JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[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]

I can’t find the original post because I wrote the number down incorrectly but in it PI claimed that the Parkland Doctors proved that Kennedy’s throat wound was an entry rather than an exit wound.

My response:


Let’s start with the most junior Parkland Doctor, Joe Goldstrich who was just 25 at the time. In an interview in 2020 in Medpage Today he said:

“When I first saw that wound in Trauma Room One, I did not know anything about ballistics and entrance and exit wounds. Then I went into the army in 1965, and I was stationed in the Dominican Republic. After a crash course in entrance and exit wounds by the field hospital commander, I was sent to examine the wound of a Dominican who'd been shot by an American MP. Based on what I had learned, it was clear to me that the Dominican was shot in the back. In that moment, I realized that JFK's throat wound was probably an entrance wound because the margins were so clean and the wound was so small.”

So the least experienced Doctor went for an entrance wound. A Doctor who described himself as nothing more than a ‘gopher’ on that particular day.

Dr. Malcolm Perry said to the Warren Commission (and Perry saw the wound as closely as anyone as he performed the tracheotomy):

"full jacketed bullet without deformation passing through the skin would leave a similar wound for an exit and entrance wound and with the facts which you have made available and with these assumptions, I believe that it was an exit wound."

Yes, he initially thought that it might have been an entrance wound at the time but he didn’t have full information. He wasn’t examining or analysing wounds. He was trying to save the President’s life.

Let’s try Dr. Carrico at the Warren Commission:

Specter: …Now based on those facts was the appearance of the wound in your opinion consistent with being an exit wound?

Carrico: It certainly was. It could have been under the circumstances.

Specter: And assuming that all the facts which I have given you to be true, do you have an opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty as whether, in fact, the wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound?

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

Dr. Jenkins also at the Warren Commission:

“….that I thought this was a wound of exit because it was not a clean wound, and by ‘clean’ clearly demarcated, round, punctuate wound which is the usual wound of an wound, made by a missile at some speed.”

Dr. Baxter at the Warren Commission:

“ We could not determine, or did not determine at that time whether this represented an entry or an exit wound.”

“ ….I think that the wound could well represent either exit or entry wound.”

Dr. Peters couldn’t comment because the tracheotomy had already been performed by the time that he arrived in the trauma room.

Dr. Jones at the Warren Commission:

“ The wound in the throat was probably no larger than a quarter of an inch in diameter. There appeared to be no powder burns present, although this could have been masked by the amount of blood that was on the head and the neck, although there was no obvious amount of powder present. There appeared to be a very minimum amount of disruption or interruption of the surrounding skin. There appeared to be relatively smooth edges around the wound, and if this occurred as a result of a missile, you would have probably thought it was a missile of very low velocity and probably could have been compatible with a bone fragment of either - probably exiting from the neck, but it was a very small, smooth wound.”

Dr. Dulany arrived after the tracheotomy incision and so didn’t see the throat wound.

Dr. McClelland arrived after the tracheotomy incision and so didn’t see the throat wound.

Dr. Bashour arrived after the tracheotomy incision and so didn’t see the throat wound.




So it’s difficult to see how anyone could make your claim of a proven entry wound from the Parkland Doctors?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was no doubt regarding her bullet fragment statement tho. Together with Connally and other witnesses the MBT myth has been shown already .

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.

[FISHY1118]

If it’s considered fair to try and dismiss someone like Brennan for not providing an inch perfect description I don’t really see why it’s wrong to show extreme caution when genuine doubt has been shown about the validity of a witness. We have to view them as individuals and in context. If we compile a list of provably ‘dodgy’ witness it can’t be avoided that they are disproportionately on the conspiracy side.

There was no doubt regarding her bullet fragment statement tho. Together with Connally and other witnesses the MBT myth has been shown already .

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have no way of knowing if she was exaggerating or not herlock ,that seems to be a very negative stance if you ask me. We might as well say that every time we dont agree with any witness from now on.

The case is rife with contradictions from start to finish where the warren commission is concerned which has already been shown to be the case on many amny post over this entire thread .

If it’s considered fair to try and dismiss someone like Brennan for not providing an inch perfect description I don’t really see why it’s wrong to show extreme caution when genuine doubt has been shown about the validity of a witness. We have to view them as individuals and in context. If we compile a list of provably ‘dodgy’ witness it can’t be avoided that they are disproportionately on the conspiracy side.

[FISHY1118]

It was simply something said by a person who clearly exaggerated her involvement. If you wish to assume that she was correct when her statement isn’t backed up by anyone else then it’s up to you Fishy. The case is rife with witnesses who came forward with obvious nonsense.

You have no way of knowing if she was exaggerating or not herlock ,that seems to be a very negative stance if you ask me. We might as well say that every time we dont agree with any witness from now on.

The case is rife with contradictions from start to finish where the warren commission is concerned ,which has already been shown to be the case on many many post over this entire thread .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wrong , no one has shown nurse Bells statements regarding the fragments of the magic bullet to be wrong .

Especially not Herlock.

It was simply something said by a person who clearly exaggerated her involvement. If you wish to assume that she was correct when her statement isn’t backed up by anyone else then it’s up to you Fishy. The case is rife with witnesses who came forward with obvious nonsense.

[FISHY1118]

Herlock has shown this is false - even other conspiracy theorists discount Bell.

Wrong , no one has shown nurse Bells statements regarding the fragments of the magic bullet to be wrong .

Especially not Herlock.

[Fiver]

Nurse Bells testimony about the magic bullet has never been disputed .

Herlock has shown this is false - even other conspiracy theorists discount Bell.

[FISHY1118]

A woman who lied about pushing in and getting the Doctor to pause whilst trying to save the President’d life to show her the wounds? A woman who sad that it was her impression that the right side of Kennedy’s head was in tact. Dr Jenkins (who was there) even doubted that the doctors got a good look at the head wound.

Im done on this particular aspect of the case. Like Crenshaw and others Nurse Bell was very clearly one of those people who tried to magnify her own involvement. The case is full of people like this. Bell can and should be ignored as about as unreliable as it gets.

If you want to believe her that’s fine.

Well ill just continue on a little longer then .

Nurse Bells testimony about the magic bullet has never been disputed .

She was there on the day, we were not .

There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve her testimony.

This has all been discussed at lengh already in the what should be renamed the "everybody lied , was a moron or never existed thread ."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nurse Bell ,an eyewitness on the day, in the operating room , no reason to say anything other than what she saw . Yer Bloody excellent choice.

A woman who lied about pushing in and getting the Doctor to pause whilst trying to save the President’d life to show her the wounds? A woman who sad that it was her impression that the right side of Kennedy’s head was in tact. Dr Jenkins (who was there) even doubted that the doctors got a good look at the head wound.

Im done on this particular aspect of the case. Like Crenshaw and others Nurse Bell was very clearly one of those people who tried to magnify her own involvement. The case is full of people like this. Bell can and should be ignored as about as unreliable as it gets.

If you want to believe her that’s fine.

[FISHY1118]

Ok. Nurse Bell the ballistic expert. Good choice.

Nurse Bell ,an eyewitness on the day, in the operating room , no reason to say anything other than what she saw . Yer Bloody excellent choice.