it for an entrance wound. But in 1986, Dr. Perry told another physician, Dr. Robert Artwohl, that it was in fact an entrance wound...." 'Reflections on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 50 Years Later' By Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD | November 16, 2013 | https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/donald-w-miller-jr-md/jfk-thought-control-and-thought-crimes/ Pat Speer wrote: I know, due to my familiarity with your website, that you are well aware of all of the information I presented above, and yet you still deny the bulk of the evidence showing the massive cover up of the fact that the throat wound was a wound of entrance. Well I think I have a pretty good guess about why that is. My suspicion is that it had to do with the fact that the information above all leads to the alteration of President Kennedy's throat wound that took place between the time that the body left Parkland Hospital and the start of the "official" autopsy at Bethesda, as explained by Doug Horne, as follows: "...The story does not end here. The chief prosector at the President's autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, described the throat wound in the autopsy report as having "widely gaping, irregular edges," and in his Warren Commission testimony, Humes said the gaping wound in the throat was 7 to 8 cm wide. In contrast, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, a third year resident at Parkland in 1963, told ABC's "20/20" news magazine in 1992 that after the tracheostomy tube and flange were removed from the President's neck following his death, that the very small incision made by Dr. Perry closed of its own volition, and that the bullet wound had NOT been obliterated and was still clearly visible. When Dr. Crenshaw viewed the widely published bootleg autopsy photo (from Bethesda Naval hospital) showing the incision in JFK's neck, he expressed the opinion to ABC's "20/20" that the incision in that photograph was DOUBLE the width of the incision Dr. Perry originally made on the President's body. The descriptions of the incision in the anterior neck, provided by Dr. Humes and Dr. Crenshaw, together constitute de facto evidence that JFK's throat wound was tampered with prior to the start of the Navy autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. President Kennedy's body was in the custody of the U.S. Secret Service while enroute Washington D.C. from Dallas, Texas..." 'Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Key Parkland Hospital Witness to JFK's Wounds, Dies' InsideTheARRB | By Doug Horne | December 8, 2009 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html And when Robert Groden first showed the autopsy photographs to Dr. Malcolm Perry, Perry had a similar reaction, saying "I didn't do that. That's a butcher job." From Robert Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference: […] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […] From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A: As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...] PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY DISAVOWS JAGGED THROAT WOUND You know of course that your hero Robert McClelland said many times in many places that the throat wound in the photos was as he remembered it looking after the tracheotomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said: ***ALEX HARRIS DISCOVERED THIS*** Please subscribe to his channel: https://www.youtube.com/@thejfktheorist1122 ***Alex gave me permission to upload this*** "Hello Vince, I don’t mind if you post the full Dr. Perry video again." Alex Harris, 4/8/24. Alex is a fantastic researcher! Amazing for someone so young, too! Thanks to Alex for finding this in the first place and sharing it. Thanks to you Vince for finding his posting of it and sharing it to a wider audience on your you tube channel and here. Imho, it is truly of historic significance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 5 hours ago, Pat Speer said: No one involved in the autopsy called Perry during the autopsy. They should have but they didn't. The official story is that Humes--by his lonesome--called Perry the next morning. Well then that settles it... that surely must be true! Like the single bullet theory... that surely must be true too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 5 hours ago, Pat Speer said: 3. Perry and others continued claiming the throat wound appeared to be an entrance for not only days afterwards, but the rest of their lives. There was no cover-up of the throat wound, outside the one I mentioned earlier--where the transcript in which Perry mistakenly said it was a throat wound and not that it appeared to be a throat wound conveniently disappeared. Edited 5 hours ago by Pat Speer Pat, I respect your efforts over the years and your website is valuable, but I disagree over the throat wound, and it's never disappeared. Dr. Perry essentially stuck by his story over the years. He bent for the Warren Omission but then told others, with conviction that it was an entrance wound. Based on his experience of having frequently seen entrance and exit wounds as an emergency room surgeon multiple if not hundreds of times in the Dallas County hospital, as well as a hunter. He knew what he was talking about. He said it 3X in the press conference immediately after the assassination, his initial and the most trusted expert interpretation of the wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 4 hours ago, Vince Palamara said: ***ALEX HARRIS DISCOVERED THIS*** Please subscribe to his channel: https://www.youtube.com/@thejfktheorist1122 ***Alex gave me permission to upload this*** "Hello Vince, I don’t mind if you post the full Dr. Perry video again." Alex Harris, 4/8/24. Alex is a fantastic researcher! Amazing for someone so young, too! You and Alex Harris both did great on letting the JFK research community (and other interested parties) in Dr. Malcolm Perry's interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now