JFK Throat Wound: Exit or Entry?

[RobertP]

Default JFK Throat Wound: Exit or Entry? The most puzzling wound of all the wounds inflicted during the assassination is, to me, anyways, the small wound in JFK's throat. According to Parkland surgeons who saw it in Trauma Room One, prior to Dr. Malcolm Perry bisecting it while making an incision for a tracheostomy, it was a neat round hole, 3-8 mm in diameter, that looked like an entrance wound inflicted by a bullet. It lacked the characteristic tearing made by a higher velocity bullet exiting flesh, although several of the Parkland surgeons did agree, while testifying, that it could have been made by a bullet exiting at a greatly reduced velocity. I am going to propose a very radical theory, although it is by no means a new theory. However, I believe I can add a new dimension to the work already done in this area. I have already floated this theory over at the Ed Forum, and it was not well received; especially by Mr. Cliff Varnell. If we reject the idea of the throat wound as an exit site for the Magic Bullet that supposedly entered JFK's back at the level of his collar, it would seem the only possible explanation for this wound is that it is a wound of entrance for a projectile fired from in front of the limo. If one believes this "projectile" was a bullet, fired from a rifle or handgun, there are certain problems with this explanation that must be dealt with, and tend to make this explanation highly unlikely, yet, still possible. If the projectile was a bullet fired from a rifle on the Grassy Knoll (or vicinity), at this short range, there should have been nothing to prevent a bullet travelling at normal rifle velocities from going right through JFK's neck, and out the back. At the very least, the bullet should have become lodged in one of the vertebrae or, if a frangible bullet, broken up completely and left a scattering of particles embedded in surrounding tissue and vertebrae. While the official WC x-rays of the neck do not show anything like this, the possibility of fake x-rays must also be entertained, as Jerrol Custer, the x-ray technician on duty at Bethesda the night of 22/11/63, testified to the ARRB that the neck x-rays of JFK currently in the archives look nothing like the x-rays he developed, and that the ones he saw had many bullet fragments in the cervical vertebrae. Anything with a lower muzzle velocity than a rifle, such as a handgun or airgun for shooting paralyzing darts does not, IMO, have the accuracy to guarantee a kill shot at the distance from the Stemmons sign to the pergola or picket fence on the Grassy Knoll, and I do not believe anyone would have even contemplated attempting making such a shot with one of these subsonic weapons, especially at a moving target. So, here comes the heresy. What if JFK did not suffer the throat wound until the moment he suffered the massive head wound(s) at z313, and the throat wound was the exit site of a fragment from a bullet that broke up inside of his skull? I believe that JFK was actually struck in the head by two bullets, one entering the right temple and the other entering exactly where Humes claimed it did; on the back of JFK's skull and just to the right of the external occipital protuberance.http://o.quizlet.com/.iqLyV4IsqgxmSgFdPQGSw_m.jpg Arrow pointing to external occipital protuberance As you all know from my previous posts, I believe the bullet that entered the back of JFK's skull was a type of hollow point frangible bullet, consisting of compressed or glued together lead powder but also containing a small lead pellet in the nose of the bullet. As this pellet would be the component making up the hollow point, it too would break up into several pieces or fragments. The compressed lead powder would disintegrate into a lethal cloud of powder, and would mostly be responsible for the great amount of damage inflicted. While the bullet would have made a small entrance wound, as observed by Humes, brain matter entering the hollow point would have created an enormous hydraulic pressure, and caused the disintegration of this bullet within 2 inches if its entry point. The following images show the occipital bone highlighted. At the base of the skull (and the occipital bone), an opening called the "foraman magnum" is visible, and it is this opening that allows the spinal cord to enter the skull.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... mation.gif If my estimations are correct, the frangible hollow point bullet's nose would have broken up almost directly over this opening, and it is conceivable a fragment from this nose pellet could have found its way through this opening. It is also possible the many fragments Jerrol Custer claims to have seen in an x-ray of JFK's neck vertebrae also passed through this opening. How does this opening line up with JFK's throat wound? Here is another diagram that may help to explain.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... teral2.png The cervical vertebrae are seen highlighted in red, and the foraman magnum opening at the base of the skull would be directly above the highest vertebra seen here. I think it entirely possible a fragment could have passed through and exited below his larynx. As the fragment might have been as small as 1-2 mm, it would make perfect sense for it to make a 3-8 mm exit wound, as exit wounds are typically larger than the diameter of the projectile that makes them. Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. Warren Commission testimony of Secret Service Agent Clinton J. Hill, 1964

[steve manning]

Robert, Great piece and thoughtful analysis! Don't know how long you've been posting on this blog but I've stirred up quite a controversy in the past trying to get a debate going on this subject. We have very similar perspectives about all this, you might enjoy what I wrote quite a while back. Apparently, it upset the apple cart. I mention that so you don't feel cheated out of any responses on this forum. My advice would be to take comfort in the knowledge that others are reading it; but there won't be any responses (other than mine) on this forum, mostly because they don't Wim to get mad, and threaten to, or actually shut down the forum. So believe me, others are reading it, and several even agree with you and I; or at the very least, they don't necessarily buy Wim's argument. He does get mad though. In fairness to him, not having been published yet myself, I can only imagine what it would be like to have a certain view in print, and then have it shot down; ouch!The two men who have done great work in area in my opinion, are Gil Jesus, and Doug Weldon. Check there stuff out. THE THROAT WOUNDI am sorry to be such a persistent pain about this topic but I just watched a 2 part youtube defense regarding, you guessed it, the throat wound. Look I don’t know anything about this guy Gil Jesus, but I do know how to recognize a solid argument that is based on accurately interpreted evidence, and he presented a solid argument for what I’ve suspected to be the truth all along. I will say that Wim has come the closest to persuade me otherwise, with the argument that they wouldn’t have fired a shot from the front that soon, because it basically destroys the patsy argument that shots only came from behind. Incidentally, I do believe the throat wound was most likely the one JFK reacted to by throwing his arms and elbows in the air, which of course was early in the sequence; perhaps the very first shot, unless he was hit in the back just before this. Either way both those shots simply can’t be very far apart in time. Perhaps, his elbows and arms were reacting to the back shot? I do not know the answer, but either way, it doesn’t mean there was not a wound of entry in the throat. Furthermore, Gil Jesus presents evidence about the hole in the windshield which I would dare say (with perhaps a few exceptions) is just as solid as most of the other evidence we have in this case. All you have to do to change my mind is disprove the evidence he presented. Again, all I want to know is what the hell really happened. The theory of Wim and Jimmy which states that mercury from the round he fired came down from the brain area through the neck and out the front of the throat, while plausible, simply seem less likely. I realize the wound was tracked by a pathologist or mortician, but I think more likely the throat wound was the point of entry, and perhaps it deflected off the spinal column in his neck and went upward into his brain? But in order for the throat wound to be some kind of exit and nick the front of the tie (instead of the back of it), it would have MOST LIKELY looked more like an exit of some kind. If what he is saying here is not true I AM BEGGING SOMEONE TO PROVE IT SO! PLEASE! MY ONLY AGENDA IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING MORE! I don't think this discounts Jimmy's involvement, he is already admitted to having limited knowledge about the overall plan. I would only be able to guess as to why a shooter would have fired so soon. I do think it is fair to say there was some confusion as to whether the plan was even going to be carried out at that point. Perhaps talk of an abort team caused one of the shooters (probably on the south knoll) to become more concerned that the job simply got done as opposed to worrying about how it looked, and risking the chance of letting it go? Thus, perhaps such a shooter was really there, and as a result of the chaos, fired earlier than first intended?Moreover, I can only imagine how such a shot would have looked through a scope from the south knoll area? I bet it may have looked like one of those now or never type scenarios? I would also have to admit he would have been aiming through the windshield at his target; a more difficult shot yes, but not implausible; not for a qualified sniper. In fact, the more I think about it, I would also guess the shooter wouldn't have been aiming at his throat either; perhaps more likely right between his eyes? This seems to be one way the windshield could have interfered? I really don’t know, but I’m certainly open to suggestions. I do believe that Dallas would have been perceived to be the last place to really pull this off; and as it may have seemed to be slipping away. Just think, about 38 more days and they would have turned the corner of the new year, and entered the final stretch of his most certain reelection campaign. They already canceled previous attempts, and could not afford to let this chance go by once again, it was now or never. Perhaps concern about how it looked became less of a priority at the last minute? Thanks for reading!I’m not sure these are still there…his stuff gets a lot of scrubbing on the net.PART ONEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=_QLFOzwsYSMPART TWOhttp://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=0Sl6V-0nK3c THE SCIENCE OF INTERPRETING EVIDENCEObviously there is more than one type of evidence. For example there is: physical, circumstantial, hear-say, eye witness testimony, etc; all of which can be scientifically ranked in terms of importance and/or priority and reliability. Obviously, the idea is to interpret all of it by giving it the weight it would "most likely "deserve, based on some scientific principles of interpretive reconstruction.As I've tried to say before, I would argue the most important "evidence" in any case (that requires reconstruction) is obtained closest in time to the event in question. This is fundamental to an accurate reconstruction...you know, that pesky little question about what the hell really happened? This leaves the least amount of time for the evidence to be altered in any way, etc. and thus makes the most sense. In the case of JFK, first and foremost, this would be all the physical evidence such as, the body of JFK (or descriptions thereof), ballistics, photographic and audio evidence from the scene, as well as all the Eye witness testimony, etc. Next, is anything they have obtained between the hospital and the Plaza and then it's whatever they obtained at the hospital, all of which would be captured in the first 10-20 minutes after the shooting (much of it in the first 5 or 6 minutes). Just 2 categories of hospital evidence would be: #1 the descriptions of the head wound and throat wound by the doctors and nurses. Also, #2 The descriptions of the limo outside the hospital. An additional serious boost in credibility is added to the testimony of all the doctors and nurses in trauma room one. Two things: The fact these men and women were dedicated professionals who dealt with more than their share of gunshot wounds at Parkland Hospital. Just as important or more so, is the uniformity of all their testimony. This is huge, and from an interpreters standpoint it increases the reliability! If we stop to realize when this evidence is obtained and the brief proximity of time in relation to the shooting, we are free to conclude the only other chance his wounds could have been altered in any way would of been in the limo while it was still racing out of the plaza only seconds after the event. As I stated before, this evidence has not been given the weight it truly deserves. In other words, I would argue that the uniform description given by the doctors and nurses of the throat wound could have only been superseded by the shooter or JFK himself...not by any other known testimony. To summarize, I believe it would probably require clear photographic evidence obtained during the same time frame to supersede their testimony (of which we do not have). Any other testimony or even photograph comes under the suspicion of fraud because of the proximity factor alone; thereby reducing the reliability of said evidence by comparison.I supposed most of you are hesitant to comment on this because you're afraid the forum will get shut down. Well at this point, I would ask a question: if that is the case, what are you trying to save? If we cannot explore the truth and rely on healthy debate to sharpen our understanding, I question the necessity of it all? To just dismiss the throat damage as a clear wound of entrance is to ignore critical evidence that is clearly pointing in another direction...the truth of what really happened. Sincerely,Steve Manning

[Slav]

I have to go with Jackie story as she was in the car when it happened and she says he was hit in the throat and put his hands around his neck as the passed the freeway sign, meaning it happened before the head shot.Jackie Kennedy told author Arthur Schlesinger that, "On the day Jack was murdered, I happen to be looking at the large green Stemon's freeway sign, as we were passing the grassy knoll." I saw a chunk of the green wooden sign suddenly shatter outwards and fly towards Jack and me. Then Jack was hit in the throat.I reached out for him. As I did, he was shot in the right side of his head. Just above his right eye. It was horrible. I saw the right side of his head fly onto the back of the car. I leaned back and reached for it. I just wanted to put Jack back together. It was just an instinctual response.""In hind sight, I guess that was the first bullet smashing thru the freeway sign that hit Jack in the throat."I heard 5 shots fired at Jack from behind the freeway sign. I can still hear those 5 shots in my dreams. All the shots seem to come from behind the freeway sign." ---Jackie Kennedy.

[Bob]

I appreciate all the perspectives that have been given here. All are very good. The reason I believe the throat wound was an exit wound, similar to Robert's post in this thread, is because of the testimony of Thom Robinson. Robinson was present at JFK's pre-autopsy procedure (see Inside the ARRB by Doug Horne) and also his actual autopsy. Take a look at his notes regarding JFK's autopsy...Notice he writes that there a two small shrapnel wounds in JFK's face. I believe that those wounds also came from a mercury loaded (exploding) bullet which was used in one of the head shots. I agree with Robert that there were two simultaneous head shots. One from behind and one from the right-front. The mercury load caused the exiting shrapnel wounds to the face and throat in my opinion. Robinson also said that he saw that the autopsy doctors trace the head wound to the throat wound.In terms of what Jackie saw, one has to remember that she was in total shock once the firing started. She may have perceived some things correctly and other things not so correctly. JFK was wearing a back brace that day, as he had a bad back. Trust me, I know how he must have felt. I suffered five herniated discs in an auto accident, and had to have one of them replaced. I know all about back pain. Anyway, when I am jabbed or touched in the back by someone, I immediately raise my hands up to my chest or throat area with my fists clinched. It's just a natural reaction. I believe that was what JFK did after he was shot in the back. I don't think that was because of the throat wound. Also, if one looks at a closeup of the Zapruder film at that point of the film, one never sees any wound or blood in the throat area.

[kenmurray]

Where was the throat wound altered?http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Throat-Wound/

[steve manning]

Bob, I was just curious if you read the 2nd article that I posted above; the one regarding the common sense rules of evidence interpretation? To summarize, perhaps you might consider the possibility you may be giving too much weight to evidence that was documented over 6 hours after the event. This takes weight away from the earlier, more credible evidence from the Parkland ER. Any discrepancies between both interpretations, should give precedence to the earliest evidence; as early as 6 minutes, give or take, after the shooting. Namely, the 20+ professionals in trauma room 1 that gave uniform testimony about the throat wound, as witnessed prior to the tracheotomy incision. I'm guessing you're already aware of what that testimony consists of...clearly there was a difference between the appearance of the throat defect in both situations. Incidentally, those are not the only points to consider. There is the uniform testimony of all the doctors and nurses. For example, another fact that should increase the weight and credibility of the Parkland evidence, is the testimony came from trained professionals. Further, research has discovered they handled their share of gunshot wounds at the Parkland ER. Again, there was no lack of uniformity or conflicts in their cumulative statements. Furthermore, I can't recall the nurses name, but she's on YouTube somewhere. Anyway, she gave a rather convincing account of a hole in the windshield of the limo; again, an early account, from a professional who knows quite a bit about fire arms herself, both in and out of the ER. You might google Doug Weldon because he did some amazing work in tracking down the limo windshield. Followed it all the way to the Ford Motor Co. and got a written statement from one of the guys who removed the glass from the limo and supposedly were told to destroy it. Gil Jesus and Doug Weldon have done the best work in this area of the investigation.Take care,Steve

[RobertP]

Bob wrote:I appreciate all the perspectives that have been given here. All are very good. The reason I believe the throat wound was an exit wound, similar to Robert's post in this thread, is because of the testimony of Thom Robinson. Robinson was present at JFK's pre-autopsy procedure (see Inside the ARRB by Doug Horne) and also his actual autopsy. Take a look at his notes regarding JFK's autopsy...Notice he writes that there a two small shrapnel wounds in JFK's face. I believe that those wounds also came from a mercury loaded (exploding) bullet which was used in one of the head shots. I agree with Robert that there were two simultaneous head shots. One from behind and one from the right-front. The mercury load caused the exiting shrapnel wounds to the face and throat in my opinion. Robinson also said that he saw that the autopsy doctors trace the head wound to the throat wound.In terms of what Jackie saw, one has to remember that she was in total shock once the firing started. She may have perceived some things correctly and other things not so correctly. JFK was wearing a back brace that day, as he had a bad back. Trust me, I know how he must have felt. I suffered five herniated discs in an auto accident, and had to have one of them replaced. I know all about back pain. Anyway, when I am jabbed or touched in the back by someone, I immediately raise my hands up to my chest or throat area with my fists clinched. It's just a natural reaction. I believe that was what JFK did after he was shot in the back. I don't think that was because of the throat wound. Also, if one looks at a closeup of the Zapruder film at that point of the film, one never sees any wound or blood in the throat area.Thank you for posting the notes from the HSCA interview with Tom Robinson. Small wonder this interview was suppressed until the advent of the ARRB in the 1990's.Mr. Robinson also told the interviewer that he believed every bone in JFK's face to be broken, and that this had to be viewed through the empty cavity of the skull. This, coupled with the blowout to the rear, seems to confirm our belief of two frangible bullets, one entering the rear and one entering the temple.One thing has always puzzled me about these notes. While I know Robinson described a 1/4 inch hole in JFK's right temple, what is meant by "smaller wound in right temple, crescent shape, flapped down (3") ?

[RobertP]

steve manning wrote:Bob, I was just curious if you read the 2nd article that I posted above; the one regarding the common sense rules of evidence interpretation? To summarize, perhaps you might consider the possibility you may be giving too much weight to evidence that was documented over 6 hours after the event. This takes weight away from the earlier, more credible evidence from the Parkland ER. Any discrepancies between both interpretations, should give precedence to the earliest evidence; as early as 6 minutes, give or take, after the shooting. Namely, the 20+ professionals in trauma room 1 that gave uniform testimony about the throat wound, as witnessed prior to the tracheotomy incision. I'm guessing you're already aware of what that testimony consists of...clearly there was a difference between the appearance of the throat defect in both situations. Incidentally, those are not the only points to consider. There is the uniform testimony of all the doctors and nurses. For example, another fact that should increase the weight and credibility of the Parkland evidence, is the testimony came from trained professionals. Further, research has discovered they handled their share of gunshot wounds at the Parkland ER. Again, there was no lack of uniformity or conflicts in their cumulative statements. Furthermore, I can't recall the nurses name, but she's on YouTube somewhere. Anyway, she gave a rather convincing account of a hole in the windshield of the limo; again, an early account, from a professional who knows quite a bit about fire arms herself, both in and out of the ER. You might google Doug Weldon because he did some amazing work in tracking down the limo windshield. Followed it all the way to the Ford Motor Co. and got a written statement from one of the guys who removed the glass from the limo and supposedly were told to destroy it. Gil Jesus and Doug Weldon have done the best work in this area of the investigation.Take care,SteveWhile many medical professionals at Parkland expressed the opinion the throat wound was a wound of entrance, it must be remembered there were a limited number of these people who saw the throat wound, prior to Dr. Malcolm Perry bisecting and obliterating it with a tracheostomy incision. The rule of thumb for bullet exit wounds, even those made by non-expanding full metal jacket bullets, is that the exit wound is invariably larger than the entrance wound. While this may not seem possible for a non-expanding FMJ bullet, any bullet travelling through soft tissue at supersonic velocities advances a large shock wave ahead of it; disrupting surrounding tissue and exiting the soft tissue with the telltale larger exit wound. This is one of the main reasons for rejecting the SBT, as these same Parkland physicians described the throat wound as being 3-8 mm in diameter.However, could the throat wound not be an exit wound, if the fragment that caused it was only 1-2 mm in diameter?

[Bob]

steve manning wrote:Bob, I was just curious if you read the 2nd article that I posted above; the one regarding the common sense rules of evidence interpretation? To summarize, perhaps you might consider the possibility you may be giving too much weight to evidence that was documented over 6 hours after the event. This takes weight away from the earlier, more credible evidence from the Parkland ER. Any discrepancies between both interpretations, should give precedence to the earliest evidence; as early as 6 minutes, give or take, after the shooting. Namely, the 20+ professionals in trauma room 1 that gave uniform testimony about the throat wound, as witnessed prior to the tracheotomy incision. I'm guessing you're already aware of what that testimony consists of...clearly there was a difference between the appearance of the throat defect in both situations. Incidentally, those are not the only points to consider. There is the uniform testimony of all the doctors and nurses. For example, another fact that should increase the weight and credibility of the Parkland evidence, is the testimony came from trained professionals. Further, research has discovered they handled their share of gunshot wounds at the Parkland ER. Again, there was no lack of uniformity or conflicts in their cumulative statements. Furthermore, I can't recall the nurses name, but she's on YouTube somewhere. Anyway, she gave a rather convincing account of a hole in the windshield of the limo; again, an early account, from a professional who knows quite a bit about fire arms herself, both in and out of the ER. You might google Doug Weldon because he did some amazing work in tracking down the limo windshield. Followed it all the way to the Ford Motor Co. and got a written statement from one of the guys who removed the glass from the limo and supposedly were told to destroy it. Gil Jesus and Doug Weldon have done the best work in this area of the investigation.Take care,SteveSteve, I really appreciate your perspective. And I'm not saying that it doesn't have some credence. I also love the work that Gil Jesus and Doug Weldon have done. That being said, I try to look at things regarding the JFK assassination through my own view, looking at evidence assembled by the many great researchers we have in the JFK assassination community. Although I agree with many, many things put out there, I don't agree with everything Wim believes, that Jim Fetzer believes, that Jim Marrs believes, that Robert Groden believes, that Jim DiEugenio believes, that John Hankey believes, etc. And I have communicated with all of them. Some more than others. I do get a little perturbed with some of the catfights which have occurred with some of them. That is unfortunate and it takes away the focus about some of the great work that each of them have done. Bottom line, I try to draw my own opinion looking at everything I can regarding any given subject regarding the assassination. I've also seen my opinion change over the years regarding a number of subjects. I try to have an open mind. That being said, I'm not saying my take on the throat wound is spot on. I hope it's fairly close based on what I've learned through various factors (like the use of a mercury bullet and the notes and words of Thom Robinson). That also includes my back situation and my reaction when it is poked or touched. It's the EXACT same reaction that JFK had in the limo. Still, I will always look at different opinions. Just look at Doug Horne. His work has opened my eyes in a number of areas. And my eyes are still open.

[Bob]

RobertP wrote:Bob wrote:I appreciate all the perspectives that have been given here. All are very good. The reason I believe the throat wound was an exit wound, similar to Robert's post in this thread, is because of the testimony of Thom Robinson. Robinson was present at JFK's pre-autopsy procedure (see Inside the ARRB by Doug Horne) and also his actual autopsy. Take a look at his notes regarding JFK's autopsy...Notice he writes that there a two small shrapnel wounds in JFK's face. I believe that those wounds also came from a mercury loaded (exploding) bullet which was used in one of the head shots. I agree with Robert that there were two simultaneous head shots. One from behind and one from the right-front. The mercury load caused the exiting shrapnel wounds to the face and throat in my opinion. Robinson also said that he saw that the autopsy doctors trace the head wound to the throat wound.In terms of what Jackie saw, one has to remember that she was in total shock once the firing started. She may have perceived some things correctly and other things not so correctly. JFK was wearing a back brace that day, as he had a bad back. Trust me, I know how he must have felt. I suffered five herniated discs in an auto accident, and had to have one of them replaced. I know all about back pain. Anyway, when I am jabbed or touched in the back by someone, I immediately raise my hands up to my chest or throat area with my fists clinched. It's just a natural reaction. I believe that was what JFK did after he was shot in the back. I don't think that was because of the throat wound. Also, if one looks at a closeup of the Zapruder film at that point of the film, one never sees any wound or blood in the throat area.Thank you for posting the notes from the HSCA interview with Tom Robinson. Small wonder this interview was suppressed until the advent of the ARRB in the 1990's.Mr. Robinson also told the interviewer that he believed every bone in JFK's face to be broken, and that this had to be viewed through the empty cavity of the skull. This, coupled with the blowout to the rear, seems to confirm our belief of two frangible bullets, one entering the rear and one entering the temple.One thing has always puzzled me about these notes. While I know Robinson described a 1/4 inch hole in JFK's right temple, what is meant by "smaller wound in right temple, crescent shape, flapped down (3") ?Robert, perhaps he may have been talking about this image from JFK's autopsy which shows a doctor holding up the scalp of JFK (with the head pointed sideways to the left) with the temple wound and the crescent-shaped flap right besides the doctor's arm in the right portion of the photo.