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

[W. Niederhut]

19 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

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

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

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

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

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

Speculation.

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.

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/5/2024 at 9:59 PM, Ron Bulman said:

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

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

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

I was engrossed and stayed for the whole thing.

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

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

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

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

 

Quote

 

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

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

 

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

 

Edited April 7 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/6/2024 at 12:22 AM, Robert Morrow said:

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

Dr. Malcolm Perry was certainly interviewed on the day of the assassination:

 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/6/2024 at 1:11 AM, Robert Morrow said:

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

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

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

 http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          “Yes,” he said.

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

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

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

UNQUOTE

This might be considered a postscript to the story about the interplay between Dr. Malcolm Perry and the Bethesda autopsy which is significant to the story of the small circular hole that was clean, with no edges, that Perry described:

DR. MALCOLM PERRY DENIES DOING "THE BUTCHER JOB" ON JFK'S THROAT DEPICTED IN 'STARE OF DEATH' AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPH:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxRh4PZ_nFvW017auQQTpPFiamqrQ5CKDE

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. [...]

 

Edited April 7 by Keven Hofeling

[Pete Mellor]

2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

DR. MALCOLM PERRY DENIES DOING "THE BUTCHER JOB" ON JFK'S THROAT DEPICTED IN 'STARE OF DEATH' AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPH:

Yes, I include this photograph when I give my presentations to U3A groups in the U.K. (I am speaking at another tomorrow, Monday 8th April).

So, If the pathologists at Bethesda were instructed in the morgue by higher ranks in the gallery, as per Fink's under oath testimony at the Shaw trial, to not investigate/dissect the throat area, then...who, what, when and where caused 'the butcher job'?

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Yes, I include this photograph when I give my presentations to U3A groups in the U.K. (I am speaking at another tomorrow, Monday 8th April).

So, If the pathologists at Bethesda were instructed in the morgue by higher ranks in the gallery, as per Fink's under oath testimony at the Shaw trial, to not investigate/dissect the throat area, then...who, what, when and where caused 'the butcher job'?

Evidently, the pathologists at the pre-autopsy autopsy written about by Doug Horne in Volume IV of his "Inside the Records Review Board," at which a clandestine craniotomy was performed, and other surgical procedures took place to remove evidence of gunshots from the front (such as destroying evidence of a frontal shot to the throat):
---------------------------------------------
There is simply no way to get around this...

Dr. Humes always insisted that he never had to perform a craniotomy (skull cap removal surgery) to remove the President’s brain.

* Humes maintained this lie, under oath, for 33 years --- before the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB.

* He also informed Army pathologist Pierre Finck, who arrived late at Bethesda to assist with the autopsy, that “no sawing of the skull was necessary” in order to remove President Kennedy’s brain (per Dr. Finck’s 1965 report to his Commanding Officer, General Blumberg).
 ---------------------------------------------
DR. DAVID MANTIK ON DOUG HORNE'S ACCOUNT OF THE BETHESDA AUTOPSISTS CLANDESTINELY ALTERING JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS WITH A BONE SAW:

"...So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R's, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.18 Reed states19 that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole.
⁠
Reed's report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls20 seeing, during restoration, a wound about 1/4º inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O'Donnell, the USIA photographer,21 who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph.
⁠
Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed's experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson22 saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.) He also observed ten or more bullet fragments extracted from the brain. Although these do not appear in the official record, Dennis David recalls23 preparing a receipt for at least four fragments.24
⁠
Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes25 declared that a saw was not important:
⁠
"We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain."
⁠
Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.26...
⁠
...The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that's because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue. It is even possible that Kellerman himself ejected Reed and Custer as soon as he arrived. Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed...."
⁠
⁠https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb-part-iv

 

Edited April 7 by Keven Hofeling

[Robert Morrow]

JFK assassination researcher and author Larry Hancock knew former journalist Connie Kritzberg well. I used to talk with her over the telephone before she died. She lived in Oklahoma at that time. As a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald, she interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark on the day of the JFK assassination. 

Connie Kritzberg, reporter for the Dallas Times Herald, states that the FBI was editing her news reporting immediately following the JFK assassination, trying to make it appear as if there were just one shooter. 

Connie Kritzberg: born 11-08-1931 (as she told  Robert Morrow on 12-10-2016)

Connie Kritzberg, who was a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald at the time of the assassination, had interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry, who had said the throat wound had been an extrance wound, which would have indicated a shot from the front. When Kritzberg wrote an article about the assassination, she found that the FBI had added a sentence to her article after she turned it in on 11/22/63 to her editors for the 11/23/63 afternoon edition (Dallas Times Herald was the afternoon paper; the Dallas Morning News was the morning paper.) The FBI had added the sentence A DOCTOR ADMITTED THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THERE WAS ONLY ONE WOUND." to her copy. The FBI edited her copy late in the night of 11-22-1963 after she had written her story and gone home to go to sleep.

Here is an email dated 5/11/11 from Connie Kritzberg to Robert Morrow:

“The information given you by Rob Morrow was true. I had been promoted from obituary writer to “Home Editor” but was called back to cityside to work in a rewrite slot covering the President’s visit. I interviewed Drs. Kemp Clark and Malcolm Perry, then wrote the “Neck Wounds” story. As I assume you know, reporters don’t write the headlines. Earlier in the afternoon, soon after the assassination, I had interviewed Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, and written their story. My last work on cityside that day was an on-the-street “mood” story.

I had the weekend off because of my main assignment to the women’s section. Saturday was the first day I saw wounds story. I was at home, and was startled by addition of one sentence: “A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound.”

I immediately called the city desk, believe the editor I talked to was Tom LaPere, Asst Editor. It was quiet—I asked, “Who added that sentence to my story?” He answered quickly, “The FBI.”

I think I said something like, “OK.”

I am 79 years old, have slightly slurred speech, but brain still working.  

Connie Watson Kritzberg”

Here is an excellent article by former journalist Connie Kritzberg on her experiences and reporting of the JFK assassination

 https://archive.org/details/nsia-KritzbergConnie

Connie Kritzberg lived from November 8, 1931 to November 6, 2020

https://www.tributearchive.com/obituaries/18903098/Constance-Elizabeth-Kritzberg/Moore/Oklahoma/John-M-Ireland-Son-Funeral-Home-and-Chapel

Edited April 7 by Robert Morrow

[Robert Morrow]

Jim DiEugenio’s “How CBS News Aided the JFK Cover-up” – April 22, 2016 for Consortium News

 https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/22/how-cbs-news-aided-the-jfk-cover-up/

QUOTE

The Autopsy Disputes

 CBS also obscured what was said by the two chief medical witnesses after the assassination by Dr. Malcolm Perry from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, where Kennedy was taken after he was hit, and James Humes, the chief pathologist at the autopsy examination at Bethesda Medical Center that evening.

 In their research for the series, CBS had discovered a transcript of Dr. Perry’s press conference that the Warren Commission did not have. But CBS camouflaged what Perry said on Nov. 22, 1963, specifically about Kennedy’s anterior neck wound. Perry said it had the appearance to him of being an entrance wound, and he said this three times.

 Cronkite tried to characterize the conference as Perry being rushed out to the press and badgered. But that wasn’t true, since the press conference was about two hours after Perry had done a tracheotomy over the front neck wound. The performance of that incision had given Perry the closest and most deliberate look at that wound.

 Perry therefore had the time to recover from the pressure of the operation and there was no badgering of Perry. Newsmen were simply asking him questions about the wounds he saw. Perry had the opportunity to answer the questions on his own terms. Again, CBS seemed intent on concealing evidence of a possible second assassin — because Oswald could not have fired at Kennedy from the front.

 Commander James Humes, the pathologist, did not want to appear on the program, but was pressured by Attorney General Ramsey Clark, possibly with McCloy’s assistance. As Feinman discovered, the preliminary talks with Humes were done through a friend of his at the church he attended.

UNQUOTE

Edited April 7 by Robert Morrow

[Micah Mileto]

The call was probably on friday night or around midnight. I've compiled 200 pages on that. And there is evidence that the trach was enlarghed - more on that soon.

[Nick Bartetzko]

On 4/5/2024 at 1:31 AM, Denise Hazelwood said:

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

The source for the "ring of bruising" phrase was Dr Perry directly to Harold Weisberg in an interview conducted at Parkland in 1966. It's in the Post Mortem book and likely on an audiotape at wherever the Weisberg materials are housed. Perry didn't just glance at the wound, he got a close look and wiped blood off the wound with his finger. Weisberg didn't push him for a conclusion, just asked some questions. Weisberg commented that Perry didn't appear to be aware of the significance of this comment. As I said, this is all from memory and its been some time since I actually re-read those pages. 

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.

[Pat Speer]

23 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Dr. Malcolm Perry was certainly interviewed on the day of the assassination:

 

This is a misreporting of what Perry said at the press conference.

From chapter 1:

Dr. Malcolm Perry, who had performed a tracheostomy on the President in an effort to save his life: "Upon reaching his side, I noted that he was in critical condition from a wound of the neck and of the head...Immediate resuscitative measures were undertaken, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Professor of Neurosurgery, was summoned, along with several other members of the surgical and medical staff. They arrived immediately, but at this point the President's condition did not allow complete resuscitation...The neck wound, as visible on the patient, revealed a bullet hole almost in the mid line... In the lower portion of the neck, in front ...Below the Adam's apple." (When asked if a bullet had passed through Kennedy's head) "That would be conjecture on my part. 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...There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say." (When asked the direction of the bullet creating the neck wound) "It appeared to be coming at him." (When asked the direction of the bullet creating the head wound) "The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that." (When asked again if there was one or two wounds) "I don't know. From the injury, it is conceivable that it could have been caused by one wound, but there could have been two just as well if the second bullet struck the head in addition to striking the neck, and I cannot tell you that due to the nature of the wound. There is no way for me to tell...The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don't know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant." 

Dr. William Kemp Clark, who had examined the President's head wound and pronounced him dead: "I was called by Dr. Perry because the President... had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any...possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped. We attempted resuscitative measures of his heart, including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail." (When asked to describe the course of the bullet through the head) "We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head...Principally on his right side, towards the right side...The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

 

Now, to be fair, the newspapers rushed out in the immediate aftermath of the shooting had contained only the sketchiest of details, much of which was inaccurate. The Boston Globe's first attempt at telling the story, in its 11-22-63 Evening Edition, for example, contained two dueling inaccuracies on its front page. The UPI article on the right side of this page began "A single shot through the right temple took the life of the 46-year old chief executive." And the Dallas-datelined AP article on the left side of its page began "A Secret Service agent and a Dallas policeman were shot and killed today some distance from the area where President Kennedy was assassinated." (The story that emerged would be that Kennedy was shot at least twice from behind, and that no Secret Service agent was shot and killed, or even shot, or even involved in a shooting, beyond helplessly watching Kennedy get shot.)

And TV was no better. But a few minutes before the press conference, Dan Rather had told his CBS audience that "we've been told" that the fatal bullet "entered at the base of the throat and came out at the base of the neck on the back side." 

And so this press conference served a purpose--an all-important purpose--to get the facts out there so the media would stop badly mis-informing the public.

It was not without success.

Shortly after the press conference began, less than ten minutes after Rather had made out that a bullet had entered Kennedy's throat and had exited from the back of his neck, Walter Cronkite corrected this canard for CBS' audience. He reported: "We have word from Dr. Malcolm Perry, the surgeon at Parkland Hospital who attended President Kennedy. He says that when he arrived at the Emergency Room, he noticed the President was in critical condition with a wound of the neck and head. When asked if the wounds could have possibly been made by two bullets, he said he did not know." Cronkite then described some of the care Kennedy received while at Parkland, including that he'd received a tracheotomy. 

But the other networks and news agencies weren't so precise, or accurate. 

It seems clear, moreover, that many of these mistakes were spurred not by these reporters understanding too little, but by their knowing too much. FOUR sources (five if you count Chaney) had told the nation prior to the Parkland press conference that the President had received a bloody wound on the front of his head. 

And yet no such wound was mentioned by the doctors who'd inspected Kennedy's wounds...in a press conference designed to clear up confusion!

There's also this to consider... Prior to the press conference, three sources--United Press International, the Associated Press, and eyewitness Bill Newman--had suggested or reported that shots had been fired from in front of Kennedy... 

And now Dr. Perry had joined their ranks--by describing Kennedy's neck wound as an entrance...

So, yeah, in retrospect, it's not at all surprising that much of the reporting on this press conference was wrong, or at the very least, confusing...

In his own rushed report on the press conference, NBC's Robert MacNeil summarized: "A bullet struck him in front as he faced the assailant." As NBC had previously reported that Kennedy had been struck in the head, its viewers would undoubtedly have taken from this that Kennedy had been struck in the head from the front. 

And other news reports supported this belief. An AP dispatch on the press conference quoted on WOR radio at 2:43 CST claimed that Dr. Perry said "the entrance wound was on the front of the head." This dispatch, moreover, was quoted far and wide. The Albuquerque Tribune, on the stands within hours of the press conference, related: "Dr. Malcolm Perry, attendant surgeon at Parkland Hospital who attended President Kennedy, said when he arrived at the emergency room 'I noticed the President was in critical condition with a wound of the neck and head.' When asked if possibly the wounds could have been made by two bullets, he said he did not know." The article concluded, however, that "When asked to specify, Perry said the entrance wound was in the front of the head."

They were not to be outdone, for that matter. The 11-23 San Francisco Chronicle, building upon the inaccurate reports of the AP and UPI, put its own spin on the press conference, reporting "At Parkland Hospital, Dr. Malcolm Perry said Mr. Kennedy suffered a neck wound--a bullet hole in the lower part of the neck--and a second wound in the forehead."

Even the great ones got it wrong. An 11-23 New York Times article on the press conference reported: "Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's Apple... This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry. Mr. Kennedy also had a massive gaping wound in the back and one on the right side of the head. However, the doctors said it was impossible to determine immediately whether the wounds had been caused by one bullet or two." 

The doctors, of course, had never mentioned a gaping wound on Kennedy's back. 

At 3:30 PM CST, Dr.s Perry and Kemp once again spoke to the press, this time on the phone to local reporters unable to attend the official press conference. Connie Kritzberg of The Dallas Times-Herald was one of these reporters. Her article on the President's wounds was published on 11-23.

Neck Wounds Bring Death

   Wounds in the lower front portion of the neck and the right rear side of the head ended the life of President John F. Kennedy, say doctors at Parkland Hospital.

   Whether there were one or two wounds was not decided.

   The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound. The wound at the back of the head, while the principal one, was either an exit or tangential entrance wound. A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound.

   Kemp Clark, 38, chief of neurosurgery, and Dr. Malcolm Perry, 34, described the President's wounds. Dr. Clark, asked how long the President lived in the hospital, replied, "I would guess 40 minutes but I was too busy to look at my watch."

   Dr. Clark said the President's principal wound was on the right rear side of his head.

   "As to the exact time of death we elected to make it - we pronounced it at 1300. I was busy with the head wound."

   Dr. Perry was busy with the wound in the President's neck.

   "It was a midline in the lower portion of his neck in front."

   Asked if it was just below the Adam's apple, he said, "Yes. Below the Adam's apple.'

   "There were two wounds. Whether they were directly related I do not know. It was an entrance wound in the neck."

   The doctors were asked whether one bullet could have made both wounds or whether there were two bullets.

   Dr. Clark replied. "The head wound could have been either an exit or a tangential entrance wound."

   The neurosurgeon described the back of the head wound as:

   "A large gaping wound with considerable loss of tissue."

   Dr. Perry added, "It is conceivable it was one wound, but there was no way for me to tell. It did however appear to be the entrance wound at the front of the throat."

   "There was considerable bleeding. The services of the blood bank were sent for and obtained. Blood was used."

   The last rites were performed in "Emergency Operating Room No. 1."

   There were at least eight or 10 physicians in attendance at the time the President succumbed. Dr. Clark said there was no possibility of saving the President's life.

   The press pool man said that when he saw Mrs. Kennedy she still had on her pink suit and that the hose of her left leg was saturated with blood. In the emergency room, Mrs. Kennedy, Vice President Johnson and Mrs. Johnson grasped hands in deep emotion.

 

In attempting to clear up confusion, Clark and Perry had only stirred the pot. 

And Perry wasn't done. In an interview with ABC performed later that evening (which apparently no one knew about until Alex Harris put it up on YouTube in 2024), Dr. Perry repeated his and Clark's problematic descriptions of  Kennedy's wounds. He said "It was my impression there were two distinct wounds--one of the neck, and one of the head." Of the head wound he said it was "a quite massive wound...a quite large one that could have been either an exit wound or a tangential wound of the skull."  And of the throat wound, he said it was a "small penetrating wound that appeared to be the entrance wound." (Note that Perry's nervousness is apparent. He said he didn't believe the wounds were related but nevertheless said the throat wound appeared to be "the entrance wound." Well, he clearly meant to say "an entrance wound", and not "the entrance wound." I think.)

Edited April 8 by Pat Speer

[Pete Mellor]

On 4/7/2024 at 1:51 PM, Keven Hofeling said:

There is simply no way to get around this...

I agree Keven.  In view of operatives not recognising autopsy photos as the ones that they recall taking, or on different film type than they recall using, or operatives questioning the morgue furniture, i.e. stirrup head rests, or tiles, phones. In addition to the body arrivals in shipping caskets, body bags and such.

I lean strongly to not just pre-autopsy autopsy, but also to pre-morgue morgue, and perhaps pre-pathologists.

With so much ambiguity and nefarious actions that night a pre-autopsy hospital is not out of the question.

Pre Humes & Boswell did we have Osborne & Lipsey?  The mind boggles.

[Robert Morrow]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is a misreporting of what Perry said at the press conference.

From chapter 1:

Dr. Malcolm Perry, who had performed a tracheostomy on the President in an effort to save his life: "Upon reaching his side, I noted that he was in critical condition from a wound of the neck and of the head...Immediate resuscitative measures were undertaken, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Professor of Neurosurgery, was summoned, along with several other members of the surgical and medical staff. They arrived immediately, but at this point the President's condition did not allow complete resuscitation...The neck wound, as visible on the patient, revealed a bullet hole almost in the mid line... In the lower portion of the neck, in front ...Below the Adam's apple." (When asked if a bullet had passed through Kennedy's head) "That would be conjecture on my part. 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...There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say." (When asked the direction of the bullet creating the neck wound) "It appeared to be coming at him." (When asked the direction of the bullet creating the head wound) "The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that." (When asked again if there was one or two wounds) "I don't know. From the injury, it is conceivable that it could have been caused by one wound, but there could have been two just as well if the second bullet struck the head in addition to striking the neck, and I cannot tell you that due to the nature of the wound. There is no way for me to tell...The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don't know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant." 

Dr. William Kemp Clark, who had examined the President's head wound and pronounced him dead: "I was called by Dr. Perry because the President... had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any...possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped. We attempted resuscitative measures of his heart, including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail." (When asked to describe the course of the bullet through the head) "We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head...Principally on his right side, towards the right side...The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

 

Now, to be fair, the newspapers rushed out in the immediate aftermath of the shooting had contained only the sketchiest of details, much of which was inaccurate. The Boston Globe's first attempt at telling the story, in its 11-22-63 Evening Edition, for example, contained two dueling inaccuracies on its front page. The UPI article on the right side of this page began "A single shot through the right temple took the life of the 46-year old chief executive." And the Dallas-datelined AP article on the left side of its page began "A Secret Service agent and a Dallas policeman were shot and killed today some distance from the area where President Kennedy was assassinated." (The story that emerged would be that Kennedy was shot at least twice from behind, and that no Secret Service agent was shot and killed, or even shot, or even involved in a shooting, beyond helplessly watching Kennedy get shot.)

And TV was no better. But a few minutes before the press conference, Dan Rather had told his CBS audience that "we've been told" that the fatal bullet "entered at the base of the throat and came out at the base of the neck on the back side." 

And so this press conference served a purpose--an all-important purpose--to get the facts out there so the media would stop badly mis-informing the public.

It was not without success.

Shortly after the press conference began, less than ten minutes after Rather had made out that a bullet had entered Kennedy's throat and had exited from the back of his neck, Walter Cronkite corrected this canard for CBS' audience. He reported: "We have word from Dr. Malcolm Perry, the surgeon at Parkland Hospital who attended President Kennedy. He says that when he arrived at the Emergency Room, he noticed the President was in critical condition with a wound of the neck and head. When asked if the wounds could have possibly been made by two bullets, he said he did not know." Cronkite then described some of the care Kennedy received while at Parkland, including that he'd received a tracheotomy. 

But the other networks and news agencies weren't so precise, or accurate. 

It seems clear, moreover, that many of these mistakes were spurred not by these reporters understanding too little, but by their knowing too much. FOUR sources (five if you count Chaney) had told the nation prior to the Parkland press conference that the President had received a bloody wound on the front of his head. 

And yet no such wound was mentioned by the doctors who'd inspected Kennedy's wounds...in a press conference designed to clear up confusion!

There's also this to consider... Prior to the press conference, three sources--United Press International, the Associated Press, and eyewitness Bill Newman--had suggested or reported that shots had been fired from in front of Kennedy... 

And now Dr. Perry had joined their ranks--by describing Kennedy's neck wound as an entrance...

So, yeah, in retrospect, it's not at all surprising that much of the reporting on this press conference was wrong, or at the very least, confusing...

In his own rushed report on the press conference, NBC's Robert MacNeil summarized: "A bullet struck him in front as he faced the assailant." As NBC had previously reported that Kennedy had been struck in the head, its viewers would undoubtedly have taken from this that Kennedy had been struck in the head from the front. 

And other news reports supported this belief. An AP dispatch on the press conference quoted on WOR radio at 2:43 CST claimed that Dr. Perry said "the entrance wound was on the front of the head." This dispatch, moreover, was quoted far and wide. The Albuquerque Tribune, on the stands within hours of the press conference, related: "Dr. Malcolm Perry, attendant surgeon at Parkland Hospital who attended President Kennedy, said when he arrived at the emergency room 'I noticed the President was in critical condition with a wound of the neck and head.' When asked if possibly the wounds could have been made by two bullets, he said he did not know." The article concluded, however, that "When asked to specify, Perry said the entrance wound was in the front of the head."

They were not to be outdone, for that matter. The 11-23 San Francisco Chronicle, building upon the inaccurate reports of the AP and UPI, put its own spin on the press conference, reporting "At Parkland Hospital, Dr. Malcolm Perry said Mr. Kennedy suffered a neck wound--a bullet hole in the lower part of the neck--and a second wound in the forehead."

Even the great ones got it wrong. An 11-23 New York Times article on the press conference reported: "Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's Apple... This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry. Mr. Kennedy also had a massive gaping wound in the back and one on the right side of the head. However, the doctors said it was impossible to determine immediately whether the wounds had been caused by one bullet or two." 

The doctors, of course, had never mentioned a gaping wound on Kennedy's back. 

At 3:30 PM CST, Dr.s Perry and Kemp once again spoke to the press, this time on the phone to local reporters unable to attend the official press conference. Connie Kritzberg of The Dallas Times-Herald was one of these reporters. Her article on the President's wounds was published on 11-23.

Neck Wounds Bring Death

   Wounds in the lower front portion of the neck and the right rear side of the head ended the life of President John F. Kennedy, say doctors at Parkland Hospital.

   Whether there were one or two wounds was not decided.

   The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound. The wound at the back of the head, while the principal one, was either an exit or tangential entrance wound. A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound.

   Kemp Clark, 38, chief of neurosurgery, and Dr. Malcolm Perry, 34, described the President's wounds. Dr. Clark, asked how long the President lived in the hospital, replied, "I would guess 40 minutes but I was too busy to look at my watch."

   Dr. Clark said the President's principal wound was on the right rear side of his head.

   "As to the exact time of death we elected to make it - we pronounced it at 1300. I was busy with the head wound."

   Dr. Perry was busy with the wound in the President's neck.

   "It was a midline in the lower portion of his neck in front."

   Asked if it was just below the Adam's apple, he said, "Yes. Below the Adam's apple.'

   "There were two wounds. Whether they were directly related I do not know. It was an entrance wound in the neck."

   The doctors were asked whether one bullet could have made both wounds or whether there were two bullets.

   Dr. Clark replied. "The head wound could have been either an exit or a tangential entrance wound."

   The neurosurgeon described the back of the head wound as:

   "A large gaping wound with considerable loss of tissue."

   Dr. Perry added, "It is conceivable it was one wound, but there was no way for me to tell. It did however appear to be the entrance wound at the front of the throat."

   "There was considerable bleeding. The services of the blood bank were sent for and obtained. Blood was used."

   The last rites were performed in "Emergency Operating Room No. 1."

   There were at least eight or 10 physicians in attendance at the time the President succumbed. Dr. Clark said there was no possibility of saving the President's life.

   The press pool man said that when he saw Mrs. Kennedy she still had on her pink suit and that the hose of her left leg was saturated with blood. In the emergency room, Mrs. Kennedy, Vice President Johnson and Mrs. Johnson grasped hands in deep emotion.

 

In attempting to clear up confusion, Clark and Perry had only stirred the pot. 

And Perry wasn't done. In an interview with ABC performed later that evening (which apparently no one knew about until Alex Harris put it up on YouTube in 2024), Dr. Perry repeated his and Clark's problematic descriptions of  Kennedy's wounds. He said "It was my impression there were two distinct wounds--one of the neck, and one of the head." Of the head wound he said it was "a quite massive wound...a quite large one that could have been either an exit wound or a tangential wound of the skull."  And of the throat wound, he said it was a "small penetrating wound that appeared to be the entrance wound." (Note that Perry's nervousness is apparent. He said he didn't believe the wounds were related but nevertheless said the throat wound appeared to be "the entrance wound." Well, he clearly meant to say "an entrance wound", and not "the entrance wound." I think.)

The sentence QUOTE A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound. UNQUOTE was a sentence that was ADDED TO THE STORY BY THE FBI - according to Connie Kritzberg, the Dallas Times-Herald reporter who wrote the story.

Here is an email dated 5/11/11 from Connie Kritzberg to Robert Morrow:

QUOTE

The information given you by Rob Morrow was true. I had been promoted from obituary writer to “Home Editor” but was called back to cityside to work in a rewrite slot covering the President’s visit. I interviewed Drs. Kemp Clark and Malcolm Perry, then wrote the “Neck Wounds” story. As I assume you know, reporters don’t write the headlines. Earlier in the afternoon, soon after the assassination, I had interviewed Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, and written their story. My last work on cityside that day was an on-the-street “mood” story.

I had the weekend off because of my main assignment to the women’s section. Saturday was the first day I saw wounds story. I was at home, and was startled by addition of one sentence: “A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound.”

I immediately called the city desk, believe the editor I talked to was Tom LaPere, Asst Editor. It was quiet—I asked, “Who added that sentence to my story?” He answered quickly, “The FBI.”

I think I said something like, “OK.”

I am 79 years old, have slightly slurred speech, but brain still working.  

Connie Watson Kritzberg

UNQUOTE

Edited April 9 by Robert Morrow

[Michael Crane]

Video has been removed.

 

Not good.

[Vince Palamara]

32 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Video has been removed.

 

Not good.

It is up in abbreviated form on my channel (again). A big misunderstanding between Alex Harris (who FOUND the video and first posted it) and myself led to a brief "disagreement" [wherein the video was taken down] that has since thankfully passed. Alex may post it again but, in the meantime, my 14-second Fair Use bit is included here (yes, Alex is much aware of this):