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

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

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.

I agree. Perry clearly THOUGHT it was an entrance wound. And his recollections of its size strongly suggest it was either an entrance wound, or the exit wound of a slowly moving object. I just don't believe there was a concerted effort to get him to change his and others' opinion it looked like an entrance wound. And if there was, it failed. Because pretty much everyone at Parkland who saw the wound prior to the tracheotomy said it was small and appeared to be an entrance wound.

I think what some miss here is the context. Emergency room doctors make their observations and put things together, but they are frequently wrong, and know it, and defer to the opinions of others, who ran additional tests or who are more expert in the field. So, knowing this, we have to accept that some if not many of the Parkland witnesses could believe both that the throat wound looked like an entrance wound, and that it was not. Perry is, I believe, among those. 

My own experience illuminates this situation. 

I was very weak and dizzy. I went to an urgent care facility. The doctor looked me over and said I had an upper respiratory infection and that I should take cold medicine, and that I ought to be fine within a few days. She seemed very sure of herself.

A few days later, I felt worse, and contacted my personal doctor, who refused to meet me in person over Covid concerns. After roughly a half hour, he said I had a heart condition, and set me up with a cardiologist. He seemed very sure of himself.

The cardiologist's office refused to give me an appointment right away. And said I would have to wait two weeks. The next day I felt worse, and asked if I could come in sooner. They told me the earliest would be 10 days.

The next morning I felt worse, and could barely get out of bed. So my wife and I agreed I should go to the emergency room. This was the height of Covid, so they made me wait outside for two hours and undergo numerous tests in the parking lot before they would even let me in the building. When I finally met a doctor, well, she said she thought I had a leaky bowel, and ran a test that came up negative.

They then took me to a private room, where another doctor came in and said all signs indicated I had a leak in my upper GI tract. He seemed very sure of himself. He told me not to eat or drink for the next 18 hours so he could go down my throat with a scope and find the leak. He found no leak. And was kinda pissed off. I could tell. He said they were gonna release me so they could bring me back in a few days for more tests. 

But before they could release me another doctor came in and said he was gonna have me sent to a cancer hospital because he thought I had leukemia. I was sent to the hospital. They took some bone marrow. And confirmed his diagnosis. 

So I had four doctors take a look at me and tell me what they thought was wrong, and all four were totally wrong.

Also relevant, one day, after my stem cell transplant, I noticed that the doctor whose gut instinct proved correct had an office by my son's dentist office. So I went in while my son was at his appointment. to thank him. He was with a patient so I had some time to kill in the lobby, and ended up explaining to two of his nurses why I was there. They were very proud of him, as he had saved my life. But here's the weird part. When he came out and I reminded him who I was he denied sending me to the cancer hospital on his instinct, and insisted--in front of his nurses--that he would not have sent me to the cancer hospital without first receiving the results of a bone marrow biopsy. Well, this is of course was bull, as no such biopsy was performed at the original hospital. I then realized--he had called an audible--and had essentially rescued me from the GI doctor who was convinced I had a GI leak. And he didn't want his nurses to know because, well, that just isn't done... 

So think about Perry. He knows what he saw LOOKED like an entrance wound, but has been told by the authorities it was an exit wound. He doesn't want to be one of the four doctors who'd come to an incorrect conclusion regarding my situation, but he also doesn't want to be seen as someone who second-guesses those responsible for making the ultimate determination...because it just isn't done...

 

Edited April 10 by Pat Speer

[Nick Bartetzko]

23 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

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.

I think the two hour interview at Parkland by Weisberg is definitive enough for me. The medical staff at Parkland also thought it was an entry wound. Not a contrarian opinion that I can recall. As to the shoring up of the wound via the clothing, didn't Dr Carrico say the wound was above the shirt? Weisberg's hypothesis is the shirt/tie damage was done by a scalpel when trying to remove the clothing in the ER. 
 

JFK was obviously reacting to something (a throat shot after Z186 imo) and that is seen for a frame or two around Z223/4 If I recall correctly. Have you seen what Im describing, and if so, what might have caused that? A bullet, concern about hearing very loud noise...??  As to those fragments you reference which I don't doubt were present, I would think they could be from either of the two head shots. 

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I agree. Perry clearly THOUGHT it was an entrance wound. And his recollections of its size strongly suggest it was either an entrance wound, or the exit wound of a slowly moving object. I just don't believe there was a concerted effort to get him to change his and others' opinion it looked like an entrance wound. And if there was, it failed. Because pretty much everyone at Parkland who saw the wound prior to the tracheotomy said it was small and appeared to be an entrance wound.

 

 

FWIW - Fight the battle, never give up!

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

As to the shoring up of the wound via the clothing, didn't Dr Carrico say the wound was above the shirt?

I think there are a few witnesses who said the wound was visible above the top of the shirt collar, but JFK was lying on a table so it’s possible the wound was below the collar in DP, and still visible above the collar at Parkland. 

On Perry, there seems to be quite a bit of credible, corroborative evidence that he was actually pressured in some form, so I’m not sure that can be totally dismissed, and I’m even more conservative than Pat on certain JFK medical topics.

When was Perry’s last public statement where he unequivocally said the wound was an entrance? It could be as simple as someone telling him to stop talking to the press after the autopsy concluded shots from behind. This is speculation, but is it possible that sometime after midnight, after the autopsy was completed, someone knowledgeable of the press conference was apprised of the general findings, realized the problem, then told Perry to keep his mouth shut? That would preserve Humes et al. not knowing about the throat wound that night, which is also debatable, but just a thought. 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

My "hero," is he? Do I detect a bit of resentment over me calling you out for libeling Dr. Robert McClelland?

I wish I could regard Dr. McClelland as a hero for having the strength to overcome his fear of being pilloried by the media when he was presented with the autopsy photographs and put on the spot as to their authenticity by PBS Nova and the Ben Bradlee group, but he didn't. McClelland's initial reaction upon first seeing the back of the head autopsy photograph in 1981 was to "firmly" question its authenticity, but when faced with the specter of nationwide dissemination of reports of his view on this by Nova and the Boston Globe, he lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand by his initial reaction, resorting instead to postulating that in the back of the head autopsy photo there had been a scalp flap covering up the large avulsive back of the head wound he had observed on 11/22/1963, and claimed that the large throat gash depicted in the photographs was as he remembered it.

McClelland's one saving grace is that he didn't completely recant his observation that the large avulsive wound was occipital-parietal, as a few of the other Parkland Hospital doctors did under identical circumstances, and this, I believe, is the reason you are so threatened by Dr. McClelland that you have attempted to start a cottage industry defaming him using the "left temple" mistake he made in his first day Parkland Hospital Admittance Note. So do I hold a view of Dr. McClelland as being a "hero" as you have derisively insinuated? The answer is "no": Heros go wherever the evidence leads even though the heavens may fall, a characteristic that Dr. McClelland and you both do not possess.

While Dr. Malcolm Perry can also be faulted for buckling to intimidation by recanting his initial throat wound determination that the throat wound was a wound of entry in his Warren Commission and HSCA testimony, Perry at least did not do so privately, and in his interviews with a few researchers, and when Robert Groden showed him the autopsy photographs for the first time, Perry was livid over the wide gash in JFK's throat saying, "I didn't do that. That's a butcher job."

PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY DISAVOWS JAGGED THROAT WOUND

Dr. Perry, who conducted the craniotomy, and who was surely familiar with the characteristics of his own surgical practices is, of course, a far better source on this than Dr. McClelland (which you would have deduced yourself but for your nefarious agenda). Dr. McClelland surely knew, as Dr. Charles Crenshaw pointed out during his 1992 interview by 20/20, both that the tracheotomy tube was very small (with the larger flange attachment remaining outside of the incision), and did not require a large gashing incision like that seen in the autopsy photographs and that, as Dr. Perry states in the following 20/20 segment, "Perry was an artist with a blade," and wouldn't have made an incision that was twice as large as a tracheotomy requires. 

 

Having addressed your highly manipulative comment about Dr. McClelland, I shall now inquire about why you have failed to address the evidence in the post to which your McClelland comment was directed by answering the questions that would have been obvious to practically anyone else, as follows:

1. What evidence can you cite to controvert the written account of New York Herald Tribune investigative reporter Martin J. Steadman that he interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry on December 2, 1963 and was told by Dr. Perry that he had received a series of calls the evening of the assassination by the Bethesda pathologists who insisted that he recant his determination that the throat wound had been a wound of entrance, and threatened to report him to the Medical Board if he did not do so?

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

and, 2. What evidence can you cite to controvert the accounts of the following witnesses which corroborate that the Bethesda pathologists were in contact with Dr. Perry during the evening of the assassination to discuss the nature of President Kennedy's throat wound and/or were aware of the bullet wound in the throat at the time of the autopsy? James Humes, pathologist J. Thornton Boswell, historian William Manchester, Parkland doctor Paul Peters, pathologist Robert Karnei, radiologist John Ebersole, Doctor George Burkley, General Philip C. Wehle's personal aide, Richard A. Lipsey, and Dr. Malcolm Perry himself.

Audrey Bell, RN: "...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...."

"...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...."

'Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Key Parkland Hospital Witness to JFK's Wounds, Dies'

By Doug Horne | InsideTheARRB |  December 8, 2009 | https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/2370.html

James Humes, MD: "...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...”

J. Thornton Boswell, MD: "...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...."

William Manchester: “...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....”

Paul Peters, MD: "...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 at 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....”

Audrey Bell, RN: "...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....”

Robert Karnei, MD: “...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....”

John Ebersole, MD: "...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..."

George Burkley, MD: "...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...."

Richard A. Lipsey: "...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...."

Malcolm Perry, MD: "...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.”..."

'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

 

Edited April 10 by Keven Hofeling

[Ron Bulman]

Dr. Donald Miller.  

Oliver Stone.  You were friends . . . you'd have dinner together?  Yeah, we'd operated together a year or so . . . he would still categorically say I don't want to talk about the assassination.  Then one night after operating together several hours in the lounge afterward over coffee I asked again about the neck wound. And this time he said it was an entrance wound, unquestionably and entrance wound.  I took that admission as given in confidence.  . . .

But a year later in front of the HSCA, he once again reverted publicly like he did with the Warren Commission and said it was an exit wound.  So I didn't say anything about what Malcom had told me until after he died in 2009.  . . . I never saw Dr. Perry after 1978 . . .   So he told you this on what date, what year was it?  1977.

From JFK Revisited, pages 429-430.

The HSCA was established in 1978.

Why was Dr. Miller interested in the JFKA?  Dr. Burkley.  More tomorrow or the next day.    

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 4/10/2024 at 4:30 AM, Nick Bartetzko said:

The medical staff at Parkland also thought it was an entry wound. Not a contrarian opinion that I can recall. As to the shoring up of the wound via the clothing, didn't Dr Carrico say the wound was above the shirt? Weisberg's hypothesis is the shirt/tie damage was done by a scalpel when trying to remove the clothing in the ER. 

I believe that the wound was described as below the Adam’s apple, which would place it at the collar and tie level, which matches the round area at the bottom of the neck wound in the autopsy photo (not that I trust it to be truly authentic). Did any of the nurses admit to nicking the shirt and tie? Otherwise it would just be Weisberg’s hypothesis, which is theory, not fact. The wound might have had the APPEARANCE of an entrance without actually being an entrance, which is what I believe happened.

 

On 4/10/2024 at 4:30 AM, Nick Bartetzko said:

JFK was obviously reacting to something (a throat shot after Z186 imo) and that is seen for a frame or two around Z223/4 If I recall correctly. Have you seen what Im describing, and if so, what might have caused that? A bullet, concern about hearing very loud noise...??  As to those fragments you reference which I don't doubt were present, I would think they could be from either of the two head shots. 

I am certain that the Zfilm was altered, so I disregard any theory that relies upon it. If you do that and focus on witness accounts, with the caveat that many of the DP witnesses missed processing the early shot/s (because they were not expecting an assassination and first thought the sounds were firecrackers), then you get closer to the truth of what happened.

[Nick Bartetzko]

41 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I believe that the wound was described as below the Adam’s apple, which would place it at the collar and tie level, which matches the round area at the bottom of the neck wound in the autopsy photo (not that I trust it to be truly authentic). Did any of the nurses admit to nicking the shirt and tie? Otherwise it would just be Weisberg’s hypothesis, which is theory, not fact. The wound might have had the APPEARANCE of an entrance without actually being an entrance, which is what I believe happened.

 

I am certain that the Zfilm was altered, so I disregard any theory that relies upon it. If you do that and focus on witness accounts, with the caveat that many of the DP witnesses missed processing the early shot/s (because they were not expecting an assassination and first thought the sounds were firecrackers), then you get closer to the truth of what happened.

I guess we'll just continue to disagree. Yes, I am not sure about the exact location of the throat wound and indeed no one admitted to cutting the clothing there. Only Carrico that I can recall emphasized it was above the shirt and tie. The fact still remains that the medical personnel believed it was an entrance wound and they saw many bullet wounds on a regular basis.
 

You've lost me as to film alteration relating to JFK having his mouth open and appearing to be in distress right before he's obviously struck in the back. I am indeed focusing on eyewitness testimony and the best one imo is Dr Perry who told Weisberg that he wiped blood from the throat, saw a ring of bruising and then did the tracheostomy incision. That Perry would testify later that it could have been an exit wound is understandable to me. I can imagine the tremendous stress it caused and pressure he was under. 

[Robert Morrow]

11 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I believe that the wound was described as below the Adam’s apple, which would place it at the collar and tie level, which matches the round area at the bottom of the neck wound in the autopsy photo (not that I trust it to be truly authentic). Did any of the nurses admit to nicking the shirt and tie? Otherwise it would just be Weisberg’s hypothesis, which is theory, not fact. The wound might have had the APPEARANCE of an entrance without actually being an entrance, which is what I believe happened.

 

I am certain that the Zfilm was altered, so I disregard any theory that relies upon it. If you do that and focus on witness accounts, with the caveat that many of the DP witnesses missed processing the early shot/s (because they were not expecting an assassination and first thought the sounds were firecrackers), then you get closer to the truth of what happened.

JFK’s wound to his throat was an entrance wound and, importantly, the bullet entered ABOVE his shirt and did not do any damage to his tie. Source: Dr. Carrico

 Harold Weisberg:

 QUOTE

           With the button and the button hole exactly in line and with the pattern at each end of the collar also coinciding exactly, the damages to the ends of the collar that overlapped when buttoned as it was do not coincide, as they would have if caused by a bullet.

          The damage to each side is a slit, not a hole made by a bullet. Both slits are frayed. On the president’s right, as worn, the slit begins below the neckband and extends downward. It is only about half the length of the slit in the left side as worn. This larger slit extends upward well onto the neckband, to where, if caused by a bullet, it would have struck the button.

          The button is unscathed.

          The damage to the shirt was not caused by any bullet.

          It was caused, as the commission’s transcript indicates, in emergency procedures. Carrico demonstrated this to me by grasping his own tie with his left hand and making cutting motions upward and downward with his right hand. He told me what he was not asked by the commission, that two nurses under his supervision cut the tie off with a scalpel. There was no time to untie the knot. It was the scalpel that make the slits in the shirt collar.

 UNQUOTE

 [Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar, JFK: The Book of the Film, p. 228]

Edited April 15 by Robert Morrow

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 4/15/2024 at 11:00 AM, Robert Morrow said:

JFK’s wound to his throat was an entrance wound and, importantly, the bullet entered ABOVE his shirt and did not do any damage to his tie. Source: Dr. Carrico

 Harold Weisberg:

 QUOTE

First, you are quoting Weisberg, not Carrico. 
Second, even if the wound was above the collar, although by the autopsy photographs, it appears to be right AT the collar location, the collar was probably close enough to the wound to create a shoring effect. Furthermore, JFK was sitting up when he was shot, not lying down on a gurney as he was when Carrico saw him, which might have made a difference. I also keep going back to the C3/C4 fragments Custer described and the probe from the back of the head through the throat that Thomas Robinson was “adamant” about seeing. Moreover, the Parkland doctors testified under oath that the throat wound “might” have been an exit. Weisberg might have misunderstood something that Carrico told him, or Stone/Sklar might have misquoted Weisberg. Are Carrico’s statements recorded on a tape anywhere? Or a transcript, at the very least? What were Carrico’s original and exact words, without the filters of Weisberg or Stone/Sklar?

Edited April 17 by Denise Hazelwood
Typo and autocorrupt fox

[Robert Morrow]

6 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

First, you are quoting Weisberg, not Carrico. 
Second, even if the wound was above the collar, although by the autopsy photographs, it appears to be right AT the collar location, the collar was probably close enough to the wound to create a shoring effect. Furthermore, JFK was sitting up when he was shot, not lying down on a gurney as he was when Carrico saw him, which might have made a difference. I also keep going back to the C3/C4 fragments Custer described and the probe from the back of the head through the throat that Thomas Robinson was “adamant” about seeing. Moreover, the Parkland doctors testified under oath that the throat wound “might” have been an exit. Weisberg might have misunderstood something that Carrico told him, or Stone/Sklar might have misquoted Weisberg. Are Carrico’s statements recorded on a tape anywhere? Or a transcript, at the very least? What were Carrico’s original and exact words, without the filters of Weisberg or Stone/Sklar?

I don't know the answer to that question. I haven't know Weisberg to fabricate anything so I prefer to trust him on what Carrico said.

[Denise Hazelwood]

I just took a closer look at the pictures of the shirt and tie in the Archives (https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-JFKCLOTHES) and pictures of JFK in the motorcade before the shooting. The bottom of the collar below the top button of the shirt shows holes that would line up if the shirt was buttoned. There are also corresponding holes in the tie (see photo 8, several inches to the right of where the tie was cut off, and on the right edge next to the fold on the long piece). In the pictures of JFK pre shooting, the collar pretty much covers the Adam’s apple, with the tie knot covering about where the throat wound shows in the autopsy photos (albeit altered), which is below the Adam’s apple. The holes in the clothing were penetrating, not cut from the edge as the nurses would have done (as the cut across the tie was done, at some point in the back or side of the neck). If the nurses in were to have done that, they would have had to poke through the layers of both sides of the collar and two layers of the tie with the point of the scissors, which I think is very unlikely. Conclusion: the throat wound was shored by the shirt and tie, which gave it the appearance of an entrance (with an abrasion/contusion collar) when it was really an exit. I contend that it was caused by a small fragment rather than an intact bullet, which further confused the issue with its small size.

Edited April 18 by Denise Hazelwood
More precise language

[Ron Bulman]

The "nick" in the tie has been discussed in detail on the forum before.  A brief google search found nothing.  So, from an aging memory, someone once claimed the nick was in fact a bullet hole entering the corner or top of knot.

A statement from one of the nurses in the room when JFK arrived said they cut the tie off JFK and I believe his coat and shirt as well (this is what I was looking for online, I'll look some more).  If you look closely at the pictures Denise linked the cutting off of his clothes, including the tie is evident.  CE 393-95, 10 pictures total, you can enlarge any of them for detail.

 photos.html (maryferrell.org)

Dr. Perry was not a forensic pathologist.  Neither were those at Bethesda.  He was more experienced in gunshot wounds than any of them though.  I'll take his first impressions and later confirmation over them, being supervised as it were.  

[Micah Mileto]

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

 

Carrico did not say that he thought a scalpel did it, but he did say that he thought it was "unlikely" a bullet did it and that it could've happened when the clothing was being cut off.