26-06-2013, 12:05 PM
Mr. Gray, please contact me for more research to ad to this great thread. TD
defiorejfk@gmail.com
FRONT SHOT EVIDENCE #5[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
A Critical examination of the words of Dr. Charles Carrico discovered by Harold Weisberg irrefutably proves a front entrance shot to the throat.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
In his outstanding work on the Kennedy Assassination, Harold Weisberg uncovered a definitive attestation from Dr. Malcolm Perry that, in this author's belief, unknowingly confirmed the front throat wound as a wound of entrance. The words written by Harold Weisberg cannot be any more clear for us. His analysis is striking.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
"As I lead him (Dr. Perry) over those events (the Parkland Hospital procedures with the President) and his participation, what he did and the sequence, he recalled that he first looked at the wound (in the throat), then asked a nurse for a "trake" (short for tracheotomy) tray, wiped off the wound, saw a ring of bruising around it, and started cutting. In describing the appearance of the wound and the ring of bruising, he used the words, "as they always are." Pretending not to notice the significance of this important fact he had let bubble out, I retraced the whole procedure with him again. When he had repeated the same words, I asked him if he had ever been asked about the ringed bruise around the wound in front of the neck. The question told the experienced hunter and the experienced surgeon exactly what he had admitted, one description of an entrance wound. He blushed and improvised the explanation that there was blood around the wound. I did not further embarrass him by pressing him, for we both knew he had seen the wound clearly. He had twice said he had wiped the blood off and had seen the wound clearly, if briefly, before cutting.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
The official representation and that of an unofficial apologist to which we shall come would have us believe that bruising is a characteristic of entrance wounds only. This is not the case. The reader should not be deceived on this or by Perry's admission that there was bruising. Exit wounds also can show bruising. One difference is that exit wounds do not have to show bruising. That in this case there was bruising by itself need not be taken as an expression of Perry's professional opinion that it was a wound of entrance. The definitive answer is in those words he twice used, quoted directly above,[/FONT] " as they always are'. It is an entrance wound only that always are of this description. Thus, Dr. Perry had said again and in a different way that this was a shot from the front. In context, this is also the only possible meaning of what Carrico had said."[/FONT][/FONT]
defiorejfk@gmail.com
FRONT SHOT EVIDENCE #5[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
A Critical examination of the words of Dr. Charles Carrico discovered by Harold Weisberg irrefutably proves a front entrance shot to the throat.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
In his outstanding work on the Kennedy Assassination, Harold Weisberg uncovered a definitive attestation from Dr. Malcolm Perry that, in this author's belief, unknowingly confirmed the front throat wound as a wound of entrance. The words written by Harold Weisberg cannot be any more clear for us. His analysis is striking.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
"As I lead him (Dr. Perry) over those events (the Parkland Hospital procedures with the President) and his participation, what he did and the sequence, he recalled that he first looked at the wound (in the throat), then asked a nurse for a "trake" (short for tracheotomy) tray, wiped off the wound, saw a ring of bruising around it, and started cutting. In describing the appearance of the wound and the ring of bruising, he used the words, "as they always are." Pretending not to notice the significance of this important fact he had let bubble out, I retraced the whole procedure with him again. When he had repeated the same words, I asked him if he had ever been asked about the ringed bruise around the wound in front of the neck. The question told the experienced hunter and the experienced surgeon exactly what he had admitted, one description of an entrance wound. He blushed and improvised the explanation that there was blood around the wound. I did not further embarrass him by pressing him, for we both knew he had seen the wound clearly. He had twice said he had wiped the blood off and had seen the wound clearly, if briefly, before cutting.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
The official representation and that of an unofficial apologist to which we shall come would have us believe that bruising is a characteristic of entrance wounds only. This is not the case. The reader should not be deceived on this or by Perry's admission that there was bruising. Exit wounds also can show bruising. One difference is that exit wounds do not have to show bruising. That in this case there was bruising by itself need not be taken as an expression of Perry's professional opinion that it was a wound of entrance. The definitive answer is in those words he twice used, quoted directly above,[/FONT] " as they always are'. It is an entrance wound only that always are of this description. Thus, Dr. Perry had said again and in a different way that this was a shot from the front. In context, this is also the only possible meaning of what Carrico had said."[/FONT][/FONT]