The Medical Evidence Pertaining to the JFK Assassination from the Doctors Who Tried to Save his Life

Nixon was keenly aware that Kennedy’s battle with powerful internal elements had preceded JFK’s demise. After all, governments everywhere have historically faced the reality that the apparatus of state security might have the chief of state in its gun sights – and that it certainly possesses the ability to act – Russ Baker, from his book, “Family of Secrets – The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces that Put it in the White House, and What their Influence Means for America”.

The Warren Commission conclusion that the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, was the work of a lone gunman was based in large part on autopsy evidence pertaining to the two bullet wounds that Kennedy received that day. The autopsy evidence was purported to show that the two bullets that caused those wounds were shot from behind the President – that is, from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository, where evidence placed Lee Harvey Oswald at the time of the shooting.

But that autopsy evidence was starkly contradicted by testimony of the doctors and nurses who attempted to save Kennedy’s life at Parkland Memorial Hospital shortly following the shooting.

The Parkland doctors and one nurse characterized the throat wound as an entrance wound – which would mean that the bullet that caused it came from the front, in the general area of the grassy knoll, rather than from the Texas School Book Depository behind the President. The autopsy doctors did not see the throat wound in its original state because it had been surgically obliterated in the effort to save the President’s life.

The fatal head wound was judged to be an exit wound by both the Parkland doctors and the Bethesda autopsy doctors. But the two groups of doctors saw (according to their descriptions) the head wound in a very different location in Kennedy’s head. Assuming it to be an exit wound, as both groups of doctors agreed, if it was located where the Parkland doctors said they saw it (in the back or back-right of the head), that means that the bullet that caused it came from the front. Conversely, an exit wound where the autopsy doctors described it would have been consistent with a bullet from behind.

So that leaves two basic possibilities: Either the Parkland doctors and nurses were way off base in their observations and testimony, or else the President’s wounds were surgically altered prior to the autopsy.

In this post, based mostly on David Lifton’s book, “Best Evidence – Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy”, I discuss the medical evidence as testified to by the Parkland doctors and nurses, while pointing out some of the major differences between what they said they saw and what the autopsy doctors found. Then in my next post on this subject, I’ll discuss additional evidence that the President’s body was surgically altered between the time that it left Parkland Hospital and the time that it arrived in the autopsy room.

THE THROAT WOUND

The throat wound was made by the first of the two (or possibly more) bullets that struck Kennedy. It was not the fatal wound.

The physicians who performed the autopsy did not see this wound in its original state, because it was obliterated by one of the Parkland doctors, Dr. Malcolm Perry, when he made a surgical incision over it in order to perform a tracheotomy. Therefore, only the doctors and nurses at Parkland hospital had a view of this wound in its original state.

All of the Parkland doctors and the nurse who offered an opinion on the throat wound characterized it as an entrance wound.

It is also important to note that the “single bullet theory” depends upon the throat wound being an exit wound. That is because the “single bullet theory” alleges that a single bullet hit Kennedy in the back, exited the front of his neck, and then continued on to hit Governor John Connally (sitting in the front seat of the car, in front of Kennedy) in the back, wrist and leg.

Characterization as an entrance wound by the Parkland doctors

Here are the descriptions of the throat wound by the doctors and one nurse at Parkland hospital:

Dr. Malcolm Perry
Lifton describes the initial news accounts of the opinions of the Parkland doctors, particularly Dr. Malcolm Perry:

On November 22, 1963, millions of Americans heard radio and TV networks report that Dr. Malcolm Perry, a Dallas Physician who was with the President in the emergency room when he died, said there was a bullet entrance wound situated on the front of Kennedy’s neck.

Because Perry later changed his mind about the direction of the bullet, after receiving a visit from the Secret Service, and denied what he had originally said, Lifton goes to much effort to document Perry’s initial accounts. Here is some of that documentation:

UPI report at 3:10 p.m. CST on 11-22 (1):

Dr. Malcolm Perry, thirty-four, said “there was an entrance wound below the Adam’s apple.”

Tom Wicker with the New York Times (2):

Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam’s apple, they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet’s entry…

Dallas News reporter John Geddie (3):

Dr. Perry said, “in the lower portion of Kennedy’s neck, right in the front, there was a small puncture.”

Lifton explains why he felt confidant that Perry had not been misquoted, as he later claimed:

Another factor reinforcing my conviction that Dr. Perry had not been misquoted was his reaction to the news that the shots were all fired from a building located behind the motorcade. Faced with that fact, Dr. Perry did not change his opinion about the wound; on the contrary, he simply assumed that President Kennedy was turned toward the rear when the bullet struck… He told the Boston Globe’s medical editor, Herbert Black (4):

“It may have been that the President was looking up or sideways with his head thrown back when the bullet or bullets struck him”.

However, we know from the Zapruder film that the President’s head was in fact facing forward when the fatal bullet struck his head.

Dr. Ronald Jones
In his Warren Commission deposition, Dr. Jones explained why the doctors considered the throat wound to be an entrance wound:

The hole was very small and relatively clean-cut as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. (5)

Many of the doctors initially thought that the throat and head wound were caused by the same bullet, entering through the throat and exiting through the back of the head. Dr. Jones explained to the Warren Commission his initial thoughts:

With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck (which Jones characterized as an entrance wound in his medical report) and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as … to how this could occur with a single wound (bullet) would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head… if I accounted for it (both wounds) on the basis of one shot, that would have been the way I (would have) accounted for it. (6)

Dr. Paul Peters
Dr. Peters testified at the Warren Commission Hearings (7):

We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound, and it is a known fact that high velocity missiles often have a small wound of entrance and a large wound of exit…

Dr. Charles Baxter
Lifton notes that despite Arlen Specter’s aggressive efforts to get the Parkland physicians to equivocate on their characterization of the throat wound, some of them argued back against him. Dr. Baxter, for example, noted that such a wound (to have been an exit wound) would be “unusual… ordinarily there would have been a rather large wound of exit.” (8)

Dr. Charles Carrico
On the afternoon of November 22, Dr. Charles Carrico described the throat wound in his medical report as “a small penetrating wound of the ant. (front) neck in the lower 1/3”. (9)

Nurse Margaret Henchliffe
Margarette Hencliffe testified to the Warren Commission (10):

It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck… about as big around as the end of my little finger… that looked like an entrance bullet hole…

Lifton describes Ms. Henchliffe’s exchange with Arlen Specter:

When asked by Specter if it could “have been an exit bullet hole,” Nurse Henchliffe insisted that she had “never seen an exit bullet hole… that looked like that… It was just a small wound and wasn’t jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen…”

Immediately following this exchange, attorney Specter began a series of questions designed to establish that Nurse Henchliffe did not have qualifications to render such an opinion. Nurse Henchliffe answered that her experience was limited to five years in the ER at Parkland Memorial Hospital and, more generally, her twelve years as a registered nurse. “We take care of a lot of bullet wounds down there – I don’t know how many a year,” she testified (11).

Dr. Robert McClelland
Lifton describes Dr. McClelland’s interview with Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (12):

Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch: “It certainly did look like an entrance wound.” He explained that a bullet from a low velocity rifle, like the one thought to have been used, characteristically makes a small entrance wound, sets up shock waves inside the body, and tears a big opening when it passes out the other side.

Dr. McClelland conceded that it was possible that the throat wound marked the exit of a bullet fired into the back of the President’s neck… “but we are familiar with bullet wounds,” he said. “We see them every day – sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an entrance wound.”

McClelland noted in the same interview, having been informed that Lee Harvey Oswald had shot the President from behind:

We postulated that if it was a wound of entry, as we thought it was… he would have to have been looking almost completely to the rear.

And McClelland testified to similar effect to the Warren Commission (13):

At the moment… it was our impression before we had any other information… that this was one bullet, that perhaps had entered through the front of the neck and then in some peculiar fashion which we really had… to strain to explain to ourselves, had coursed up the front of the vertebra and into the base of the skull and out the rear of the skull.

Dr. Robert Shaw
Dr. Shaw said that the doctors were “a little baffled” by the throat wound (14):

The assassin was behind him, yet the bullet entered at the front of his neck. Mr. Kennedy must have turned to his left to talk to Mrs. Kennedy or to wave to someone.

1) UPI “A” wire, 11-22-63, 3:10 p.m. CST
2) New York Times, 11-23-63
3) Dallas Morning News, 11-24-63, page 11
4) Boston Globe, 11-24-63, page 9
5) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 56
6) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 55
7) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 71
8) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 42
9) Warren Commission Report, page 519
10) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 141
11) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 141
12) St. Louis Post Dispatch, 12-1-63, page 16
13) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 37
14) Houston Post, 11-29-63

Apparent efforts to obscure the testimony of the Parkland doctors on the throat wound

Many people have pointed out that differentiating between an exit and an entrance wound is not an exact science, and that therefore the doctors at Parkland Hospital could have been wrong about Kennedy’s throat wound. That is a possibility. But weighing against that possibility is the fact that this particular wound was very highly characteristic of an entrance wound and that all of the doctors and the nurse who ventured an opinion on it had a similar opinion.

It is also important to note how various entities endeavored to … shall we say, sweep this evidence under the rug:

“Secret Service Gets Revision of Kennedy Wound”
On December 18th, a story by Richard Dudman appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, titled “Secret Service gets revision on Kennedy wound – After visit by agents, doctors say shot was from rear”. The doctors referred to in the article were Malcolm Perry and Robert McClelland. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Two Secret Service agents called last week on Dallas surgeons who attended President John F. Kennedy and obtained a reversal of their original view that the bullet in his neck entered from the front. The investigators did so by showing the surgeons a document described as an autopsy report from the US Naval Hospital at Bethesda. The surgeons changed their original view to conform with the report they were shown.

This article begs two questions in my mind. First, why would Secret Service agents feel the need to visit doctors in an attempt to get them to change their views? And second, how would the autopsy report change the views of the two doctors on the characterization of the throat wound, given that the throat wound was not seen by the autopsy doctors, having been obliterated by the tracheotomy that Dr. Perry performed?

Lifton summarized the change in Dr. Perry’s story by the time he testified before the Warren Commission:

By the time Dr. Perry testified before the Warren Commission his attitude had changed markedly. Although he was still describing the throat wound, anatomically, as a small pencil-size hole, just a quarter inch in diameter, Perry no longer maintained it was a wound of entry. “It could have been either” he said. And he apparently subscribed to the theory that he had been misquoted at the news conference.

The Warren Commission ignoring the initial characterization of the throat wound
One would think, given the fact that Dr. Perry’s opinions in his initial, widely broadcast news conference contradicted his later statements to the press, as well as his Warren Commission testimony, that the Warren Commission might have said something about this or at least preserved the records of Dr. Perry’s press conference in their hearings. But they did no such thing. Lifton comments on this oversight:

The twenty-six volumes (of Warren Commission Hearings) presented a strange appearance. Numerous transcripts of news conferences held at Police Headquarters were published, made from audio and videotapes obtained from the three major networks and their Dallas affiliates, but Dr. Perry’s news conference was not among them.

Arlen Specter’s aggressive attempts to negate the evidence for an entry wound into the throat
Lifton explains how Arlen Specter tried to get each medical witness to the throat wound to acknowledge that that wound was or could have been an exit wound – with the use of ridiculous hypothetical questions:

Specter asked each doctor a long hypothetical question, beginning with the phrase, “Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you to assume as being true”… Typical was the question he asked of Dr. Carrico, which began (15):

Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion. First of all, assume that the President was struck… when (he) was approximately 160 to 250 feet from the weapon (Oswald’s range)… being struck from the rear at a downward angle… on the upper right posterior thorax (the Bethesda entry wound)… Assume further that the missile passed through the body of the President striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles (the Bethesda autopsy trajectory)… then exiting precisely at the point where you observed the puncture wound to exist (the Bethesda exit wound, at the location the Dallas doctors thought there was a wound of entry). Now based on those facts was the appearance of the wound in your opinion consistent with being an exit wound?

Dr. Carrico replied: “With those facts and the fact as I understand it no other bullet was found, this would be… I believe… an exit wound”.

However, not all the Parkland doctors were that docile. The one that did the most damage to Specter’s plan was Ronald Jones. Recall that the “single bullet theory”, which posited a single bullet for Kennedy’s throat wound and Governor Connally’s wounds, depended upon the bullet not only exiting Kennedy’s throat, but doing so with enough velocity to cause a good deal of damage to Connally. Lifton explains the damage that Jones did to Specter’s theories:

Dr. Jones explained that at that speed, much faster than sound, the missile has a shock wave and, passing through Kennedy’s neck, it might wobble, and therefore it would cause a larger wound of exit than the small pencil-size hole the Dallas doctors had seen. Dr. Jones explained that Specter could have his tiny exit wound, or his high-velocity missile, but not both (16). Specter seemed to resist:

Specter: Would it (the wound) be consistent, then, with an exit wound but of low velocity, as you put it?

Jones: Yes; of very low velocity to the point that you might think that this bullet barely made it through the soft tissues that and had just enough velocity to drop out of the skin on the opposite side (17).

Of course, such a missile posed no threat to the welfare of Governor Connally, and Dr. Jones’ testimony was not discussed in the Warren Report.

15) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 3, page 362
16) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 55
17) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 55

THE FATAL HEAD WOUND

Both the Parkland doctors and the autopsy doctors considered the fatal head wound to be an exit wound. However, there were huge disparities in how the wound was characterized by the Parkland doctors compared to the autopsy doctors in Bethesda, and these disparities were of critical importance in determining whether the bullet came from in front of (as clearly indicated by the Parkland doctors’ description) or behind (as was consistent with the autopsy doctors’ description) the President. So vast were these disparities that it is virtually impossible to imagine that the two groups of doctors were looking at the same body.

Recognizing the vast discrepancies between the opinions and findings of the Parkland Hospital physicians vs. the autopsy findings, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) final report in 1979 concluded that either the Parkland doctors were mistaken or else the Secret Service was mistaken in their contention that the body arrived at the autopsy room unaltered. It then sided with the Secret Service, saying that they could not have been mistaken their assertion that the body was not altered prior to autopsy, because the coffin with the body in it was under their constant observation from the time it left Parkland hospital until it arrived at the autopsy room. In other words, the HSCA did not seriously consider the possibility that the Secret Service participated in the cover-up. I’ll deal with that in my next post on this subject, which discusses evidence that the body was indeed altered substantially prior to the autopsy. For now I’ll just point out some of the major differences:

Characterization of the head wound as an “exit” wound at the back of the head by the Parkland doctors

Dr. Robert McClelland
Dr. McClelland provided the most extensive description of the head wound. He testified before the Warren Commission:

I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound… and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently by the force of the shot, so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones… in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity (18).

Because Dr. McClelland recorded in his medical notes on the day of the assassination that “The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple” (19), that would clearly make the wound at the “right posterior portion of the skull” an exit wound

Dr. Paul Peters
Dr. Peters said in an interview with Lifton:

I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think of was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry.

Dr. Malcolm Perry
Dr. Perry was quoted in the Dallas Morning News (20): “The head wound, Perry added, appeared to be an exit wound caused when the bullet passed out.” And in an interview with the Boston Globe (21), Perry described the wound in the back of the head as an exit wound, even though he had had heard by that time that the president was shot from behind:

Perry acknowledged it was peculiar that “rather than entering” from behind, the bullet exited “despite the fact the assassin shot from above down on to the President.” But he assured Black that the wound he saw on the head was an exit: “We know that the big damage is at the point of exit.” He offered this explanation” “It may have been that the President was looking up or sideways with his head thrown back when the bullet or bullets struck him.

Other Parkland doctors’ testimony on the nature of the back of the head wound
Dr. Ronald Jones: “… appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull”. (22)

Dr. Gene Akin: “I assume that the right occipitoparietal region was the exit”. (23)

Dr. Marion Jenkins: “I would interpret it being a wound of exit” (24)

Dr. Kemp Clark: Of the 7 Parkland physicians who characterized the nature of the fatal head wound (exit vs. entrance), only one equivocated (the other 6 characterizing it as an exit wound.) Dr. Kemp Clark said it could be an exit wound, but it was also possible the wound was “tangential” (25) – meaning that it did not enter the skull, but caused damage through contact. In that case, it could have come from either direction.

18) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 33
19) Warren Commission Report, page 527
20) Dallas Morning News, 11-24-63
21) Boston Globe, 11-24-63
22) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 56
23) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 67
24) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 33
25) St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12-18-63, page 1

Differences in the size and location of the wound between Parkland Hospital and Bethesda

Lifton notes that both the Parkland doctors and the Bethesda doctors agreed on one thing. The “large” hole in the head was the exit wound for the fatal bullet. But the word “large” is just about the only thing they agreed on concerning this wound. The Parkland doctors placed the wound in the back or right back of the head. The Bethesda doctors described the wound as being about four times larger in area than the Parkland doctors. Therefore, though their report indicated the wound as extending to the back of the head, they also had it covering a much wider area. Because of the much wider area of the wound that the Bethesda doctors described, that exit wound would have been consistent with a bullet coming from the back and above. But the exit wound in the back of the head described by the Parkland doctors would not have been at all consistent with a shot from behind. Here is how Lifton described the autopsy report:

There was a huge hole about six inches across in the top of the head. The hole extended all the way from the rear of the skull, in the occipital area, nearly six inches toward the front, and was completely uncovered. Dr. Humes said its largest dimension was “approximately 13 cm” (26)…. At the autopsy, Commander Boswell made a drawing of the skull which depicted the wound as a roughly rectangular area with measurement of 10 by 17 cm. Inside that area, Boswell had written “missing.” (27) At the rear of the head, just beneath the large hole, one inch to the right of the centerline, Commander Humes reported the existence of a small rectangular entry wound – 15 by 6 mm in size…

That is not the way the President’s head appeared earlier that afternoon, at Parkland Memorial Hospital. None of the Dallas doctors saw the small “entry” wound subsequently reported by Commander Humes. More important, the only major wound noted by the Parkland doctors (28) – approximately 5 to 7 cm. in diameter – was located in the right rear portion of the head. The bones were sprung outward, and a flap of scalp was associated with the wound. The top of the President’s head was in place – it was not “missing.”

More specifically, Lifton notes nurses Hutton (29) and Bowron (30) as describing a wound at the back of the head, and doctors Carrico (28), Jones (31), Akin (32), Perry (33), Peters (34), Clark (35), and Jenkins (36) as describing wounds at the back or back-right of the head. None of them described anything similar to the wound stipulated in the autopsy.

Lifton summarizes why he believes that the body that the Bethesda autopsy doctors saw had to have been altered from its appearance at Parkland hospital:

If the condition of the President’s head was the same at Parkland as at Bethesda, not only did the Parkland doctors miss a 13 cm hole in the top of the skull, they missed one which would have been obvious even upon cursory examination, since the scalp was gone too.

26) Bethesda Autopsy Report, page 3
27) Warren Commission Exhibit 397
28) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 6
29) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 21, page 216
30) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 136
31) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 54
32) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 65
33) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 11
34) Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 6, page 71
35) Transcript of 1327-C of Perry and Clark news conference
36) Warren Commission Exhibit 392

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION

If the President’s throat wound was an entrance wound, as the doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital unanimously (before two of them were later visited by Secret Service agents) claimed, then at least one bullet came from the front, in the general direction of the grassy knoll. Of course, it is possible that they were all wrong about that wound – which would have made it a very unusual exit wound. But if so, then as Dr. Jones explained to Arlen Specter, that would have meant that the velocity of the bullet as it exited the throat would have been so slow that it couldn’t possibly have continued on to do damage to Governor Connally, as concluded by the Warren Commission. Also of importance is the fact that the Bethesda autopsy doctors did not see the throat wound in its original state because it had been obliterated by a tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital.

The Parkland doctors and nurses and the Bethesda doctors all agreed that the fatal head wound was an exit wound. But the wound that these two groups of doctors described was vastly different in size and location. If this fatal wound was an exit wound, as all agreed, the location of the wound at the back of the head described by the Parkland doctors would have meant that the bullet must have come from the front. But if the huge exit wound described by the autopsy doctors was correct, then it would have been consistent with a shot from the Texas School Book Depository, where the evidence placed Lee Harvey Oswald.

Therefore, either the Parkland doctors were all hugely mistaken about the location of the fatal wound, or else the body was altered prior to the time that the autopsy doctors saw it in Bethesda. In my next post I’ll describe additional evidence that the body was in fact grossly altered prior to its arrival in the autopsy room.

Thanks for the OP, too!

Recommended.

:patriot:

This is the most comprehensive examination I've ever read of Kennedy's (and Connally's) wounds, and the merits and demerits of the autopsy.

You will also want to consult "Four Days in November" for a fantastic chronological account of the assassination and its aftermath.

Finally, the idiotic notion of Kennedy's body being altered was "set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton in his book Best Evidence." That quote is from Bugliosi's treatment of Lifton's "nonsense of the most exquisite nature." That's found on pages 1057-1070. Kennedy's body being altered between Parkland and Bethesda is the JFK equivalent of "no planes hit the WTC tower" in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and that you, Time for change, find it so compelling as to be your lead-off is very, very sad.

using phrases like "idiotic notion".

It's not worth discussing anything serious with such narrow-minded, childish people.

It's fatally offensive for a notion you post to be called idiotic, but it's ok for you to call a fellow DUer narrow-minded and childish.

who uses insults to discuss it.

He's already made it clear that he's more interested in throwing out insults than in discussing the issue. So I have absolutely no interest in discussing it with him. So I may as well tell him what I think of him.

Well, you can if you like, but it's an quite silly reason to do so.

"This is the most comprehensive examination I've ever read of Kennedy's (and Connally's) wounds, and the merits and demerits of the

autopsy."

Certainly, not much, if anything, that serious people would consider to be objective and balanced.

about how sad you find the evidence presented in the post. Yet you provide absolutely no evidence yourself and are content to let someone else do your talking for you. If Bugliosi's book is so incredibly convincing, surely you could point to a piece of evidence he presents that negates something listed in TfC's post, right? I'm fairly certain you won't do that as if you had anything compelling to provide, you would have done so rather than making such a rude and bone headed comment.

Time for change is gearing up to read Bugliosi's book, so he's going through and reminding himself why he believes what he believes, entrenching himself one last time, bringing in all the reinforcements, so that he can march up to the Dark Tower and vanquish Bugliosi once and for all. Then he shall write the last part describing how yes, you, too, can read Bugliosi and evade the simple logical arguments that he bases on the facts.

It's a pitiful charade, and so I'm helping him by pointing out the parts of Bugliosi's book that deal with his OP. And the quotes I've provide are BUGLIOSI'S description of the theories discussed. I do happen to agree with them, but since Time is getting all bent out of whack because I'm so caustic, he ain't seen nothing yet.

And Time's going to say exactly the same thing then that he is now. He doesn't have to listen to anything Bugliosi says because Bugliosi is so MEAN, WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Let's just call the whole thing off, Time. You're not going to be dissuaded by anything Bugliosi says. You'll find some reason to feel insulted and WHAP will go the book covers, and you'll be safe from the caustic old Bugliosi's facts and evidence and logical arguments.

Shall I apply for the Randi $1 million now?

"Bugliosi says". That's really brilliant bolo. You're a real asset to humanity, trying to enlighten us all with your wisdom. You should be real proud of yourself.

You keep believing that if you want to.

And be sure to check out my helpful citation of the relevant pages, pages filled with the facts, the evidence, and logical arguments, which manifestly not an appeal to authority on either mine or Bugliosi's part. Bugliosi is cited because YOU made him the cave bear you had to kill, not me.

Do you or any other True Believer know the basic reasons why Lifton is persuaded that Kennedy's body was altered between

Parkland and Bethesda? If you do know or think you do, kindly post them.

Hi!
Somehow I don't understand the way you're discussing.
If you wish to discuss this issue it would be very helpful for all of us if you could sum up the two books you mention.
So I have no idea what your argument exactly is.

Hi JackRiddler,

ja, klasse Buch, aber leider nicht mein Buch ....
:toast:

Hi!

Very detailed work.
Thanks! I appreciate it and it looks very convincing.

David Lifton's book. It's very well explained for such a complicated subject, and perhaps the most meticulously detailed book of this type that I've ever read.

And welcome to DU :toast:

Hi!
And thanks for the warm welcome!
:toast:

First, I apologize for this somewhat off-topic post, but the other JFK threads are getting to be overly cumbersome.

Using inside construction workers to assist the conspirators wasn't new in 2001. That was also used in the JFK conspiracy.

"Somewhat like the plot to assassinate Trotsky and most unlike the failed assassination conspiracy against Hitler in which Allen Dulles and Mary Bancroft participated, the plot to assassinate President Kennedy seems to have been sophisticated, intricate, and meticulously planned. It can be presumed therefore that, as researcher William Weston has written, "One of the most critical elements of this plot was the Texas School Book Depository." In addition to both the circumstances of Oswald's employment at the TSBD, and the routing of the motorcade by the building, Weston points out that there would have been a need for a team of plotters to make detailed plans inside the building well in advance of November 22, including firing angles, planting of false evidence, and getaway plans. This could have been done, Weston says, by six TSBD employees assigned to lay new flooring on the fifth and sixth floors from late October until November 22.298 It is a plausible argument, which brings up the concern that any long-term improvement to the property such as a flooring project would have to have been of interest to, if not directly initiated and contracted by, the building's owner."

I've mostly confined my focus to the medical evidence, but the more I read about it the more sophisticated the plot seems. James Douglass, in "JFK and the Unspeakable" also discusses a plot to kill JFK in Chicago, just a month or two before Dallas. And they had a patsy very similar to Oswald all set up for it. But it sprung one to many leaks, and JFK cancelled his trip to Chicago at the last moment.

I've seen this deja vu before. Before Bugliosi, we had Posner "serve" as Golden Boy of the Lone Nut Cadre. As a grad student in 1993, I did a content analysis of The New York Times coverage of the 30th anniversary of Dallas. Four-fifths of the column inches devoted to the subject were given to the defender of the Warren Report. Sort of like today, with Vinny B -- it's time to Re-Frame Oswald.

Thank you for an excellent post, Time for change. A bit on the the medical testimony from JFKLancer.com, in which Gerald P, like Vinny B, resorts to picking-and-choosing what to transcribe:

What Did the Parkland Doctors Really Say?

by Russell Kent

Some of the doctors who attended President John F. Kennedy in Trauma Room One at Parkland Memorial Hospital have reputedly modified their descriptions of JFK's head injuries they initially observed on 22 November 1963, most especially in so called interviews conducted by author Gerald Posner. Posner's book has been widely quoted and positively evaluated by the main stream media, but many JFK writers and researchers doubt that Posner ever actually interviewed the doctors he has quoted. Therefore, statements attributed to Parkland doctors need to be compared to what they have said previously, and particularly what they have said under oath.

Several Parkland doctors have hinted that maintaining their original statements and speaking out against the official Warren Commission conclusions would have been detrimental to their careers. I suspect that in some instances stronger pressure was brought to bear.

In the Dealey Plaza UK research group (to which I belong), we believe that the earliest evidence and testimony is usually the most reliable. And no better source for a description of the wounds is available than those recorded in the Parkland doctors' own reports before the doctors were visited by the Secret Service.

Charles Carrico, Resident Surgeon:

According to Gerald Posner, Dr Carrico said to him in an interview Posner says he conducted on March 8th, 1992: "We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone."

But what did Dr. Carrico report originally?

The Parkland doctors attempted "...to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via pads instituted."

"I believe there was shredded and macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of skull."

"This was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area."

"...a fairly large wound on the right side of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound."

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html

Big diff, there. And a big diff, now. Thanks for making it clear what side you're on, Time for change.

In the autopsy, they became convinced that the bullet had worked its way back onto the stretcher during the president's death throes or during attempts to revive him.

That is when Perry told him about the throat wound.

"(The bullet working its way out) seemed like a very unlikely event to me, to say the least," Perry recalled in 1978. "But at any rate, when I told him that there was a wound in the anterior neck, he said, "That explains it."

Citation: Assassination Records Review Board, Medical Deposition 58, Interview of Malcolm Perry by Andy Purdy and T.M. Flanagan, January 11, 1978, p.9.

Obviously this is Perry concurring with Hume that the throat wound was indeed an exit wound.

That's one less witness on your team, Time.

"visited" by the Secret Service"?

And your evidence that they got to him is...

From Carrico's own words:

I was not using the word penetrating to be synonymous with entry, because I didn't know at the time whether it was an entry or exit wound. Although Mr. Webster might not agree, we physicians differentiate the mechanism causing injury into two broad groups. One is blunt trauma, which is, for instance, broken bones from car wrecks, bruises, or lacerations from aggrevated assault, or other wounds caused by machine or blunt force or instrument. The other is penetrating trauma, which is a wound caused usually by a knife or a gunshot, or by impalement from other sharp objects.

This was in an telephone interview given to Bugliosi by Carrico himself on June 25, 1999.

The confusion exhibited by the OP is because a common usage of the term penetrating has been applied to technical language. Both sides of a bullet wound passing through the body are penetrating trauma.

One less...

Carrico maintained it was an entrance wound in his testimony, until Specter asked him this stupid hypothetical question, which you must have missed in the OP:

"Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion. First of all, assume that the President was struck… when (he) was approximately 160 to 250 feet from the weapon (Oswald’s range)… being struck from the rear at a downward angle… on the upper right posterior thorax (the Bethesda entry wound)… Assume further that the missile passed through the body of the President striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles (the Bethesda autopsy trajectory)… then exiting precisely at the point where you observed the puncture wound to exist (the Bethesda exit wound, at the location the Dallas doctors thought there was a wound of entry). Now based on those facts was the appearance of the wound in your opinion consistent with being an exit wound?

Dr. Carrico replied: “With those facts and the fact as I understand it no other bullet was found, this would be… I believe… an exit wound”."

when you know I'm providing links to the actual testimony?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrico2.htm

Here is Carrico "maintaining" it was an entrance wound in his testimony:

Mr. SPECTER - Was there any discussion among the doctors who attended President Kennedy as to the cause of the neck wound?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes; after that afternoon.
Mr. SPECTER - And what conversations were there?
Dr. CARRICO - As I recall, Dr. Perry, and I talked and tried after---later in the afternoon to determine what exactly had happened, and we were not aware of the missile wound to the back, and postulated that this was either a tangential wound from a fragment, possibly another entrance wound. It could have been an exit wound, but we knew of no other entrance wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Or, did it look to be more one than the other?
Dr. CARRICO - No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, assume these facts, if you will---first, that President Kennedy was struck by a 6.5-mm. missile...

And thus into the paragraph you're quoting.

Carrico is not maintaining that it was an entrance wound. He is reporting that there was discussion of how the wounds they knew about were connected, speculation he himself reveals that was based on no awareness of the back wound. He said:

It could have been an exit wound, but we knew of no other entrance wound.

Specter asks if it was consistent with being either, and he say yes.

Did it look to be more one than the other, asks Specter.

No, replies Carrico, it could have been either.

So in fact, Carrico was NOT maintaining that the wound was an entrance wound. He was manifestly saying that it was inconclusive and could have been either. You could not be more factually wrong about this.

I quoted that as an example of Specter's ridiculous hypothetical question. Why would a lawyer on the Warren Commission ask a question like that if he was interested in getting at the truth?

Carrico did however describe the wound as penetrating in his notes. Despite his later protestations, here is the definition penetrating wound:

"penetrating wound: one caused by a sharp, usually slender object, which passes through the skin into the underlying tissues."

Here's another one:

"A wound with disruption of the body surface that extends into underlying tissue or into a body cavity."

And another:

"A wound with disruption of the body surface that extends into underlying tissue or into a body cavity."

That is a sheer factual inaccuracy, Time.

And Carrico himself has explained what he meant by "penetrating". Your own witness speaks against you.

I was wrong about that in post 50. I made that assumption based on Specter's last question, and that was wrong. I did not, however, make that assumption in the OP. But as I've said before, Lifton (and I in the OP) acknowledged that some of the doctors changed their minds after their initial statements.

The only way that you could have made that assumption based on Specter's last question is that you did not read the actual testimony. You are reading someone's quote-mined and cherry-picked versions of the quotes.

Might I suggest that you go back over your OP and read the actual testimonies themselves to correct such assumptions before they make it into your OP's in the future?

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/index.php

That's a link that I think we can both agree on. It presents the Warren Commission testimonies in alphabetical order as well as by volume number. When you click on the name, you go to the actual testimony, and each page corresponds and cites the actual page number, so we can keep track with wherever your notes cite and I can provide you with volume and page numbers as well.

One word: the text appears to have been scanned and then recognized by computer, because little words are sometimes missing from the text, like "a" and "an". I don't think this should be too troublesome, and since I live in Dallas, there's a library or two that has the actual text somewhere close.

Go back and read it.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com /

SNIP

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservative provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

SNIP

Charming. And etc. etc. in that vein: "Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production..."

The other posts on that blog come from the same place.

This is the champion whose sites you mine for material? It's no wonder.

He's a right-winger and a hater. In my opinion, he and his site should be banned from being quoted or linked to.

I wonder who was the source that referred all the True Believers here to refer to his research (sic)?

There are degrees of association, for example there is an important difference

a) between some unsavory character you never even heard of happening to agree with you on a given opinion, which is irrelevant; or

b) constantly referring to the unsavory character's work in support of your opinion.

There are people around who uphold McAdams's work on JFK, when a look at his writings otherwise shows not just that he is an extreme right-wing ideologue but that he has an utter disregard for (or lack of acquaintance with) any standards of fact or reason. It's all Freeper stuff: sophistry, endless strawmen and false dichotomies. Naturally his revealing himself as a simpleminded fool will reflect on his other work, even if he might coincidentally get a few things right.

Now in this case one might say McAdams is only archiving the Warren Commission hearing transcripts. But can't these materials be found elsewhere? If on DU one links to genuine government documents archived at prisonplanet or rense, one will be slammed and censored for it. What's the difference with McAdams? That he has the "right" opinions on the JFK murder?

Good luck with that.

You're familiar with his other book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder?

I'm linking to McAdams' site for quotes from the Warren Commission testimony. And even so, if a right winger makes an argument based on fact, evidence, and logic, then he's not wrong merely because he's a right winger.

So try again, Jack.

You constantly attack people for the link or the server or the quoter, rather than the actual material cited. Maybe one day you'll blanche at the hypocrisy of it.

After reading thousands of pages on JFK, including the Warren Commission main report and all of McAdams's site, not to mention Posner's 900-hundred-page (or whatever) brick of solid bullshit, Bugliosi's double-down on Posner isn't very high on my reading list. Your own presentation of it in the argument with TimeForChange isn't convincing me otherwise, though I'm very moved by the way you speak of the Holy Wounds.

The JFK case was clear enough 30 years ago. In fact, it was already quite clear around when the mafia guy shot the patsy in the police station, or, not long after, when Specter started harrassing witnesses who didn't say what he wanted to hear (as in the very testimony you're quoting).

See ya!

Especially since what I'm quoting there are the Warren Commission testimonies. Mostly I'm quoting from Bugliosi's book. Deal.

Do you agree that posts which link to McAdams should be deleted? Do YOU feel that just deleting such posts is sufficient

punishment or do YOU feel the poster should be banned? I'm asking YOU for YOUR opinion.

dude...no one is fooled by your silliness.

I know that you said you're a liberal and everything, but really. REALLY, dude yourself!

that's what's laughable. In fact, what's really laughable is you are referring to his blog, not his JFK site and the only ones here who have linked to his blog are ''truthers''. So, take it up with moderators, dude. I doubt you'll get very far with your silliness.

P.S. actually, the assumption is that it is his blog, but I don't know that for sure. Yes, he does teach at Marquette and, yes, the blogger is John McAdams, but that is not really all that unique of a name. I have never really read the blog in any depth nor am I interested in doing so.

Why don't you ever link to use sources that AREN'T either known disinfo or non-right wing? Is it because you believe

that any site or source that isn't right-wing is goofy and silly? Is THAT why, dude yourself?

Vincent Buglosi as a RWer , dude.

Bugliosi wrote (with paid help) an entire book in which he does little more than repeat old arguments that LHO killed JFK

and that people who don't believe him are not intelligent enough to appreciate the brilliance of a former prosecutor who

got lucky (Manson case) and spent more than 20 years handwriting a book because he doesn't know how to use a computer.

Research in the JFK case is far too advanced for any serious researcher who doesn't know how to use a computer. That doesn't

let him off the hook for such a worthless book, but it does suggest something about his arrogance.

so your critique is what someone else is telling you to think. Pity. It's also bizarre to claim the author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" and "The Betrayal of America" condemning Bush v Gore and Jones v Clinton as a "RWer". Truly bizarre, but I guess you're an equal opportunity smearer.

as a TRUE BELIEVER here at DU: totally biased towards a point of view that is unmerited, dismissive of evidence which

contradicts his only theme, and like True Believers here, full of insults for those who've actually taken the time to

research the evidence which the Government doesn't want people to know about.

Why someone would support and promote such nonsense (goofy, silly BS) is hard to understand.

dude. Unlike you, I read both sides. It's a pity you can''t say the same.

if you're a Democrat?

dude. I was working for RFK in '68. Any other stupid questions?

Did others consider you to be a liberal or a conservative RFK supporter?

dude? Enough of your silliness and failed attempts to question my liberal credentials. You seem to relish breaking the rules here, dude.

Take as much space as you need.

I'm not interested in what you think or claim about such a traumatic event.

I asked you a very simple question. Let's review. You said that you worked on RFK's campaign. You didn't say which one, but

I assumed you meant his last one. You have also said that you're a longtime liberal, so I thought that you might have more than

a passing interest in the death of RFK, given all this.

Which brings us to the question I asked: What is your take on the murder of RFK? Lone nut or something else?

Don't be such a wuss. Tell us what YOU think happened that night at the Ambassador Hotel.

I don't care what you think happened and I'm not interested in more of your nonsense. I don't know why you insist on trying to engage me. I'm not interested in playing any more rope-a-dope games with you and I'm certainly not interested in giving you more opportunities to misrepresent my words or try to smear me with your accusations I am some sort of RWer because I don't agree with your goofy claims, dude. Is this sinking in?

There's no other explanation that fits the evidence. Too many bullets fired to have come from Sirhan Sirhan's gun. S.S. got no

closer to RFK than about two and a half feet and was facing him - yet RFK was struck in the BACK of his head, and there is no

evidence that S.S. was ever in back of him or that he had long enough arms and did in fact reach around behind RFK to shoot him.

As with JFK and 9/11, we see the same pattern of suppressing evidence, destroying evidence, Patsies, ignoring inconvenient witness

testimony, etc. The biggest difference is that in the case of RFK, there is strong reason to believe that the fatal shots were

fired from a known person, one Eugene Thane Cesar.

One day you'll get it. For your sake, I hope it's soon. The only reason I don't put you on actual ignore is because it's fun to watch everyone else kick your ass, then watch you claim you somehow "won". There's a point at which persistence becomes obstinance.

Are TBs headed this way?

Maybe repetition will work with you.

Since you won't answer anything about the RFK murder conspiracy, I'm wondering if maybe you'll now take the opportunity to

tell DUers what Bugliosi has to say about the avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head. You know, where the bones were sprung

open as the result of a bullet that entered the right front forehead of the president.

You said that you have read the book and that you own it. Don't you agree that it would be selfish to not give your fellow

members here the benefits of what Bugliosi has to say about that important issue? After all, you DO feel that Bugliosi is

an expert, right?

to "hit and run" like you're doing. You can't refute the truth about JFK, RFK, or 9/11, so you pretend like it's all too much

for your beautiful mind to be occupied with, but it's a perfectly good use of it to insult other members by using unfair

labels with the intent of trying to devalue the worth of their views and opinions? And you would say that reflects

LIBERAL values? Not where I come from, it sure doesn't.

continuing to do the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome. Bells should be going off in your head about now.

DONE with your silliness, dude. I don't know how fucking many times I have to tell you before you get it.

"The definition of insanity is..."

Too funny. Goofy and silly, too. More goofy than silly, in fact, by your own definition, it's the definition of it.

No credible evidence that:

* Any planes crashed on 9/11

* WTC buildings collapsed due to fires

* JFK was killed by a Lone Nut

* RFD was killed by a Lone Nut

* dude yourself can prove otherwise

says about the avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head. My bet is that he ignores that, just like he does the rest of the mountain

of evidence which proves his Lone Nut theory is goofy and silly and 100% wrong.

tell me something, Jack...why did you omit McAdams ' preface in which he makes it clear that the words are not his but are from an ''e-mail correspondent''. More importantly, why did you omit the end of the entry where McAdams describes the entry as partisan invective, then characterizes it as ''unserious fun''.

In other words, Jack, it's not even his words and it's a caricature. I don't deny Mcadams' conservative leanings, but it's silly. as others have done, to claim his blog is RW hate and even sillier to claim his JFK site is RW hate, given that he teaches a class on the subject.

Anyone reading things I've written about the GOP/RWers/Conservatives might think I hate them. Well, actually, I DO hate them, but you get my point.

the preamble to the blog which clearly identifies the material as coming from an "e-mail correspondent" so it isn't even McAdams' words. I also don't think it's clear that it is the same John McAdams although he does teach there. However, it's not that unusual of a name.

More importantly, JR leaves out the final words of the blog entry, to wit:."OK, just some good dirty partisan invective. Unserious fun." while it is not fun to be caricatured as a liberal, it hardly shows that this blog is a "RW Hate site", as a number of "truthers" are claiming, nor has any debunker cited or endorsed the blogger's views. In fact, the only posters who have linked to the site are "truthers" .

In fact, as recently as 1992, all four of the principal doctors on the medical team that treated the president at Parkland (Drs. Marion "Pepper" Jenkins and Charles Baxter as well as Perry and Carrico) emphasized in an interview with JAMA (an interview conducted by Dennis Breo), that their experiences in the trauma room at Parkland Hospital did not qualify them to reach conclusions about where the fatal missiles were filed -- that is, whether the wounds were entry or exit wounds.

Perry had just completed his residency and Carrico was still a resident. More senior staff at Parkland was away at a medical conference in Galveston. That's whey Perry and Carrico were in the room.

If the government had plotted this, couldn't they have made sure that a more well-connected and senior staff member would be there to handle the declaration of death, etc.?

So now that's four of your first section's eight Parkland staff on the other side of the playing field, Time.

Bolo Boffin,

I hope that you will alert the assassination research community that you have solved the case and that they can now move on.

If they ask, just tell 'em you read The Bug Man's book and that's all it took.

First of all, there testimony at the time has a lot more weight than what they say 29 years later.

And secondly, my main point is the huge difference between their view of the head wound as compared with the autopsy. How did they manage to miss a huge hole in the top of his head???????

Please deal with my words, not the ones you prefer me to say.

If this wasn't one of your main points, why did you lead with it? Please stop pretending you had a "main point" that I'm avoiding -- I'm dealing with your post item by item. Fret not, Time for change, we will get there.

One thing at a time, Time for change.

I never claimed that the throat wound was the most important point. Why don't you read the summary/conclusion section and tell me what my main point was?

I never said that the testimony about the throat wound was definitive. But I still maintain that it is highly suggestive of an entry wound. The initial opinion of all the doctors on that point is consistent.

"Highly suggestive" is all you've got, especially since the people who made those "highly suggestive" statements accepted that the throat wound was an exit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

After pressure was brought to bear on them. I discussed that in the OP. Big deal.

And the "pressure" will be dealt with.

It wasn't noted at Parkland Hospital, and I did not mention it in this OP.

I will deal with that in a later post.

And all this fuss you raise was because I called it correctly. :rofl:

Are you claiming that they are all liars? Have you read their testimony? If so, which part of it did you not understand?

Carrico:

We were not aware of the missile wound to the back... We knew of no other entrance wound.

They did not turn the president's body over. They were trying to save JFK's life. You don't turn someone's body over to try to figure out bullet trajectories when you're trying to keep someone alive.

Indeed, Jenkins says that the gravity of the situation came down on them all after the time of death was announced:

...(it) would have been meddlesome on anyone's part after death to have done any further search.

So if in the emergency room they had never seen the back wound to compare to the one they saw in the throat just moments before slashing through it for a trach, what else would they have thought?

ETA: Is this the reason that you managed to avoid dedicating a section of your OP to the back wound? Because knowing that the Parkland doctors didn't turn him over or otherwise observe the back wound goes a long way to understanding why they might have initially thought the throat wound was an entry wound.

And that wouldn't play very well in your sober prose, now would it?

They said the throat wound was a wound of entry.

saw.

None of them saw a back wound, even though one of the doctors and two of the nurses saw the President's back.

How can you be so stupid as to say that they thought the throat wound was an entrance wound becuase they didn't see the back wound. They judged the throat wound on the appearance of that wound. What's so hard to understand about that?

Baldly so. No one turned him over at Parkland.

Nurse Diana Bowron "Miss Henchliffe and myself removed the President's clothes..."

And Dr. Carrico: "and while his coat and shirt were still on his arms I just placed my hands at about his beltline or a little above and by slowly moving my hands upward detecded that there was no large violation of the pleural cavity".

Anyhow, you're trying to switch the topic away from from what really matters. I never claimed that the fact that they didn't see a back wound meant that it wasn't there. The fact that they didn't see it does argue against the likelihood that it was there.

But again, I ask you how they missed the huge whole on the top of his head. That's what matters more than anything.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowron.htm

Bowren's actual testimony in context:

Mr. SPECTER - How long were you present in the emergency room No. 1?
Miss BOWRON - I was in there until they needed some blood, which was the second lot of blood. I went---ran out across to the blood bank and came back and went into the trauma room. By that time they had decided that he was dead, they said.
And then, we stayed in there with him and cleaned him up, removed all of his clothing and put them all together and Miss Henchliffe gave them to one of the Secret Service men, and we stayed with the body until the coffin came, and helped put him in there, and then we--

My goodness. Please keep quotes in context to facilitate truth-seeking.

In that testimony, you'll see that the clothes were cut off of Kennedy. That way they wouldn't have to roll him around or turn him over to get them off. Even Carrico's description was not of a visual inspection, and he was looking for a large violation, not the tiny one up close to the top of the neck.

Of course, all he had most of the way up was Kennedy's corset, so no large violation was easy to rule out that far up.

And I am NOT switching the topic here. I'm dealing with it point by point. Let's discuss your errors about the throat wound unless you're willing to concede that point and then we'll move on.

"Best Evidence" is an excellent read.	AzDar	Jun-18-09 10:07 PM	#1
Thanks. Great review of the evidence.	JDPriestly	Jun-18-09 10:27 PM	#2
How nice that post one and two avatars were an item!	NYC_SKP	Jun-18-09 10:31 PM	#3
Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History", pp. 382-449	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 01:05 AM	#4
Too bad that you're incapable of discussing anything you disagree with without	Time for change	Jun-19-09 08:17 AM	#5
Try to figure this out:	greyl	Jun-19-09 01:00 PM	#8
It's impossible for me to discuss a serious issue like this with someone	Time for change	Jun-19-09 06:20 PM	#12
You don't get to ignore reality because people call your theories the way they see them.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 07:24 PM	#14
Then you haven't read much about those things, have you?	Marksbrother	Jun-19-09 09:47 AM	#6
Goodbye, Marksbrother. n/t	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 07:25 PM	#15
Thanks for the headsup. Stay away as long as possible.	Marksbrother	Jun-19-09 07:34 PM	#17
Funny how you're so quick to bring up Bugliosi's book and make such a rude comment	EOTE	Jun-19-09 12:32 PM	#7
I bring up Bugliosi's book because Time for change did in his intro to this series of articles	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 07:33 PM	#16
Your whole argument boils down to	Time for change	Jun-19-09 07:42 PM	#19
HA!	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 08:22 PM	#21
All spin and insults, not an ounce of refutation of the O.P.	Marksbrother	Jun-19-09 02:12 PM	#9
Argument	RainaldGoetz	Jun-19-09 05:39 PM	#11
Bist Du wirklich Rainald Goetz?	JackRiddler	Jun-20-09 12:06 AM	#75
Kontrolliert	RainaldGoetz	Jun-21-09 05:40 AM	#106
Gleichfalls	JackRiddler	Jun-21-09 06:46 AM	#108
Congrats	RainaldGoetz	Jun-19-09 05:35 PM	#10
Thank you -- If you want to see something really detailed I highly recommend	Time for change	Jun-19-09 07:37 PM	#18
Thanks for the info	RainaldGoetz	Jun-21-09 05:41 AM	#107
Similarities in JFK conspiracy and in 9/11 conspiracy	Marksbrother	Jun-19-09 07:22 PM	#13
I think you're right	Time for change	Jun-19-09 07:46 PM	#20
And I can't recommend it...	reprehensor	Jun-19-09 08:30 PM	#22
What Did the Parkland Doctors Really Say?	Octafish	Jun-19-09 08:43 PM	#23
Hume called Perry the day after the autopsy to find out what happened to the bullet into the back	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 08:46 PM	#24
Did you miss the part where I talked about how Perry changed his story after being	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:39 PM	#46
When did they "visit" him, Time? Because this Perry/Hume convo happened the day after the autopsy.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:07 PM	#61
Read the fucking OP bolo -- I'm not going to keep on repeating myself	Time for change	Jun-19-09 11:26 PM	#66
Carrico's use of the term "penetrating" is being taken out of its medical context by the OP	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 09:04 PM	#25
No, not one less	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:48 PM	#50
And now you're mischaracterizing Carrico's testimony. Why would you do that	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:18 PM	#62
Specter's question	Time for change	Jun-20-09 09:16 AM	#78
But Carrico was NOT maintaining "entrance wound" before Specter's hypothetical	Bolo Boffin	Jun-20-09 02:09 PM	#89
Yes	Time for change	Jun-20-09 09:20 PM	#97
The only way	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 01:56 PM	#122
Nothing I said in the OP was wrong	Time for change	Jun-21-09 10:19 PM	#129
Then read the testimonies before commenting on them in your posts in general. n/t	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 10:31 PM	#135
John McAdams on how liberals descended from "girly men"	JackRiddler	Jun-21-09 07:09 AM	#109
Marksbrother on John McAdams	Marksbrother	Jun-21-09 08:17 AM	#111
Indeed, seeing as certain people started the guilt-by-association attacks...	JackRiddler	Jun-21-09 09:28 AM	#113
Take it up with the moderators, JR...	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 01:37 PM	#156
I'm quoting mostly from Bugliosi's book	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 01:41 PM	#116
Whatever. I'm just employing your standard operating procedure.	JackRiddler	Jun-21-09 02:06 PM	#123
I can find other sources for what I'm quoting from McAdams	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 02:24 PM	#124
It's best to not quote /link such an extreme right-winger on THIS site	Marksbrother	Jun-21-09 03:16 PM	#125
Take it up with the moderators...	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 12:00 AM	#140
YOU think it's okay to link to a right-winger on a DU forum?	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 07:59 AM	#141
You said it was a RW hate site...	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 10:18 AM	#144
McAdams is a right-winger & you think he's a fine source?	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 10:52 AM	#146
What's silly is trying to paint...	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 10:56 AM	#148
What's silly is trying to paint him as something other than what he is	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 01:06 PM	#154
A book you admittedly haven't read....	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 01:12 PM	#155
A book not worth reading. Total waste of time, It's as predictable	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 02:53 PM	#157
No, it's a dead giveaway regarding your close-mindedness...	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 03:08 PM	#158
I'm glad to know you say that you're a liberal. May I ask you	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 03:28 PM	#159
Since before I was old enough to vote,	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 03:54 PM	#161
What did you do for the RFK campaign?	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 04:06 PM	#162
Do you really believe RFK had ''conservative'' supporters...	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 04:17 PM	#163
What's your take on the murder of RFK?	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 05:54 PM	#164
DONE. . .	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 06:29 PM	#165
Why did you cop out?	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 07:07 PM	#166
Done, dude...	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 07:18 PM	#167
RFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy.	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 07:26 PM	#168
DONE, dude...	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 07:28 PM	#169
They must appreciate the RFK info.	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 10:05 PM	#170
DONE, dude....	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 11:08 PM	#171
See post #160. Still waiting for your response. (not about RFK)	Marksbrother	Jun-23-09 07:44 AM	#172
You can wait forever, as far as I am concerned...	SDuderstadt	Jun-23-09 08:49 AM	#173
It's selfish and shows a huge lack of confidence in your opinions	Marksbrother	Jun-23-09 05:36 PM	#175
The definition of insanity is...	SDuderstadt	Jun-23-09 05:59 PM	#176
Exactly what you're DOING and have been!	Marksbrother	Jun-23-09 06:02 PM	#177
DONE...	SDuderstadt	Jun-23-09 06:34 PM	#179
Yes, of course you are, sir. Now, stop evading the questions.	Marksbrother	Jun-23-09 08:17 PM	#180
DONE	SDuderstadt	Jun-23-09 08:35 PM	#181
Since you claim to own it and have read it, tell us what Bugliosi	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 03:37 PM	#160
Okay.	JackRiddler	Jun-21-09 06:18 PM	#128
Nice try, Jack...	SDuderstadt	Jun-21-09 11:56 PM	#139
of course, JR omits...	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 12:28 PM	#152
Unintentional dupe...	SDuderstadt	Jun-22-09 12:28 PM	#153
"As recently as 1992, all four of the principal doctors... at Parkland..."	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 09:16 PM	#26
Wowie Zowie. Bolo Boffin has solved the case. Genius, I tell ya.	Marksbrother	Jun-19-09 09:28 PM	#28
So your point is that 29 years later the doctors say they're not sure where the bullte came from?	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:24 PM	#36
No, no, no. I think I like the words I used better than the ones you're trying to give me.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 10:30 PM	#40
My main point is the huge difference between the head wound, as seen by the two sets of doctors	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:38 PM	#45
So you're conceding that the first lenghty section of your OP is crap?	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 10:46 PM	#48
That's just plain stupid	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:56 PM	#54
70% of your OP is talking about the throat wound, and now how you talk about it.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:06 PM	#60
Deleted message	Name removed	Jun-19-09 11:18 PM	#63
Some of them changed their minds and equivocated later	Time for change	Jun-20-09 08:50 AM	#77
After they learned about more facts, like the back wound - no equivocation necessary	Bolo Boffin	Jun-20-09 02:10 PM	#90
"Facts" and a little subtle pressure = conformity.	Marksbrother	Jun-20-09 03:31 PM	#94
We disagree on whether or not the back wound existed at Parkland Hospital	Time for change	Jun-20-09 09:22 PM	#98
I knew you were going there.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 01:42 PM	#117
The Parkland physicians said the throat wound was a wound of ENTRY	Marksbrother	Jun-20-09 10:07 AM	#83
Hey, Time, what did the Parkland doctors say about the wound in the back?	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 09:27 PM	#27
What they SAID is what counts.	Marksbrother	Jun-19-09 09:29 PM	#29
The reason I didn't mention a back wound is because this post was about what the Parkland doctors	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:15 PM	#33
"one of the doctors and two of the nurses saw the President's back" - FACTUALLY INACCURATE	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 10:24 PM	#37
Before the doctors started working on him	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:33 PM	#42
NOPE. That statement of Bowron's refers to AFTER JFK was dead.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 10:45 PM	#47
That's a different quote	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:53 PM	#53
Hey, Time, you didn't source yours. Mine's from her WC testimony. Source yours, please. n/t	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:02 PM	#57
I sourced it in the fucking OP	Time for change	Jun-19-09 11:19 PM	#64
I apologize - you do have sourcing there.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:39 PM	#73
The quote that you supplied does not appear to have been the quote that I referred to	Time for change	Jun-20-09 09:25 AM	#79
She didn't see his back. Quit repeating that factual inaccuracy.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-20-09 02:17 PM	#91
I've said this many times, and you keep ignoring it	Time for change	Jun-20-09 09:28 PM	#99
No clearer example of your factually inaccurate misquoting than your treatment of Carrico here.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:32 PM	#68
This is so stupid	Time for change	Jun-19-09 11:36 PM	#71
You completely avoided the topic of the back wound and why the Parkland doctors didn't know about it	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:43 PM	#74
The alleged back wound	Time for change	Jun-20-09 09:29 AM	#80
So you didn't argue it but you were about to argue it and you've snuck it into this post.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-20-09 02:22 PM	#92
The fact that they may not have looked at the back is not evidence against any point I make in my OP	Time for change	Jun-20-09 10:19 PM	#101
It does show that your OP is purposefully incomplete. n/t	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 01:43 PM	#118
If I would have written a whole book and posted it, you would have claimed it was incomplete	Time for change	Jun-21-09 10:23 PM	#131
If it had been incomplete, yes, I would.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 10:32 PM	#136
Ronald Jones' full testimony in which he explains the initial views and much more	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 09:47 PM	#30
What on earth is your point?	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:03 PM	#32
I used English in my post.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 10:23 PM	#35
Oh, I get it	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:26 PM	#38
Stop changing the subject.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 10:33 PM	#41
No you're not dealing with mine.	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:36 PM	#44
YOU led with the throat wound, Time for change. I'm dealing with what you wrote. n/t	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 10:47 PM	#49
Oh, I led with the throat wound	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:51 PM	#51
Now, amazingly enough, I must remind you of your own words.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:01 PM	#56
What is the fucking difference which one I mentioned first?	Time for change	Jun-19-09 11:22 PM	#65
70% of your OP is a "tiny little detail"?	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:34 PM	#70
It's a tiny detail which one I mention first	Time for change	Jun-19-09 11:37 PM	#72
Surely you recognize the pattern here, don't you?	Marksbrother	Jun-20-09 10:02 AM	#82
Yes	Time for change	Jun-20-09 10:49 AM	#87
I agree, but I'd put it a little more directly and bluntly.	Marksbrother	Jun-20-09 01:01 PM	#88
I make a federal case out of you mentioning the throat wound?	Bolo Boffin	Jun-20-09 05:20 PM	#96
The throat wound is important to discuss, but not as important as the head wound	Time for change	Jun-20-09 10:13 PM	#100
So much so that you spent 70% of the OP on the throat and 30% on the head wound	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 01:48 PM	#119
So great that you're keeping me honest. Don't know what I'd do without that.	Time for change	Jun-21-09 10:21 PM	#130
One of the many services I provide, gratis.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 10:32 PM	#137
So if you can't get anywhere with substantive discussion...	EOTE	Jun-22-09 10:32 AM	#145
Excellent analysis of a typical True Believer's "strategy" EOM	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 10:54 AM	#147
Hey, Time for Change is the one who said what he said	Bolo Boffin	Jun-22-09 12:08 PM	#149
Deleted message	Name removed	Jun-22-09 12:12 PM	#151
Your facts are wrong	Marksbrother	Jun-21-09 04:06 PM	#127
The section on Henchliffe is edited to make it look as good as possible for the "entry" wound	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 09:59 PM	#31
She maintained it was an entrance wound	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:19 PM	#34
She maintained nothing.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 10:27 PM	#39
She said she never saw an exit wound that looked like that.	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:34 PM	#43
Again, you're being a little loose with what she actually said.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 10:51 PM	#52
What page is that from?	Time for change	Jun-19-09 10:57 PM	#55
Post 31, a link to Henchliffe's Warren Commission testimony. n/t	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:03 PM	#58
The quote I gave is from page 141	Time for change	Jun-19-09 11:27 PM	#67
From her Warren Commission testimony, then. You're quoting her wrong. n/t	Bolo Boffin	Jun-19-09 11:34 PM	#69
Anyhow	Time for change	Jun-20-09 09:36 AM	#81
There is a difference in emphasis	Bolo Boffin	Jun-20-09 02:28 PM	#93
In the words of "w, seger", she has two eyes.	Marksbrother	Jun-20-09 03:33 PM	#95
I never claimed that she was the "be all and end all"	Time for change	Jun-20-09 10:21 PM	#102
Of course you didn't	JackRiddler	Jun-21-09 07:39 AM	#110
Excellent post. Should be read and taken to heart by everyone.	Marksbrother	Jun-21-09 08:22 AM	#112
Glass houses, Jack. n/t	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 01:50 PM	#121
Thank you Jack	Time for change	Jun-21-09 10:25 PM	#132
You are presenting her as an authority on bullet wounds.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 01:50 PM	#120
Oh for God sake	Time for change	Jun-21-09 10:27 PM	#133
So you don't claim she's the be all, end all on bullet wounds but you claim she's an authority?	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 10:30 PM	#134
Feel like your chain is being pulled in a way that doesn't serve	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 08:02 AM	#142
Definitely	Time for change	Jun-22-09 12:10 PM	#150
Snarlin' Arlen tried his best to impeach her credentials/ testimony	Marksbrother	Jun-20-09 10:15 AM	#84
Neck and rear right shoulder wound both had NO EXIT -- per autopsy--!!!	defendandprotect	Jun-19-09 11:05 PM	#59
Well	Time for change	Jun-20-09 10:43 AM	#86
I think they were mainly concerned with removing bullets . . . fragments . . .	defendandprotect	Jun-21-09 12:18 AM	#103
The Day Kennedy Died	Octafish	Jun-20-09 01:26 AM	#76
Very interesting story Octafish	Time for change	Jun-20-09 10:39 AM	#85
Dr. McClelland felt vindicated by the Zapruder film.	Octafish	Jun-21-09 02:10 AM	#105
Kennedy's head goes forward first. McClelland was wrong.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 01:37 PM	#114
That's a disputed claim	Marksbrother	Jun-21-09 03:36 PM	#126
McClelland has been filmed by NOVA looking at the autopsy photos and agreeing they were accurate.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 10:35 PM	#138
Prisoners have also been filmed agreeing with what they know	Marksbrother	Jun-22-09 08:06 AM	#143
Btw, Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw was also in attendance...and he wrote a book --	defendandprotect	Jun-21-09 01:22 AM	#104
Did you know that even McClelland dismisses Crenshaw's ravings?	Bolo Boffin	Jun-21-09 01:39 PM	#115
I cannot see how the doctors at Parkland put the head wound in a different place than the autopsy.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-23-09 12:29 PM	#174
Why would you think anyone here would expect you to say otherwise?	Marksbrother	Jun-23-09 06:03 PM	#178
5 points	Time for change	Jun-23-09 09:55 PM	#182
Citation 24 is incorrect.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-23-09 11:01 PM	#183
Citation 24 is NOT incorrect. Go back and read it.	Time for change	Jun-24-09 09:52 PM	#184
Citation 24 is incorrect. It purports to be to Marion Jenkin's testimony.	Bolo Boffin	Jun-24-09 10:12 PM	#185
It IS Jenkins' testimony	Time for change	Jun-25-09 10:22 PM	#186
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the two English words	Bolo Boffin	Jun-25-09 11:22 PM	#187
OK, I see what you're getting at	Time for change	Jun-25-09 11:34 PM	#188
Welcome to the discussion	Bolo Boffin	Jun-26-09 12:20 AM	#189
Nobody knows what Jenkins initially thought of the throat wound	Time for change	Jun-26-09 08:56 AM	#190
Except Jenkins, and why won't you listen to him?	Bolo Boffin	Jun-26-09 12:39 PM	#191
How many times do I have to say it	Time for change	Jun-27-09 09:54 AM	#192
How many times does Jenkins?	Bolo Boffin	Jun-27-09 11:13 PM	#193
the Limo driver Greer fired the fatal head shot	spooked911	Jun-28-09 09:10 AM	#194
Spooked...	SDuderstadt	Jun-28-09 10:02 AM	#195