THE EVER EXPANDING THROAT WOUND - www.jfkthefrontshot.blospot.com

[Gordon Gray]

Milicent Cranor, Trajectory of a Lie, Part I: The Palindrome

Of the small throat wound, the Parkland doctors said it had " no jagged edges or stellate lacerations" (6 WH 3); "relatively smooth edges (6 WH 54); "rather clean." (3 WH 372) In addition, the Parkland doctors described an abrasion collar (7HSCA302; 6 WH 42) as well as other very specific particulars. (Then one of them later said he could hardly see the wound at all, but that is another story.)

. . .

Conclusions
· The bullet wound in Kennedy's throat was not acknowledged, not described, and not documented in any way by the pathologists during the autopsy.
· Subsequent investigations could not possibly examine the documentation of the remains of the bullet wound in the throat there was none, other than a poor photograph, taken from too far away to show any detail.
· The Clark Panel was not guided by the scientific principles described by its most prominent member, Alan R. Moritz: the Panel failed to "record a sufficiently detailed, factual, and noninterpretive description of the observed conditions [whatever details suggested the wound was characteristic of an exit' at the exclusion of an entrance], in order that a competent reader may form his own opinions in regard to the significance of the changes described."
· Physicians who actually saw the wound gave several reasons for their interpretation of its nature: an entrance wound.
· Entrance wounds need not be perfectly smooth.
· Entrance wounds need not have abrasion collars.
· The size of entrance and exit wounds is affected by the bullet's velocity.
· Exit wounds can be small if the area of the bullet presented to the skin is also small and if its exiting velocity is low.
· Abrasion collars of exit wounds are much larger and, in other ways, are distinctly different from those of entrance wounds.
· The known details about the back and throat wounds of John F. Kennedy suggest both could be either entrance or exit wounds.
· The back wound could have been the exit of a bullet that entered the body through the throat. Many researchers doubt this because no hole was reported in the trunk of the limousine; they believe such a trajectory would require the bullet to also penetrate the trunk. This is not necessarily so: if the bullet had exited with very little energy perhaps after traveling from afar it would not have penetrated the trunk.

· The back wound could have been the entrance of a bullet (underpowered) that barely penetrated, then fell out, into oblivion. (A bullet superficially penetrated the thigh of Governor John Connally, creating a round,10mm wound, and somehow leaving a small fragment 8mm beneath the skin. This bullet had very little energy -- allegedly -- because it had already perforated Kennedy's neck, then Connally's chest and wrist.)
· The abrasion collar on Kennedy's throat wound was consistent with an entrance and most definitely not that of a shored exit.
· There is no reported evidence that Kennedy's shirt collar contained crushed skin.
· If Kennedy's throat wound were an exit, the bullet that created it could not have had sufficient velocity to perforate Governor John Connally's chest and wrist.
· If Kennedy's throat wound was an entrance, it was a typical entrance.
Next: Part II. Neck and Torso X-Rays: Selectivity in Reporting


* Jenkins has made a number of false claims. For example, during a discussion of the head wound, he told Gerald Posner that "We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds. As for the head wound, they couldn't look at it earlier because I was standing with my body against it, and they would only have looked at my pants." (Case Closed, p.309) In fact, the Chief of the Department of Neurosurgery, W.K. Clark donned rubber gloves to closely examine the damage to the skull as well as the brain.
© 2002 Milicent Cranor

Phil, I've read Cranor through and through, and remain convinced this is a true smoking gun for body alteration. One can debate the size of the head wound and why its size was not realized at Parkland, but not this. It matters little that years later some Dallas doctors had no trouble with the look and size of the gash in the neck as representing Perry's trach incision; what really matters is that Perry disavows it completely in 1966 before he or anyone else realizes the significance of it all.

There are three possible explanations for the throat wound IMO: It was enlarged some time between Dallas and Besthesda in order to remove a bullet and/or obscure the entrance wound; it was enlarged by the doctors at Besthesda in order to do the same; or Perry himself enlarged it in order to look for damage to the trachea, as would be normal in the case of a bullet wound to the throat.