JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A newsman asked Perry: "Where was the entrance wound?"

Perry: "There was an entrance wound in the neck..."

Question: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?"

Perry: "It appeared to be coming at him."...

Question: "Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?"

Perry: "The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don't know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant."[66] (emphasis added)




On 11/22/63 UPI reported that Perry had said, “There was an entrance wound below the Adam's apple.”[67] The New York Times reported, “... Dr. Malcolm Perry … [said] Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple … This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry ... .”[68] On 11/23/63, the Dallas Morning News reported, “The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound,” and it quoted Perry to say, “It did however appear to be the entrance wound at the front of the throat.” These press accounts, and others like them, accurately reflect the fact that at no time during the press conference did Perry allow for any other possibility than that the throat wound was an entrance wound.




How did the Warren Report describe Perry’s press conference statements? It reported, “Dr. Perry... stated to the press that a variety of possibilities could account for the President's wounds.”[69] (Emphasis added) Whereas numerous press reports had accurately described Perry’s belief the wound was one of entrance, the Warren Report cited only the New York Herald Tribune’s vague and less accurate version. Ironically, Perry wasn’t easily dislodged from his original position.




In fact, although Specter himself has admitted that his supervisor, Commission counsel Norman Redlich, had banned pretestimony interviews,[74] Specter nevertheless interviewed Perry before he testified to the Warren Commission. He indicated that he would obtain recordings of Perry's public comments for Perry to review “prior to his appearance, before deposition or before the Commission,” which, Specter acknowledged, he had been unable to do.[75] Under oath, Perry repeatedly answered apologetically, and inaccurately, about how the press had misreported his explanation of JFK’s throat wound. After the Commission suggested Perry be furnished the suspect press reports, so that Perry could correct the errors,[76] Specter asked Perry for the second time during his appearance for clarification.




“Was it (the throat wound) ragged or pushed out in any manner?” Perry astutely replied, “the edges were neither cleancut, that is punched out, nor were they very ragged ... I did not examine it very closely.” [77] (emphasis added) No Commissioner was impolite enough to ask Perry why he would have made an incision on a President’s bleeding throat without taking a careful look at it. Nor did they remind the doctor that only a few minutes earlier, before Specter had made his preferences so plain, Perry had admitted that the throat wound’s “edges were neither ragged nor were they punched out, but rather clean.”[78] The Commission apparently either never examined the verbatim transcript of Perry’s press conference, or it neglected to discuss what Perry actually said, in either case settling instead for Perry’s Specter-abetted finger pointing. The libel against the press thus went unchallenged.


Ever the lawyer, Specter was still not satisfied. He undertook to further bolster his controversial theory by posing the following questions to Perry:

Mr. Specter: “Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?”

Dr. Perry: “It could have been either.”

Mr. Specter: “Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.




“Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.


“Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?” (Emphasis added)

Dr. Perry: “Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.”[79]




In this example of Specter’s “begging the question” with Perry – assuming as true all the unproven elements of the speculative theory he was asking Perry’s opinion about – the lawyer made it crystal clear that there was only one answer that would do, one that left his pet theory unwounded. And this wasn’t the only time Specter pursued this tact with key medical witnesses. He posed this same question to all the Dallas doctors he interviewed: Charles Baxter, MD [6H42], Robert McClelland, MD [6H38], Charles James Carrico, MD [3H362], Marion Thomas Jenkins, MD [6H49], Gene Coleman Aiken, MD [6H66], Robert R. Shaw, MD [4H113], Charles Gregory, MD [4H127], and George T. Shires, MD [6H110].

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm

The Warren Commission counsel set out to get Perry to change his consistently-expressed opinion that the throat wound was a wound of entrance to an opinion that it was an exit wound.

It was an act of dishonesty and Perry went along with it for the sake of an easy life.

Had he not done so, then HS would likely have accused him of being a liar, as I believe he did to another doctor who would not change his view.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No it wasn’t an act of dishonesty. This is a fantasy.

The throat wound was an exit wound. All other explanations are childish.

A shot from the Knoll would have exited on the left side of Kennedy’s neck but there was no wound anywhere near there and the shot couldn’t have come from directly in front because there was nowhere to conceal a gunman. Not to mention the fact that the Knoll would have been the stupidest spot imaginable to have tried to conceal a gunman.

There is no other possibility. The shots came from behind. Circumstances prove it, x-rays prove it and photographs prove it. All else is just silliness.

[FISHY1118]

So no corroboration + a witness who is clearly not believable on another vital issue = no doubt about the fragments?

No problem Fishy if that’s how your playing it. I’ll leave it at that.

No problem Herlock , as I've said we've shown on this thread on many occasions as you've seen from multiple witnesses the MBT doesn't stand up .

The evidence from Nurse Bell and others like her is far to overwhelming to dismiss or ignore
There was no reason for her to lie or be mistaken, were talking about bullet fragments, pieces of metal.,
the only things that was removed from JC .

[FISHY1118]

A newsman asked Perry: "Where was the entrance wound?"

Perry: "There was an entrance wound in the neck..."

Question: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?"

Perry: "It appeared to be coming at him."...

Question: "Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?"

Perry: "The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don't know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant."[66] (emphasis added)




On 11/22/63 UPI reported that Perry had said, “There was an entrance wound below the Adam's apple.”[67] The New York Times reported, “... Dr. Malcolm Perry … [said] Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple … This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry ... .”[68] On 11/23/63, the Dallas Morning News reported, “The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound,” and it quoted Perry to say, “It did however appear to be the entrance wound at the front of the throat.” These press accounts, and others like them, accurately reflect the fact that at no time during the press conference did Perry allow for any other possibility than that the throat wound was an entrance wound.




How did the Warren Report describe Perry’s press conference statements? It reported, “Dr. Perry... stated to the press that a variety of possibilities could account for the President's wounds.”[69] (Emphasis added) Whereas numerous press reports had accurately described Perry’s belief the wound was one of entrance, the Warren Report cited only the New York Herald Tribune’s vague and less accurate version. Ironically, Perry wasn’t easily dislodged from his original position.




In fact, although Specter himself has admitted that his supervisor, Commission counsel Norman Redlich, had banned pretestimony interviews,[74] Specter nevertheless interviewed Perry before he testified to the Warren Commission. He indicated that he would obtain recordings of Perry's public comments for Perry to review “prior to his appearance, before deposition or before the Commission,” which, Specter acknowledged, he had been unable to do.[75] Under oath, Perry repeatedly answered apologetically, and inaccurately, about how the press had misreported his explanation of JFK’s throat wound. After the Commission suggested Perry be furnished the suspect press reports, so that Perry could correct the errors,[76] Specter asked Perry for the second time during his appearance for clarification.




“Was it (the throat wound) ragged or pushed out in any manner?” Perry astutely replied, “the edges were neither cleancut, that is punched out, nor were they very ragged ... I did not examine it very closely.” [77] (emphasis added) No Commissioner was impolite enough to ask Perry why he would have made an incision on a President’s bleeding throat without taking a careful look at it. Nor did they remind the doctor that only a few minutes earlier, before Specter had made his preferences so plain, Perry had admitted that the throat wound’s “edges were neither ragged nor were they punched out, but rather clean.”[78] The Commission apparently either never examined the verbatim transcript of Perry’s press conference, or it neglected to discuss what Perry actually said, in either case settling instead for Perry’s Specter-abetted finger pointing. The libel against the press thus went unchallenged.


Ever the lawyer, Specter was still not satisfied. He undertook to further bolster his controversial theory by posing the following questions to Perry:

Mr. Specter: “Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?”

Dr. Perry: “It could have been either.”

Mr. Specter: “Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.




“Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.


“Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?” (Emphasis added)

Dr. Perry: “Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.”[79]




In this example of Specter’s “begging the question” with Perry – assuming as true all the unproven elements of the speculative theory he was asking Perry’s opinion about – the lawyer made it crystal clear that there was only one answer that would do, one that left his pet theory unwounded. And this wasn’t the only time Specter pursued this tact with key medical witnesses. He posed this same question to all the Dallas doctors he interviewed: Charles Baxter, MD [6H42], Robert McClelland, MD [6H38], Charles James Carrico, MD [3H362], Marion Thomas Jenkins, MD [6H49], Gene Coleman Aiken, MD [6H66], Robert R. Shaw, MD [4H113], Charles Gregory, MD [4H127], and George T. Shires, MD [6H110].

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm

The Warren Commission counsel set out to get Perry to change his consistently-expressed opinion that the throat wound was a wound of entrance to an opinion that it was an exit wound.

It was an act of dishonesty and Perry went along with it for the sake of an easy life.

Had he not done so, then HS would likely have accused him of being a liar, as I believe he did to another doctor who would not change his view.

Interesting post P.I , The amount of contradictory evidence of that to which the warren commission claims happened is staggering. Far too much to ever be ignored or put into the they all lied or were mistaken or never existed. basket.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Interesting post P.I , The amount of contradictory evidence of that to which the warren commission claims happened is staggering. Far too much to ever be ignored or put into the they all lied or were mistaken or never existed. basket.

Very interesting - which is why I had to post it.

I had read before that the doctors were pressured into keeping their mouths shut but I don't think I had ever seen such a clear exposé of how the WC counsel got a doctor to appear to change his opinion.

Of course, the WC counsel played plenty of games, like prompting Mrs Markham when she testified and was providing unhelpful testimony.

Evidence was manipulated, distorted and suppressed on a grand scale, culminating in the Warren Commission Report, a document containing lies from beginning to end.

There was even a monumental lie in its preamble - the claim that the Report's findings did not depend on the Single Bullet Theory, when without it - as everyone knows - the Report's conclusions would collapse.

Why else would we having such arguments with defenders of the WC Report about the SBT?

[FISHY1118]

Very interesting - which is why I had to post it.

I had read before that the doctors were pressured into keeping their mouths shut but I don't think I had ever seen such a clear exposé of how the WC counsel got a doctor to appear to change his opinion.

Of course, the WC counsel played plenty of games, like prompting Mrs Markham when she testified and was providing unhelpful testimony.

Evidence was manipulated, distorted and suppressed on a grand scale, culminating in the Warren Commission Report, a document containing lies from beginning to end.

There was even a monumental lie in its preamble - the claim that the Report's findings did not depend on the Single Bullet Theory, when without it - as everyone knows - the Report's conclusions would collapse.

Why else would we having such arguments with defenders of the WC Report about the SBT?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn’t it strange? On one hand we have Dr. Perry, who was trying to save Kennedy’s life and not performing a wound analysis, who changes his opinion on reflection and after evaluating the full evidence. Naturally when CT’s see this they shout ‘coercion’ and ‘cover-up,’ but when Roger Craig suddenly ‘remembers’ seeing the word ‘Mauser’ on the rifle a full ELEVEN years later and without ever mentioning this revelation before, CT’s have absolutely no issue about believing him and using him as evidence. When Weitzman admits to an error he’s accused of being a liar. Beverly Oliver remembers stuff years later and it’s fine. Why is that acceptable?

Why is it that it’s acceptable that Lee Bowers suddenly remembers seeing a flash only after a friendly chat with Mark Lane? Why are CT’s in complete denial of the utterly disgraceful way (available to read and listen to) that Lane badgered the poorly educated Helen Markham to alter her testimony…something that many CT’s have even had to admit was appalling?

The case is rife with pro-conspiracy witnesses suddenly ‘remembering’ stuff years later which CT’s swallow hook, line and sinker. But when a Doctor changes his opinion it’s assumed as evidence of conspiracy? What about Carrico and Jenkins who said ‘exit wound,’ what about Baxter who wasn’t sure? Again, these Doctors were solely focused on trying to save Kennedy’s life… they weren’t analysing the wound closely.

…..

All over the case CT’s love to produce a diagram or two showing how they have solved something that proper experts haven’t but there’s glaring omission. Why is there never a diagram tracking the bullet that supposedly cause the throat ‘entry’ wound. It’s because they realise of course that this was physically impossible. How could a bullet fired from the front right of Kennedy (on the Knoll by a gunman that no one ever saw) have exited where it did? And we’re not talking about how high or low the wound was either. I’m asking why wasn’t the ‘exit’ wound on the left side of Kennedy’s body? Now, if CT’s are consistent (which they usually are when it comes to being wrong) they’ll suggest some kind of airbrushing of photographs but I’m no longer willing to waste words on such proven silliness. So where is the left side exit wound? Or do CT’s have their own magic bullet? One that entered Kennedy’s throat and turned to the left before disappearing into thin air?

Furthermore, if the bullet hit from the front right surely Kennedy should have been thrown to the left toward Jackie? That’s what suggested about the effect of the head wound or did the laws of physic change from bullet to bullet?

And finally, if the bullet didn’t come from the Knoll (and it clearly didn’t) where did it come from? George has suggested the overpass but the eleven people that were on there failed to notice a man firing a rifle just like no one noticed our ‘man’ on the Knoll? Where there drones in 1963?

These questions never got a response when I’ve posted it before and I assume that they won’t get one now and certainly not a sensible one. Kennedy’s throat wound was an exit wound. It couldn’t have come from anywhere else.

[FISHY1118]

All this and much has been discussed at length previously Herlock.

Theres no need to go back over old ground when the same arguement could be used against WC theory supporters ,where much of the contradictory evidence to the Warren Commission findings was never responded to or adequately answered sensibly .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not interested in obfuscation or excuses to dodge answering Fishy. I’ve answered way, way more questions on this thread than those supporting conspiracy (and so has Fiver) and it’s not even close. The questions I raised about the mythical throat shot from the front hasn’t ever been answered on here. It’s been studiously avoided.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Grassy Knollington: Conspiracy Theorist



Grassy's friend: Hey, look Grassy! An Ice-cream van's just pulled up. Do you fancy a Ninety-nine?**

Grassy: Eh?! A Ninety-nine? Nine times eleven is Ninety-nine! Don't you see?! Nine-eleven!! The attack cooked up by George Bush and his pal Bin Laden to spark revolution in the Middle East ... Hmm ... Nine ...? Revolution? Sounds familiar?

Grassy's friend: Not really, no.

Grassy: You bet! Try this for size - "Revolution Number Nine" on the Beatles' White Album lasts 8 minutes 15 seconds exactly ... that's 495 seconds ... or 99 times 5! Ninety-nine - like the ice cream ... and five - the number of victims of the so-called Whitechapel Killer...

Grassy's friend: Who?

Grassy: Jack the Ripper! Nickname of the Royal murderer and arch Freemason Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, whose first victim was discovered in 1888 ... on August 31st! Fast forward to August 31st 1997 ... Lady Diana is killed when her Mercedes - driven by double agent Henri Paul - hits Pillar Thirteen in the Pont d'Alma Tunnel in Paris. Henri Paul? Sounds familiar? Get this! Actor Paul Henry plays an actor called Benny in the 70s soap Crossroads***!

Grassy's friend: Benny ...?

Grassy: Benny looks after Miss Diane - Lady Diana! Geddit? Not only that - but surprise surprise! Paul McCartney records the theme tune to Crossroads on his 1975 album Venus and Mars ...

Grassy's friend: Paul McCartney?

Grassy: Yes! The self-same McCartney who sang "Revolution Number Nine" on the White Album! White!! Like ice-cream, George Bush's White House, the Whitechapel Murders and the Fiat Uno that forced Henri Paul's Mercedes off the road! Track nine on the White Album is "Martha My Dear"! ... Hello?! Cut to Martha's Vineyard, USA ... Ted Kennedy crashes his car into the water at Chappaquiddick on July 18th 1969 ... the exact same day that Paul McCartney - Yes! Him again! produces the Mary Hopkins single "Pebble and the Man", catalogue number Apple CT1!

Grassy's friend: You've lost me there, Grassy ...

Grassy: Apple CT1 was released as a promotion for Wall's Ice Cream! The same ice-cream that's in a Ninety-nine!

Grassy's friend: So ...?

Grassy: Exactly! "Ice cream" is an anagram of "ace crime", like 911, the Whitechapel murders and the assassination of Lady Di in her Mercedes. Mercedes have hosted business seminars at the NEC International Conference Centre**** in Birmingham (where Crossroads was made) ... as have ... get ready for this ... Cadbury's!! Cadbury's who make the chocolate flakes for 99s!!! Coincidence!? I don't think so! Let's look at the evidence ... The Queen (who later knighted Paul McCartney for so-called services to music) opened the NEC Conference Centre on June 12th 1991! That date ring any bells? It should do - because George Bush Sr (former US president and long-time business associate of the Bin Laden family) had a birthday on June 12th 1991!

Grassy's friend: Grassy ...

Grassy: 1991! It's an anagram of 99 and 11, don't you see? 99 divided by 11 is Nine! Nine-Eleven!!/ And what's more, 1991 was George Bush's 67th birthday!

Grassy's friend: ... Erm ...

Grassy: That's what they what you to think, but just look at the figures! 67! 6 and 7! Six plus seven is 13 ... Thirteen!!! The number of letters in "Osama Bin Laden", "Paul McCartney", "The White Album" and "Wall's Ice Cream"!!! 13 is also the number of the pillar in the Pont d'Alma tunnel that Lady Di's car crashed into!!!

Grassy's friend: So do you fancy a Ninety-Nine or not, then?

Grassy: No thanks! That cone is merely the tip of a huge sinister global conspiracy that goes all the way to the top! {To ice cream vendor} Have you got any lollies left Mister?

Ice Cream vendor: Let me see now ... Well, we've got plenty of orange Zapruders, a few Mint Choc Chip Jack Rubys, and I think there's one or two Bohemian Grove Black Helicopters in the Freezer ... or what about a shape-shifting Illuminati Lizard with hundreds and thousands?



I couldn’t resist a bit of Viz but I have to say that I’ve heard Jim Garrison come up with less believable stuff than the above.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Now that is sarcasm!

[FISHY1118]

Now that is sarcasm!

No its sad really.

[FISHY1118]

Not interested in obfuscation or excuses to dodge answering Fishy. I’ve answered way, way more questions on this thread than those supporting conspiracy (and so has Fiver) and it’s not even close. The questions I raised about the mythical throat shot from the front hasn’t ever been answered on here. It’s been studiously avoided.

Just as George ,cobalt P.I and myself and others have asked many yet still unanswered questions .

Fake autopsy photos of the back of jfk head , fake Zapruder film , pristine bullet pics ( George covered that one over and over and over but was never shown any answers or explanation as to how that evidence could be explained) .

The list is to many to go through again , and I for one am surely no doing that with you .

The WC findings were rubbish . That has been clearly shown on this thread .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing was faked and conspiracy theorists know it well. They’re just too committed to admit that they’ve been duped by obsessive a. No one in 60 years has ever produced a single piece of evidence of forgery. Not one. Conspiracy theorists simply fall back on “it doesn’t fit with my version of events so it must be a forgery.” It’s all a bit sad.

Case solved in 1963. It was utterly, physically impossible for Oswald to have been guilty. The case has been kept alive by crooks like Garrison, Lane and Stone.

[FISHY1118]

Nothing was faked and conspiracy theorists know it well. They’re just too committed to admit that they’ve been duped by obsessive a. No one in 60 years has ever produced a single piece of evidence of forgery. Not one. Conspiracy theorists simply fall back on “it doesn’t fit with my version of events so it must be a forgery.” It’s all a bit sad.

Case solved in 1963. It was utterly, physically impossible for Oswald to have been guilty. The case has been kept alive by crooks like Garrison, Lane and Stone.

#2638 post on the topic and you've managed to learn nothing .

Not surprised really after that poor taste post of yours #2635

A senseless insulting mock and dig at others for their opinions which they've backed up with countless and abundance of evidence on a serious topic, and all you've done is come back from your extended well earn break no doubt with more of the same nonsense that got you booted in the first place. Shameful.