Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum - View Single Post

SpitfireIX · #**258** (**permalink**) 23-April-2006, 04:26 PM

The statements from Carrico and Perry do not refute my assertions

Sigh--I can see we're going to have to do this the hard way...

they both claimed later during WC testimony, as you emphasized, that they did not know if it was an entry or exit wound

But you said the autopsy doctors should have deferred to the Parkland doctors' opinions about whether it was an entry or an exit wound, and that that was an "inexcusable mistake." Now it develops that in fact they didn't know whether it was or not. Further, Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico both stated that the autopsy report was completely consistent with their observations at the time.

[edit: how does their stating that they didn't know if it was an entry or exit wound support your claim? It undermines it, because you assert that the throat wound couldn't possibly have been an exit wound, yet they both state that it could have been.]

And Dr. Perry even said In the press conference I indicated that the neck wound appeared like an entrance wound, and I based this mainly on its size and the fact that exit wounds in general tend to be somewhat ragged and somewhat different from entrance wounds.

Of course, you had to omit the rest of the quotation, where he states that "that was just a guess," because it completely destroys this part of your case. Also, at that time, Dr. Perry didn't know what type of weapon had been used, or where the shots had come from (see also Dr. McClelland's testimony following).

And Specter didn't need to point a gun at the doctors, with the absolutely ridiculous lengths that he took in a blatant attempt to mislead and stray from the actual known facts of the case....

It's only ridiculous to you because you postulate a conspiracy--anyone else who thinks it's ridiculous, please speak up.

The entire line of questioning based on unfounded assumptions is completely worthless. What's the point in asking for opinions based on whatever "facts" the questioner simply makes up?

All right, turbonium I specifically request that you list every "unfounded assumption" and "made-up fact" from Specter's question to Dr. Perry, and explain why each is so.

<snip of lame attempt to ridicule Specter's line of questioning>

Both doctors you cite did in fact describe the throat wound as an entry wound. Dr. Perry has already been mentioned, and Dr. Charles Carrico, who saw the throat wound even before Kennedy's shirt was removed, described the wound as a "small penetrating wound" in his 11/22/63 report (WCR 519; CE 392).

And, as you continue to ignore, again because it destroys this part of your argument, "that was just a guess."

And you failed to mention any other witnesses (just an oversight, I'm sure).

Your sarcastic insult is unwarranted. I failed to mention any other witnesses because of Dr. Perry's testimony that he and Dr. Carrico were the only ones to see the wound up close, which I highlighted, and you ignored. Further, going back and selecting relevant passages from the original sources is much more time-consuming than simply parroting factoids from conspiracist web sites. I gave these two as examples because I consider their testimony most relevant, particularly as Dr. Perry was the one who made the tracheostomy incision and who was consulted during the preparation of the autopsy report. Both men stated that the wound could have been an exit wound.

This also goes to an issue that you frankly appear to have trouble grasping--the burden of proof. You claim that the Single Bullet Theory is "utterly ludicrous," which I take to imply that you believe it is either "impossible," or "virtually impossible." It is not enough for you to show that it is merely improbable; you must demonstrate that it is at least "virtually impossible." Conversely, any unrefuted demonstration that the SBT is possible, even if unlikely, destroys your claim.

burbonium, please comment on your understanding of this concept.

In a taped 1979 interview, Dr. Charles Baxter, who was one of the Parkland doctors who saw the wound, said the wound "was no more than a pinpoint." He added that it was "made by a small caliber weapon. And it was an entry wound"

Quote:

Dr. Charles Baxter (WC)

Mr. Specter - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can the wound which you noticed on the President's neck?

Dr. Baxter - The wound on the neck was approximately an inch and a haft above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in my estimation, 4 to 5 mm. in widest diameter and was a spherical wound....

Mr. Specter - Were the characteristics of the wound on the neck sufficient to enable you to form an opinion with reasonable medical certainty as to what was the cause of the hole?

Dr. Baxter - Well, the wound was, I think, compatible with a gunshot wound. It did not appear to be a jagged wound such as one would expect with a very high velocity rifle bullet. We could not determine, or did not determine at that time whether this represented an entry or an exit wound. Judging from the caliber of the rifle that we later found or become acquainted with, this would more resemble a wound of entry. However, due to the density of the tissues of the neck and depending upon what a bullet of such caliber would pass through, the tissues that it would pass through on the way to the neck, I think that the wound could well represent either exit or entry wound. [emphasis added]

Dr. Ronald Jones described the President’s throat wound as being “compatible with an entrance wound.” In his handwritten report of November 22, 1963, the injury was noted as “a small hole in [the] anterior midline of [the] neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound” (WCH 20, page 333). Twenty-nine years later, he stated that “I would stand by my original impression.”

Quote:

Dr. Ronald Jones (WC)

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as precisely as you can the wound that you observed in the throat?

Dr. JONES - The wound in the throat was probably no larger than a quarter of an inch in diameter. There appeared to be no powder burn present, although this could have been masked by the amount of blood that was on the head and neck, although there was no obvious, amount of powder present. There appeared to be a very minimal amount of disruption of 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.[emphasis added]

Dr.Charles Crenshaw said...

"I considered the throat wound to be an entrance wound and the large head wound to be an exit wound. Along with many of my Parkland colleagues, I believed at the time that President Kennedy had been hit twice from the front."

Here is an item from McAdams' web site concerning a NY Times article about Crenshaw.

Quote:

John McAdams
How does Crenshaw know such things? According to the book, he had a central role in treating Kennedy. Yet when the New York Times called up Crenshaw in reponse to his book, he backed away from the book's claims as to how central he was, saying that Hansen and Shaw "took poetic license" on this issue. Crenshaw "admitted . . .that the role he played in Kennedy's case was minor." See the Times of May 26, 1992.

Additionally,

Quote:

John McAdams
This raises the issue of other things he claims to remember "clearly."

For example, Crenshaw claims he literally ran to the Emergency Room with Dr. McClelland, and that he and McClelland approached Dr. Perry (who was already treating Kennedy) together. See pages 73-78. He describes the head wound, and then recounts:

I also identified a small opening about the diameter of a pencil at the midline of his throat to be an entry bullet hole. There was no doubt in my mind about that wound. I had seen dozens of them in the emergency room. At that point, I knew that he had been shot at least twice. (p. 79)

Unfortunately for Crenshaw, McClelland told the Warren Commission that the tracheostomy was already begun and the throat wound obliterated when he arrived. The following is from 6H32:

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe, if anything, as to the status of the neck wound when you first arrived?

Dr. McCLELLAND. The neck wound, when I first arrived, was at this time converted into a tracheotomy incision. The skin incision had been made by Dr. Perry, and he told me—although I did not see that—that he had made the incision through a very small, perhaps less than one quarter inch in diameter wound in the neck.

Perry confirmed McClelland's account when he told the Warren Commission that, at the time he began the tracheostomy, McClelland was not present and he (Perry) instructed that he be called (3H369). He also said that McClelland arrived "shortly after" he had entered the neck (3H370). And further that Perry and Carrico were the only people who saw the unaltered wound (3H377).

So either Crenshaw's claim to have entered the ER with McClelland is untrue, or his claim to have seen the unaltered neck wound is untrue. Since McClelland confirms that he entered the Emergency Room with Crenshaw (6H31), it seems that Cranshaw gave a vivid description of a throat wound he never saw.

Dr. McClelland also had some interesting comments concerning speculation about the throat wound:

Quote:

Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland (WC)

Mr. SPECTER - And what facts did you have available either to you or to the other doctors whom you talked this over with, with respect to the nature of the wound, source of the wounds, and that sort of thing?

Dr. McCLELLAND - Immediately we had essentially no facts. We knew nothing of the number of bullets that had supposedly been fired. We knew nothing of the site from which the bullet had been fired, essentially none of the circumstances in the first few minutes, say, 20 or 30 minutes after the President was brought in, so that our initial impressions were based upon extremely incomplete information.

Mr. SPECTER - What were your initial impressions?

Dr. McCLELLAND - The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head. However, this required some straining of the imagination to imagine that this would happen, and it was much easier to explain the apparent trajectory by means of two bullets, which we later found out apparently had been fired, than by just one then, on which basis we were originally taking to explain it....

Mr. SPECTER - Now, had you actually observed the wound prior to the time the tracheotomy was performed on that neck wound?

Dr. McCLELLAND - No; my knowledge of the entrance wound, as I stated, in my former deposition, was merely from what Dr. Perry told me when I entered the room and began putting on a pair of surgical gloves to assist with the tracheotomy.
Dr. Perry looked up briefly and said that they had made an incision and were in the process of making an incision in the neck, which extended through the middle of the wound in question in the front of the neck.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, you have just characterized it in that last answer as an entrance wound.

Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, perhaps I shouldn't say the wound anyway, not the entrance wound--that might be a slip of the tongue.

Mr. SPECTER - Do you have a firm opinion at this time as to whether it is an entrance wound or exit wound or whatever?

Dr. McCLELLAND - Of course, my opinion now would be colored by everything that I've heard about it and seen since, but I'll say this, if I were simply looking at the wound again and had seen the wound in its unchanged state, and which I did not, and, of course, as I say, it had already been opened up by the tracheotomy incision when I saw the wound--but if I saw the wound in its state in which Dr. Perry described it to me, I would probably initially think this were an entrance wound, knowing nothing about the circumstances as I did at the time, but I really couldn't say--that's the whole point. This would merely be a calculated guess, and that's all, not knowing anything more than just seeing the wound itself....

Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything to add which you think might be helpful in any way to the Commission?

Dr. McCLELLAND - No; I think not except again to emphasize perhaps that some of our statements to the press about the nature of the wound may have been misleading, possibly--probably, because of our fault in telling it in such a way that they misinterpreted our certainty of being able to tell entrance from exit wounds, which as we say, we generally can make an educated guess about these things but cannot be certain about them. I think they attributed too much certainty to us about that. [emphasis added]

[continued next post...]
[edit: typo]