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

[Anthony DeFiore]

The photos of JFK's throat wound and the quotes from the doctors do not lie. I posted concrete analysis on my blog www.jfkthefrontshot.blogspot.com

My 303 page research compilation (it keeps growing!) on the front shot to JFK'S throat is available to any one interested. Please email me at defiorejfk@gmail.com for a free copy by email or snail mail.

[Daniel Gallup]

The photos of JFK's throat wound and the quotes from the doctors do not lie. I posted concrete analysis on my blog www.jfkthefrontshot.blogspot.com

My 303 page research compilation (it keeps growing!) on the front shot to JFK'S throat is available to any one interested. Please email me at defiorejfk@gmail.com for a free copy by email or snail mail.

Anthony, with all the replies on the head wound thread (which is most gratifying), I am surprised no one has taken on the challenges posed by the neck wound. Did Perry really create a jagged 6-8 cm trach incision? He told LIfton in 1966 that is was 2-3 cm, and said elsewhere that after the trach tube was taken out the wound remained inviolate. Then how do we explain its look in the stare of death photo? If there is an explanation that does not involve someone widening the incision, probing the wound for a bullet and extracting same, I would be glad to hear of it. Best regards, Daniel

[Phil Dragoo]

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

[Daniel Gallup]

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.

[Phil Dragoo]

Daniel

"preserved inviolate" to "ragged gash"?

You are right on target: Dr. Malcolm Perry's description is best evidence--and considered so dangerous that Elmer Moore, Arlen Specter, and Allen Dulles took turns taking the rubber hose to him.

He confided to McClellan he was afraid "they were going to kill me"

The gaping wound in the stare of death is the fallen king speaking despite murder most foul.

[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.

[Daniel Gallup]

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.

I agree with you -- these are the only three options possible. If Perry did this himself, why the very specific reply to Lifton in 1966? Why the description of the wound as "inviolate" after the trach tube was removed? Perry changed his tune on the direction of the non-fatal shot and the location of the head wound; why is there no testimony about enlarging the trach incision to inspect the trachea? There was damage to the trachea, and he did have to sever some strap muscles in order to perform the tracheotomy, but no mention of a 6-8 cm irregular gash in any early deposition. I think option 3 is a desperate attempt to avoid covert wound alteration, which would be the case for options 1 and 2, since the state of death photo is supposed to represent the condition of the President before the autopsy began.

[Gordon Gray]

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.

I agree with you -- these are the only three options possible. If Perry did this himself, why the very specific reply to Lifton in 1966? Why the description of the wound as "inviolate" after the trach tube was removed? Perry changed his tune on the direction of the non-fatal shot and the location of the head wound; why is there no testimony about enlarging the trach incision to inspect the trachea? There was damage to the trachea, and he did have to sever some strap muscles in order to perform the tracheotomy, but no mention of a 6-8 cm irregular gash in any early deposition. I think option 3 is a desperate attempt to avoid covert wound alteration, which would be the case for options 1 and 2, since the state of death photo is supposed to represent the condition of the President before the autopsy began.

You're probably right, but is it possible to severe the strap muscle's while making only a 2-3 cm incision? Maybe? One other possibility occurs to me. If the body was placed in a body bag, but moved significantly before it was placed in a coffin, as perhaps when it was offloaded from Air Force one, it's possible the unsupported head could have fallen back and that could have enlarged the throat wound. Some one with more medical expertise than me would have to weigh in on that.

[David Josephs]

Daniel

"preserved inviolate" to "ragged gash"?

You are right on target: Dr. Malcolm Perry's description is best evidence--and considered so dangerous that Elmer Moore, Arlen Specter, and Allen Dulles took turns taking the rubber hose to him.

He confided to McClellan he was afraid "they were going to kill me"

The gaping wound in the stare of death is the fallen king speaking despite murder most foul.

At some point in time, when the B&W photos that Ms Spencer deveoped and printed are remembered, she sees only a 2-3" hole in the right rear (ala Hill) and a small opening in the throat.
(Knudsen only created B&W negatives... he claims FOX from the SS printed them and they match those in the Archives except for the "probe" images)
(btw - not a single person states that color transparencies were taken that night.... yet the inventory shown to Humes and Boswell in November 1966 includes a color transparency with each and every negative... I am not yet sure if this is relevent)


Ms. Spencer, could you look at the wound in the throat of President Kennedy and tell me whether that corresponds to the wound that you observed inthe photographs you developed?
A: No, it does not.
Q: In what way are they different?
A: This is a large, gaping gash type.
Q: That is, in the fifth view, it's a large, gaping gash, is that correct?
A: Yes. In the one that we had seen, it was on the right side,approximately half-inch. (1.27cm)
Q: Is the wound in a different location or is it just a larger wound onthe throat?
A: It could be just a larger wound


Now for something completely different... Dr. Ebersole:

Upon removing the body from the coffin, the anterior aspect, the only things
noticeable were a small irregular ecumonic (sic - no such word) area above the super ecolobular (sic - also no such word)
ridge and a neatly sutured transverse surgical wound across the low neck.

So we have
1) the Fox "death stare" photo with a "gash" (Knudsen took these? when and where)
2) the Spencer 2-3" occipital hole and a small throat wound (says the photos are NOT a morgue setting yet the backgrounds were very dark as well)
3) Dr. Ebersole, who claims to have stayed with the body until 3am, tells of a nice suture... (he also claims MANY strange things that have been proven wrong)
4) O'Connor - 2.5", slightly off center to the anatomical right
5) Perry telling us it was inviolate when it left Parkland

inviolate (ɪnˈvaɪ ə lɪt, -ˌleɪt) adj. 1. free from violation, injury, desecration, or outrage. 2. undisturbed. 3. unbroken. 4. not infringed

We MUST get away from thinking "3 shots".... As Knudsen tells it, the probes were in entry and exit holes but did not line up with each other...
There were more holes than could be accounted for... and there was a bullet removed from under the right arm in the chest... very probably the throat shot bullet from the south of the vehicle.

There are bullets referred to as "still in the body" in FBI reports and then there is the infamous 1/27/64 Exec Session statement that has yet to be explained by anyone, ever.
The existing autopsy DOES NOT CONTAIN THIS INFORMATION...

I am thinking now that Humes' notes included the results of probes and conclusions related to what is said here:
(btw - there was no metal of any kind found in the holes in the shirt.. in fact, everyone who saw the wound described it as ABOVE the knot of a necktie...

Mr. Rankin:
Then theres a great range of material in
regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit
or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all
has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.
We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably
a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation
the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent,
since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in
the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the
right of the backbone, which is below the place where the
picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt
in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike
any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.
So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a
finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

[Phil Dragoo]

http://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/arch...t-370.html

http://www.check-six.com/lib/Famous_Missing/Boggs.htm

Note in Check-Six account, reported two survivors at site--later dismissed as "erroneous"--

JAMA tried to smear Crenshaw and Lundberg lost his job over it.

Show us the photos of the probes proving the Single Bullet Theory.

Show us the dissection proving transit from T-3 to the tracheal rings.

We have an abrasion collar on each wound.

Boggs knew the SBT was a non-starter.

James V. Rinnovatore on the enlarged throat wound/incision:

Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide [4, p. 272]. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively [4, p. 275]. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" [5, p. 54] Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate" [6, pp. 100-101].


In stark contrast, when the president's body was observed at the Bethesda Naval Hospital at 8:00 pm -- the start of the official autopsy -- the incision/wound in the throat was elongated and widened. The autopsy report [1, p. 540] described it as "a 6.5 cm long transverse wound with widely gaping, irregular edges." In his testimony to the Warren Commission, chief pathologist Dr. James Humes said that it was "7 or 8 cm" in the transverse direction [7] (Figure 1).

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Throat-Wound/


And of course Jerroll Custer to Jeremy Gunn:

[FONT=&amp]Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassinations Record Review Board, Volume II, Chapter Five: The Autopsy X-Rays, pages 530-2:[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer Examines the X-Rays of the Body[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]The noteworthy highlights of Custer's review of the x-rays of the body was Jeremy's attempt to see whether Custer could identify metal fragments near any of the cervical vertebrae, which Custer had mentioned earlier in the deposition.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Jeremy showed Custer x-ray no. 9, a view of the chest prior to removal of the lungs, and the exchange went as follows:[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: Previously, you referred to there being metal fragments in the cervical area. Are you able to identify any metal fragments in this x-ray?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: Not in this film.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: Does this film include a view or an exposure that would have included such metal fragments?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: No sir.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: Where would the metal fragments be located?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: Further up in there. This region.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: Can youand you're pointing to?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: Up into the, I'd say, C3/C4 region.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Jeremy asked Custer to review x-rays no. 8 and 10, of the right shoulder and chest, and left shoulder and chest, respectivelyboth are images following the removal of the heart and lungs. Custer could not identify metal fragments in either x-ray.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Later, Jeremy asked Custer the following questions:[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: Now, you had raised, previously in the deposition. . .the possibility of some metal fragments in the C3/C4 range.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: I noticed I didn't see that.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: You didn't see any x-rays that would be inthat would include the C3/C4 area?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: No sir.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: Are you certain that you took x-rays that included theincluded C3 and C4?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: Yes, sir. Absolutely.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: How many x-rays did you take that would have included that?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: Just one. And that was all that was necessary, because it showedright there.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: And what, as best you recall, did it show?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: A fragmentation of a shell in and around that circular exitthat area. Let me rephrase that. I don't want to say "exit," because I don't know whether it was exit or entrance. But all I can say, there was bullet fragmentations [sic] around that areathat opening.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: Around C3/C4?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: Right.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn" And do you recall how many fragments there were?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: Not really. There was enough. It was very prevalent.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: Did anyone make any observations about metal fragments in the C3/C4 area?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: I did. And I was told to mind my own business. That's where I was shut down again.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: You have, during the course of this deposition, identified three x-rays that you are quite certain that you took, but don't appear in this collection. Are there any others that you can identify as not being included?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: That's the only three that come to my mind right now; the two tangential views, and the A-P cervical spine.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: Okay.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: Can I add something to that?[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Gunn: Sure.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Custer: In my own opinion, I do believe, basically, the reason why they are not here is because they showed massive amounts of bullet fragments.[/FONT]