Leaked Early FBI Autopsy Report
On or about December 18, 1963, accounts circulated in newspapers from a leaked FBI autopsy report that apparently went over the AP (and UPI) wire. I present here various accounts from different newspapers or other publications as to what that report said, which is very different from what the "official" Warren Commission autopsy report said. This was before the story changed with the publication of the Warren Report in late September, 1964.
On or about December 18, 1963, accounts circulated in newspapers from a leaked FBI autopsy report that apparently went over the AP (and UPI) wire. I present here various accounts from different newspapers or other publications as to what that report said, which is very different from what the "official" Warren Commission autopsy report said. This was before the story changed with the publication of the Warren Report in late September, 1964.
-----
Introduction
Most of the newspaper clippings contained in this article were obtained via newspapers.com. However, the Washington Post and New York Times clippings could not be obtained that way. The WaPo clipping I found posted on a website by another researcher, and the NYT clipping I obtained by signing up for a subscription with a free trial (which I intend to cancel later).
There seem to be two sources for these accounts as published: An AP (Frank Cormier) source and the WaPo/UPI (Nate Haseltine) source. Many of the newspaper clippings citing "AP" are essentially identical, changing only the headline, although the New York Times article contains some slight differences from the other AP sources. The smaller local papers, however, seem to print the AP source identically.
There is also the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) version, which aligns closer to the WaPo/UPI version.
That the "reliable source familiar with the autopsy findings" who leaked the autopsy information was associated with the FBI becomes clear when we read the second NYT article on the autopsy, printed a day after the NYT printed the first one. The source remains unnamed throughout all the different accounts, but may have been J. Edgar Hoover himself, who was known to leak certain information to the Press. Hoover was high enough in the chain that he would be believed by whomever he leaked the information to, and also high enough not to have to worry about losing his job or some such for leaking. I suspect the leaker was Hoover, at any rate, though I can't prove it.
These accounts are important because they describe the "first" bullet as having not penetrated very deeply, only "2-3 inches," possibly after "first glancing off some part of the presidential limousine." This bullet was variously reported as "recovered during the autopsy," found "embedded deep in the shoulder," or "found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital."
The "second" bullet, caused the "only" head shot that the leaked report envisioned. This was variously reported as being recovered from the limousine, or from the stretcher at Parkland.
Aside from the discrepancies over where the bullets that struck Kennedy were found, there are important pieces of information in the leaked autopsy report that remains consist across the accounts, as we will see.
Here are the articles, most dated on or around December 18, 1963, I begin with accounts from the more widely circulated papers, the Washington Post and the New York Times, followed by the papers with smaller circulation, and then the somewhat later (January 4, 1964) JAMA account..
Finally I'll post the accounts of the autopsy as supposedly presented by the FBI agents present (James Siebert and Francis O'Neill) and how they differ from the December, 1963 accounts of the leaked report. These accounts, which do not at all match the December 18, 1963-January 4, 1964 accounts, I believe to be fraudulent reports created to support the Warren Report fiction of what happened rather than the actual original report/s.
Most of the newspaper clippings contained in this article were obtained via newspapers.com. However, the Washington Post and New York Times clippings could not be obtained that way. The WaPo clipping I found posted on a website by another researcher, and the NYT clipping I obtained by signing up for a subscription with a free trial (which I intend to cancel later).
There seem to be two sources for these accounts as published: An AP (Frank Cormier) source and the WaPo/UPI (Nate Haseltine) source. Many of the newspaper clippings citing "AP" are essentially identical, changing only the headline, although the New York Times article contains some slight differences from the other AP sources. The smaller local papers, however, seem to print the AP source identically.
There is also the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) version, which aligns closer to the WaPo/UPI version.
That the "reliable source familiar with the autopsy findings" who leaked the autopsy information was associated with the FBI becomes clear when we read the second NYT article on the autopsy, printed a day after the NYT printed the first one. The source remains unnamed throughout all the different accounts, but may have been J. Edgar Hoover himself, who was known to leak certain information to the Press. Hoover was high enough in the chain that he would be believed by whomever he leaked the information to, and also high enough not to have to worry about losing his job or some such for leaking. I suspect the leaker was Hoover, at any rate, though I can't prove it.
These accounts are important because they describe the "first" bullet as having not penetrated very deeply, only "2-3 inches," possibly after "first glancing off some part of the presidential limousine." This bullet was variously reported as "recovered during the autopsy," found "embedded deep in the shoulder," or "found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital."
The "second" bullet, caused the "only" head shot that the leaked report envisioned. This was variously reported as being recovered from the limousine, or from the stretcher at Parkland.
Aside from the discrepancies over where the bullets that struck Kennedy were found, there are important pieces of information in the leaked autopsy report that remains consist across the accounts, as we will see.
Here are the articles, most dated on or around December 18, 1963, I begin with accounts from the more widely circulated papers, the Washington Post and the New York Times, followed by the papers with smaller circulation, and then the somewhat later (January 4, 1964) JAMA account..
Finally I'll post the accounts of the autopsy as supposedly presented by the FBI agents present (James Siebert and Francis O'Neill) and how they differ from the December, 1963 accounts of the leaked report. These accounts, which do not at all match the December 18, 1963-January 4, 1964 accounts, I believe to be fraudulent reports created to support the Warren Report fiction of what happened rather than the actual original report/s.
-----
The Washington Post
I made. subscription to the Washington Post for the sole purpose of accessing this article through their Archives.
The Washington Post published this article on December 18. It is somewhat different from the New York Times article posted below, and the other articles using "AP" as its source. The WaPo article was apparently picked up by UPI and sent to other papers (as indicated by the Vinita Daily Journal posted below.
The WaPo staff writer, Nate Haseltine, apparently reported on medical issues for the WaPo.
Key points:
Some of that, I contend, is pure fiction to cover up the Secret Service AR-15 accident as well as the pervasive inaction to the first shot. But I believe that the throat wound being caused by a fragment
Here is the article:
I made. subscription to the Washington Post for the sole purpose of accessing this article through their Archives.
The Washington Post published this article on December 18. It is somewhat different from the New York Times article posted below, and the other articles using "AP" as its source. The WaPo article was apparently picked up by UPI and sent to other papers (as indicated by the Vinita Daily Journal posted below.
The WaPo staff writer, Nate Haseltine, apparently reported on medical issues for the WaPo.
Key points:
- "President Kennedy was shot twice, both times from the rear.
- The first bullet was "found deep in his shoulder."
- The second bullet "tore off the right rear portion of his head" and "smashed off the lower right back side (occipto-parietal region) of the head."
- The second bullet was "so destructive as to be 'completely incompatible with life.'"
- A fragment (of this head shot bullet) "was deflected and passed out the front of the throat, creating an erroneous belief that he was shot from two angles."
- The back shoulder wound was some "5 to 7 inches below the collar line." "The second, the lethal bullet, smashed off the lower right back side (occipto-parietal region) of the head.
- "The so small and clean wound at the front of the throat led to open speculation that the President may have been shot from two sides, which the autopsy showed to be false."
- "The shot that killed was the third one fired; the second struck Gov. John Connally, although it too may have been aimed at the President.
- "Both bullets that struck the President were tied by ballistics tests to the rifle found in that building where Lee Harvey Oswald worked."
- "The one bullet that struck Gov. Connallly...could not be similarly traced to any rifle because it fragmented. One fragment then struck the windshield of the car in which he and the President were riding. Recovered fragments the bullet indicated it was of the same kind as those that struck the President." (So the Connally bullet was the fragmented one? Presumably the nose and tail fragments came from that bullet?)
Some of that, I contend, is pure fiction to cover up the Secret Service AR-15 accident as well as the pervasive inaction to the first shot. But I believe that the throat wound being caused by a fragment
Here is the article:
from the Washington Post, December 18, 1963, p. A3
Note the phrase about how this autopsy report "clears up confusions over whether the President was shot once or twice, and particularly whether one shot had been in the neck from the front," because "clearing up confusion" is a phrase we will encounter again.
-----
The New York Times
The NYT accounts of the autopsy are very interesting because they printed three articles of interest:
December 18, 1963
In the December 18 article, there is no mention of the back bullet being recovered in the autopsy, as some of the other accounts describe, although it does say that the wound was shallow, that the bullet had only "penetrated two or three inches" and that it "might have ricocheted off some part of the limousine before striking the President, because it did not penetrate deeply." The December 18 article also reported that "the throat wound was caused by the emergence of a metal fragment or piece of bone resulting from the fatal shot in the head"--which agrees with the AP accounts. However, this article also says that the "second" bullet "tore open his forehead." Interesting that the torn open forehead is mentioned here, and not in the other accounts, especially since the Parkland doctors did not describe any torn open forehead (although one doctor did mention that lacerations to the scalp that extended towards the front of the head on the left side). Note that despite the "AP" attribution, this article is not a word-for-word repeat of what the other "AP" articles state.
The next day's article, December 19 ("special to the New York Times) has the headline "Officials Silent on Kennedy Shots" with the very interesting sub-heading "Autopsy Said to Show Both Hit Him From the Rear." That "officials (were) silent" might be explained by the gag-orders that participants were forced to sign, but all shots occurring "from the rear" contradicts the same-day news reporting of the assassination occurring just after the limousine had turned onto Elm, as well as the "occipital" or "occipital-parietal" blow-out seen by the doctors. But of course, by this time, with Oswald dead, the cover-up to hide the Secret Service inaction to that frontal shot (as well as the AR-15 slam fire shot) was well underway. Nevertheless, despite "officials remaining silent," reiterates some of the points from the day before--i.e., that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from (one) head shot, that the back wound was shallow (two or three inches deep), and there was the possibility that the bullet that caused the back wound had "ricocheted off some part of the limousine before striking the President, because it did not penetrate deeply." Importantly, this article describes the (single) head shot bullet as having "entered the back of the skull and tore open his forehead"--something that the Parkland and Bethesda people did not see. Perhaps this was a "scalp flap" that remain closed while Kennedy was at Parkland? Or perhaps this "torn open forehead" was a lie meant to reinforce the idea that all shots as coming from the rear.
But then we see how the story changed. The NYT's September 28, 1964 article came out, the day after the Warren report was released, and tells a rather different story from the leaked FBI account. And an indication that a lie is being told somewhere is when the story keeps changing. And especially when it changes as much as this one does.
Key points in the December 18, 1963 article:
The NYT accounts of the autopsy are very interesting because they printed three articles of interest:
- one article printed on December 18, 1963 that is pretty much in line with the other AP accounts that I post below
- another article on December 19, 1963 apparently to double-check the AP's "reliable source," somewhat walks back the previous day's information. Remember Custer's and other autopsy participants' "gag orders"? That probably explains why the "officials remained silent." However, despite the "officials" they apparently sought to verify the previous day's information being "silent," the article still reinforces certain information--i.e., the "all shots from behind" narrative.
- an article published September 28, 1963, the day after the Warren report was released, which contradicts the previous information and raises no questions.
December 18, 1963
In the December 18 article, there is no mention of the back bullet being recovered in the autopsy, as some of the other accounts describe, although it does say that the wound was shallow, that the bullet had only "penetrated two or three inches" and that it "might have ricocheted off some part of the limousine before striking the President, because it did not penetrate deeply." The December 18 article also reported that "the throat wound was caused by the emergence of a metal fragment or piece of bone resulting from the fatal shot in the head"--which agrees with the AP accounts. However, this article also says that the "second" bullet "tore open his forehead." Interesting that the torn open forehead is mentioned here, and not in the other accounts, especially since the Parkland doctors did not describe any torn open forehead (although one doctor did mention that lacerations to the scalp that extended towards the front of the head on the left side). Note that despite the "AP" attribution, this article is not a word-for-word repeat of what the other "AP" articles state.
The next day's article, December 19 ("special to the New York Times) has the headline "Officials Silent on Kennedy Shots" with the very interesting sub-heading "Autopsy Said to Show Both Hit Him From the Rear." That "officials (were) silent" might be explained by the gag-orders that participants were forced to sign, but all shots occurring "from the rear" contradicts the same-day news reporting of the assassination occurring just after the limousine had turned onto Elm, as well as the "occipital" or "occipital-parietal" blow-out seen by the doctors. But of course, by this time, with Oswald dead, the cover-up to hide the Secret Service inaction to that frontal shot (as well as the AR-15 slam fire shot) was well underway. Nevertheless, despite "officials remaining silent," reiterates some of the points from the day before--i.e., that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from (one) head shot, that the back wound was shallow (two or three inches deep), and there was the possibility that the bullet that caused the back wound had "ricocheted off some part of the limousine before striking the President, because it did not penetrate deeply." Importantly, this article describes the (single) head shot bullet as having "entered the back of the skull and tore open his forehead"--something that the Parkland and Bethesda people did not see. Perhaps this was a "scalp flap" that remain closed while Kennedy was at Parkland? Or perhaps this "torn open forehead" was a lie meant to reinforce the idea that all shots as coming from the rear.
But then we see how the story changed. The NYT's September 28, 1964 article came out, the day after the Warren report was released, and tells a rather different story from the leaked FBI account. And an indication that a lie is being told somewhere is when the story keeps changing. And especially when it changes as much as this one does.
Key points in the December 18, 1963 article:
- The first shot struck Kennedy in the back and did not hit any vital organ.
- The second shot hit Kennedy (after another one hit Connally) "hit the President in the back of the skull and proved fatal."
- If this account of the two wounds "is correct, it would suggest that the slain president did, very briefly, have a chance to survive after the first bullet struck him."
- The first bullet penetrated the back "two or three inches" and "was not likely to have inflicted a fatal wound."
- The first bullet "might have ricocheted off some part of the limousine before striking the President, because it did not penetrate deeply."
- "The second bullet to strike Mr. Kennedy...entered the back of the skull and tore open his forehead."
- "Many observers were puzzled from the outset by the report of a throat wound, since it was well established that the assassin was firing from above and behind the President."
from the New York Times, December 18, 1963, p. 27.
There are two important differences between this NYT account and the WaPo account:
The idea that it was "well established that the assassin was firing from above and behind the President is nonsense. First, note the FBI's "Visual Aid" model with a string-line running from the TSBD window to the doll's throat:
- This NYT account, unlike the WaPo account, does not describe any bullet being "found deep in the shoulder" as the previous WaPo account gives. This NYT account doesn't
- In this NYT account, now it is Kennedy's forehead that the bullet "tore open," not the "right rear portion of the head" that the bullet tore open, as was reported in WaPo.
The idea that it was "well established that the assassin was firing from above and behind the President is nonsense. First, note the FBI's "Visual Aid" model with a string-line running from the TSBD window to the doll's throat:
From "Commission Document 298, FBI Letter from Director of 20 Jan 1964 with Visual Aides Brochure" with my annotated red line leading to the model's forehead rather than throat, immediately above the FBI model's string line leading to the throat. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=26 with close up of string termination
Well, the string should have run to the model's forehead instead of throat, but otherwise it shows that Oswald did have a frontal shot, even after the limousine had just turned the corner. (The follow-up car was just over halfway through the turn at the time.)
At any rate, it was erroneous to say that it was "well-established" the all shots came from behind. Some witnesses did report something as occurring when the limousine was at this point, "firecrackers" or "paper" flying around in or out of the car--things like that. There was even same-day reporting by Dan Rather that this was where the assassination occurred. These accounts can be found in https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/what-happened---shot-1.html.
December 19, 1963
As for the NYT, the next day we get a sort of walk-back on the previous day's account, with the new article "Officials Silent on Kennedy Shots" which comes along with the emphasis that "Both (shots) Hit Him From the Rear." However, we also get confirmation that the previous day's reporting came from the FBI (possibly from J. Edgar Hoover himself). And, despite officials declining to comment and remaining silent, we get a reiteration that "two bullets had hit Mr. Kennedy from the rear" and "The pathologists were said to have found that a first bullet hit the President in the back. The bullet lodged in the body." In fact, I contend that this bullet from the first shot fragmented on impact, with the largest piece being "lodged in the body" until it was lifted for X-rays, and smaller pieces being found in the limousine, and with the smallest pieces remaining in the brain. The December 19 article reiterates that "A fragment of this (single head shot) bullet, according to the reports, passed out the front of his throat. This presumably would account for various reports suggesting--on the basis of the hurried observations of doctors in Dallas after the shooting there on Nov. 22--that there was an 'entry wound' in the front of the throat." There is also mention of another FBI report to the "special commission" that both bullets came from the TSBD.
The December 19 article mentions that the pathologists' (autopsy) report was "now in the hands of the Secret Service" and would be given to the Commission later. This, in my view, is the equivalent of putting a criminal in charge of the evidence before his trial.
Here is the December 19 article:
from the New York Times, December 19, 1963, p. 23
It may simply have been an abundance of caution on the part of the New York Times that caused this little walk-back--which didn't really walk back anything. However, I think it's possible that different agencies (in this case, the FBI and the CIA) may have been at odds with each other on what to report, and there was a desire, on the CIA's part, at least, to keep options open. The CIA, by this point, was fully involved in covering up the Secret Service mistakes and accidents (e.g., the Zapruder film alteration, which largely occurred immediately after Oswald's death), whereas the FBI (except for the report leaker--Hoover?) may have been more reluctant to participate and was trying to make a story that was closer to the truth, or may have had different views on how the cover-up should proceed. In any case, the Tague wounding had not yet become public knowledge when these December articles were written, although one or both agencies may have been aware of it.
But let's return to the New York Times.
September 28, 1964
On September 28, 1964 the day after the Warren Report was released, the NYT published the article below. At this point, there are still two bullets said to hit Kennedy, but now there is no shallow back wound, and "each of (the two bullets to hit Kennedy) caused (both) an entrance and an exit wound" (rather than the back fragment only penetrating 2-3 inches and variously being "recovered" during the autopsy or being found in the limousine or on the Parkland stretcher) and now there is no mention of any small fragment of bullet or bone being deflected and exiting at the throat. Moreover, now the "medical and physical evidence gave no way of proving which (bullet) struck first," whereas before, the back wound clearly happened first, and the head wound clearly happened second.
So now one of the bullets hit the "neck" (instead of "shoulder")? And now they don't know which of these two bullets was first or second? And now the throat wound was apparently caused by an intact bullet rather than a small fragment? And now the back/shoulder wound was no longer shallow (only 2-3 inches deep)? And now the "bullet" that caused it was no longer "lodged" in the body or otherwise "recovered" during the autopsy?
The story changed. And a changing story is indicative of a lie. I think the earlier leaked FBI account was closer to the truth than the later Warren Commission version.
So, far from having "ended any confusion," as the article claims the Warren report does, it has created more confusion by contradicting its own earlier reporting on the autopsy--which was closer to the truth, but still not quite there.
Here is the article published the day after the Warren Report was released:
But let's return to the New York Times.
September 28, 1964
On September 28, 1964 the day after the Warren Report was released, the NYT published the article below. At this point, there are still two bullets said to hit Kennedy, but now there is no shallow back wound, and "each of (the two bullets to hit Kennedy) caused (both) an entrance and an exit wound" (rather than the back fragment only penetrating 2-3 inches and variously being "recovered" during the autopsy or being found in the limousine or on the Parkland stretcher) and now there is no mention of any small fragment of bullet or bone being deflected and exiting at the throat. Moreover, now the "medical and physical evidence gave no way of proving which (bullet) struck first," whereas before, the back wound clearly happened first, and the head wound clearly happened second.
So now one of the bullets hit the "neck" (instead of "shoulder")? And now they don't know which of these two bullets was first or second? And now the throat wound was apparently caused by an intact bullet rather than a small fragment? And now the back/shoulder wound was no longer shallow (only 2-3 inches deep)? And now the "bullet" that caused it was no longer "lodged" in the body or otherwise "recovered" during the autopsy?
The story changed. And a changing story is indicative of a lie. I think the earlier leaked FBI account was closer to the truth than the later Warren Commission version.
So, far from having "ended any confusion," as the article claims the Warren report does, it has created more confusion by contradicting its own earlier reporting on the autopsy--which was closer to the truth, but still not quite there.
Here is the article published the day after the Warren Report was released:
from the New York Times, September 28, 1963. p. 17.
I should also note that investigative journalist Carl Bernstein specifically mentioned the New York Times as one of the media companies that had close ties with the CIA in his exposé "The CIA and the Media": "Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne (sic., Time) Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service....By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc." (https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977)
Would the New York Times have been willing to go along with CIA instructions to praise the Warren Report and bury their original reporting into a memory hole? I think they would. The NYT's ongoing relationship with the CIA may explain why this news agency didn't question the gross conflicts between the Warren Report's version of things, and the earlier FBI version of things.
Would the New York Times have been willing to go along with CIA instructions to praise the Warren Report and bury their original reporting into a memory hole? I think they would. The NYT's ongoing relationship with the CIA may explain why this news agency didn't question the gross conflicts between the Warren Report's version of things, and the earlier FBI version of things.
-----
Alamogordo Daily News
Now we get into some more obscure newspapers reporting on the same leaked FBI Report accounts that went over the AP wire. From these accounts, we get some slightly different or additional details than we got from the NYT or WaPo accounts.
It's not immediately clear whether the Alamogordo Daily News article attribution was "AP" or "UPI," but the "severely damaged forehead" and criticism of the Secret Service at the end were more in line with the AP/Cromier accounts. However, the first bullet being found on the Parkland stretcher seems more in line with the UPI accounts than the AP accounts of it being "embedded in the body" or "recovered during the autopsy." (I'd really like to get my hands on the original AP and UPI wires!)
Key points in the Alamogordo Daily News article:
Now we get into some more obscure newspapers reporting on the same leaked FBI Report accounts that went over the AP wire. From these accounts, we get some slightly different or additional details than we got from the NYT or WaPo accounts.
It's not immediately clear whether the Alamogordo Daily News article attribution was "AP" or "UPI," but the "severely damaged forehead" and criticism of the Secret Service at the end were more in line with the AP/Cromier accounts. However, the first bullet being found on the Parkland stretcher seems more in line with the UPI accounts than the AP accounts of it being "embedded in the body" or "recovered during the autopsy." (I'd really like to get my hands on the original AP and UPI wires!)
Key points in the Alamogordo Daily News article:
- The first shot struck Kennedy "in the back" and "penetrated two or three inches."
- The bullet causing the back wound "may...have entered Kennedy's back after first glancing off some part of the presidential limousine, since its penetration was not deep when compared with the damage done by the other shots fired by the assassin."
- Now, instead of the back bullet being "embedded in the shoulder," we get a mention of the Parkland stretcher bullet: "This first bullet was said to have been the one that was recovered from the stretcher on which Kennedy was carried into the hospital."
- The second bullet to strike Kennedy (the third bullet fired) "was recovered from the limousine."
- The second bullet to strike Kennedy left a large hole in the back of the President's head, destroyed considerable brain tissue and severely damaged the forehead." This statement is extremely interesting because it mentions the "large hole in the back of the President's head" and a "severely damaged...forehead."
- Note a bit of criticism towards the Secret Service: "Kennedy's life might...have been saved had someone shielded him or knocked him to the floor of the car in the interval before he was struck in the head...Secret Service agents are trained to react in such a fashion, but none was close enough to the President to intervene."
Alamogordo Daily News, Alamogordo, NM, p. 01
Alamogordo Daily News, Alamogordo, NM, p. 08
-----
Evening Herald
One thing I especially like about this account is that we now have the name of the AP reporter, Frank Cormier, as well as a bit of information about his source.)
Key points in the AP (Frank Cormier) Accounts:
So unlike some accounts where the bullet causing the shallow back wound "was found buried deep in the shoulder," in this account it was found on the Parkland stretcher. And the head shot bullet was found in the limousine.
One thing I especially like about this account is that we now have the name of the AP reporter, Frank Cormier, as well as a bit of information about his source.)
Key points in the AP (Frank Cormier) Accounts:
- The source was "familiar with the autopsy finings reports" and was "fully acquainted with the results of a post-mortem examination conducted at the Bethesda, Md., Naval Hospital." (Note the source wasn't present during the autopsy, but was "fully aware" of what the reports said--which Hoover would have been.)
- The bullet causing the back wound penetrated only "two or three inches."
- This bullet may have first glanced "off some part of the limousine."
- This bullet was said to be the Parkland "stretcher" bullet.
- The second bullet to strike Kennedy caused "a large hole at the back of the head" (odd, since it was suppose to have entered at the back of the head.
- The second bullet "severely damaged the forehead." (Odd that no Parkland or Bethesda witnesses described a "severely damaged" forehead.)
- This bullet was recovered "from the limousine."
- This report discusses the Connally shot, which was not really discussed at the autopsy (although Hoover would certainly have known about it).
- Some criticism towards the Secret Service ("Kennedy's life might..have been saved had someone shielded him or knocked him to the floor of the car in the interval before he was struck in the head." (Hoover had an interest in elevating the reputation of his own agency over that of any other.)
So unlike some accounts where the bullet causing the shallow back wound "was found buried deep in the shoulder," in this account it was found on the Parkland stretcher. And the head shot bullet was found in the limousine.
Evening Herald, Rock Hill, SC, p. 01
-----
Ironwood Daily Globe
This account, with the same "Frank Cormier" by-line, is identical to the one immediately above, albeit with a different headline.
This account, with the same "Frank Cormier" by-line, is identical to the one immediately above, albeit with a different headline.
Ironwood Daily Globe, Ironwood, MI, p. 01
-----
Pottsville Republican
This account is also pretty much the same as the two immediately above, with the exception of no by-line, different headline, and sub-headings added within the article.
This account is also pretty much the same as the two immediately above, with the exception of no by-line, different headline, and sub-headings added within the article.
Pottsville Republican, Pottsville, PA, p. 16
-----
Rocky Mount Telegram
This is anther identical version to the AP/Cromier accounts with a different headline. Notice how whoever gave the article its headline describes it as a "new theory." I'm not sure what the "old theory" was--a throat shot deflected upwards to exit at the back of the head, perhaps, or the Malcolm Kilduff head point from the front while saying "a bullet right in the brain." But someone was paying enough attention to call the leaked autopsy report a "new theory."
This is anther identical version to the AP/Cromier accounts with a different headline. Notice how whoever gave the article its headline describes it as a "new theory." I'm not sure what the "old theory" was--a throat shot deflected upwards to exit at the back of the head, perhaps, or the Malcolm Kilduff head point from the front while saying "a bullet right in the brain." But someone was paying enough attention to call the leaked autopsy report a "new theory."
Rocky Mount Telegram, Rocky Mount, NC p01
Rocky Mount Telegram, Rocky Mount, NC, p. 02
-----
Vinita Daily Journal (UPI Account)
This one is different from the others, citing "UPI" in its by-line. It identifies the WaPo reporter Nate Haseltine as the WaPo's "medical writer," who said that this leaked report was the "'as yet unofficial' findings of the team of pathologists who performed the autopsy." So we have that bit of information that the WaPo article didn't have.
It adds that "the hospital, the Pentagon, and the White House refused to comment," adding that WH Press Secretary Pierre Salinger said, "I'm not going to discuss it."
In other words, everyone was neither confirming, nor denying the leaked report.
Key points (mirroring the WaPo article):
This one is different from the others, citing "UPI" in its by-line. It identifies the WaPo reporter Nate Haseltine as the WaPo's "medical writer," who said that this leaked report was the "'as yet unofficial' findings of the team of pathologists who performed the autopsy." So we have that bit of information that the WaPo article didn't have.
It adds that "the hospital, the Pentagon, and the White House refused to comment," adding that WH Press Secretary Pierre Salinger said, "I'm not going to discuss it."
In other words, everyone was neither confirming, nor denying the leaked report.
Key points (mirroring the WaPo article):
- "The pathologists were reported to have found that the first bullet struck the Chief Executive high in the back of the shoulder, about 5 to 7 inches below the line of his collar and became embedded deep in his shoulder." Otherwise no mention of where any bullets were found.
- "The post-mortem examination was said to show that the second bullet which struck the President tore the right rear portion of his head so destructively that it was 'completely incompatible with life,' according to the (WaPo) newspaper."
- "It was a deflected fragment from this second bullet that passed out through Kennedy's throat, just above the collar line, giving rise to speculation that the President may have been shot from two angles..."
- "(The autopsy report) said both bullets struck the President from behind."
The Vinita Daily Journal, Vinita, OK, p. 01
-----
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), January 4, 1964 published a version of the early leaked autopsy report.
Key points:
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), January 4, 1964 published a version of the early leaked autopsy report.
Key points:
- "the first bullet reportedly hit Kennedy in the upper part of the right back shoulder. The bullet did not go through his body and was recovered during the autopsy."
- "Kennedy might have survived the first bullet, which may have ricocheted off the limousine before striking him."
- "The third bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the right side of the head. A small fragment of this bullet also angled down and passed out through Kennedy's throat."
- "The autopsy report is now in the hands of the Secret Service. It was expected that it would be included in a report which the Treasury Department (which controls the Secret Service) will send the report to the special commission...headed by Chief Justice Warren."
From https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1161559
Summary and Reflections
All of the accounts (newspapers, above, JAMA below) describe the back wound as having been caused by a bullet that "glanced off" or "ricocheted off" some part of the limousine, to then create a shallow wound.
So we've got multiple news accounts (NYT, WaPo, AP, UPI) all saying much the same thing:
My contentions:
I suspect that the variation between accounts, especially between the WaPo/UPI and AP versions, was that the leaker (Hoover?) made calls or spoke with different people, and may have said something slightly different each time he spoke. Hence the differences between bullets being found "in the body" versus "in the limousine" versus "on the hospital stretcher." When he spoke with medical writer Nate Haseltine at the WaPo, for example, Haseltine may have known that exit wounds are bigger than entrance wounds, and when a large hole at the rear of the head was reported by the leaker, Haseltine may have stated as much and then been told, "Oh, yes, there was damage to the forehead. Uh, severe damage. Uh, tore the forehead open." or something like that, with some improvising done on the part of the leaker. Or, as another example, "Wasn't there a bullet found on a Parkland stretcher?" "Oh, yes, uh, that came out of the head during cardiac massage." Like that. But I believe there was a general consensus by the in charge to perpetuate the fiction that all shots came "from behind" in order to hide the large Secret Service inaction to the first shot (e.g., Ralph Yarborough being "lulled into a false sense of security for the President's safety" because the Secret Service men were so slow to respond--see https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/ralph-yarborough.html).
Note the accounts that the autopsy report was in the hands of the Secret Service. This puts the evidence in control of those most interested in covering it up. Remember the rumors of a Secret Service "burn party" on December 6 or 7, 1963? (https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/multiple-stretcher-bullets-aka-the-connally-bullet-revisited.html#December-1963-SS-burn-party)
In attempting to sort truth from fiction in the early leaked FBI report accounts, I make the following assertions:
Truth: I contend that the following are true:
Fiction: I contend that the following ideas were fiction, intended to cover up Secret Service accidents and mistakes:
Note that the nose and tail bullet fragments found in the limousine have a combined weight (44.6 grains and 21.0 grains, respectively, totaling 64.6 grains together) that don't make up even half of the weight of a Carcano bullet (which is about 161 grains, per FBI expert Robert Frazier's testimony). Where is the rest of the bullet? I contend that most of the rest of it was Custer's "king-size" fragment, with the brain fragments and tiny fragments found in the rug making up a minute portion of the bullet. Note that the forehead/temple bullet fragmenting on impact accounts for the minute fragment trail near the top of the head, the back of the head blow-out (including the semi-circular notch with exterior beveling seen in the F8 autopsy photo). A process of internal and external ricochets accounts for the throat wound, the back wound, and the nose and tail bullet fragments found in the front of the limousine, as I explain in Part 7 of my documentary series, "The Four Shots."
That the first shot was a frontal shot was covered up to hide the inaction by most of the Secret Service agents to the first shot (note Ralph Yarborough's feeling "lulled into a false sense of security for the President's safety"--see https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/ralph-yarborough.html and the very telling John Norris comment, "Except for George Hickey and Clint Hill, the others basically sat there with their thumbs up their butts while the President was gunned down in front of them." See my documentary Episode 1 "The Players").
I also believe that the autopsy doctors were aware that there was a frontal shot entering at the forehead/temple location (above and slightly to the outside of the right eye, right at the hairline), and that the bullet fragmented on impact. I believe that the autopsy doctors were under orders from the very beginning to find that all shots came "from behind" in order to hide the large Secret Service inaction to it (aside from George Hickey, who reached for the AR-15). Either that, or simply being told that only "three" shots had been fired and "all shots came from behind" created a mindset that the pathologists couldn't shake. Then, when Oswald was killed (on the same when Humes said he wrote his report), the cover-up began in earnest.
The discussion of whether Kennedy could have survived the first shot was actually a discussion of whether he could have survived the first head shot. If the bullet only struck him in the back, hitting no vital organs, why would it even be a question of whether he would survive it? Of course he would! But if the first shot was a head shot, there would have been considerable reason to question whether or not Kennedy would have survived it. The bullet seemed confined to the right side of the head. And the strange questioning of the Parkland doctors about whether or not he would have survived the head shot and what impairments he would have had in their WC testimonies seems strange, given that the "one" bullet that struck Kennedy was "incompatible with life." But if there was questioning about whether Kennedy would have survived the first head shot, and if so, what impairments he would have had makes more sense if one considers that there was a second head shot unintentionally fired by a Secret Service agent.
Not mentioned much in the accounts based on the leaked autopsy report, of course, was the bullet that struck Connally. It is, however, mentioned that the Connally bullet fragmented. In fact, it did leave tiny fragments that were either removed from Connally during surgery or left in his body. But "fragmented" doesn't describe CE-399, which I believe was a substitution for the actual stretcher bullet. This bullet I discuss in https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/multiple-stretcher-bullets-aka-the-connally-bullet-revisited.html. The Connally bullet was not the "pointed" stretcher bullet, but was turned over to the DPD by Texas Highway Patrol officer Bobby Nolan, and then given to the FBI.
That's four bullets.
In order of firing, these were:
The fifth bullet, of course, was the one causing all of Tague's wounds, and I have no idea whether this bullet or any of its fragments were ever recovered.
And son of a gun if "five" doesn't match the number of suspect impulses found in the acoustical evidence. I discuss the acoustical evidence in Part 9 "The Acoustics" in my documentary series.)
I'd really love to get the original AP and UPI wires on this FBI report, but I'm not sure how to obtain those. If anyone can get them for me or tell me how to obtain them, please use the "Contact" page to let me know. But the exact contents of the AP wire, at least, can be inferred to be what the identical versions of the report say.
The Herold Weisberg collection also contains some newspaper accounts of JFK's wounds from November, 1963. These are not based on the FBI report leaked on or before the December 18, 1963, but on other sources. (See http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Meagher%20Sylvia%20Folders/Meagher%20Working%20Papers%20Reference%20Notes/Meagher%20Work%2035.pdf). These news articles are as important as the leaked FBI autopsy newspaper accounts that are the subject of this article. The Weisberg collection provides text descriptions of various news accounts, though not the clippings themselves. Some of them contain bits that are quite interesting. For example, an 11/27/63 account by the NY Herald-Tribune said that "investigators have concluded that the first shot, fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body." So we get a news account (based on an unknown source) of Kennedy being struck from the front, but in the neck/throat, (matching the FBI "Visual Aid" image presented in the New York Times section above.) I believe this account to have been based on the original (unaltered) Zapruder film, because I contend that while the bullet didn't first enter the neck directly, the neck wound appeared at the same time as the first shot. Note the FBI "visual aid" model with its string-line running to the doll's neck in the odd "not-a-shot" image (as I discuss in my article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/what-happened---shot-1.html#FBI-visual-aid and in my documentary series Part 5 "The Kill Shot.") I can explain why a TSBD head shot from the front could create the throat wound with a "deflected fragment", as the leaked autopsy accounts claim.
All of the accounts (newspapers, above, JAMA below) describe the back wound as having been caused by a bullet that "glanced off" or "ricocheted off" some part of the limousine, to then create a shallow wound.
So we've got multiple news accounts (NYT, WaPo, AP, UPI) all saying much the same thing:
- The back wound was shallow, only 2-3 inches deep, with differing accounts on where the bullet was found.
- The back wound was located 5 to 7 inches below the line of the collar. This, of course, would make the SBT impossible.
- The back wound may have been caused by a missile that "might have ricocheted off some part of the limousine," thus reducing its speed and explaining the shallow nature of the wound.
- The throat wound was caused by a deflected bullet fragment from (the/a) head shot, and the Parkland doctors who thought it was a bullet "entrance" wound were mistaken. Jerrol Custer's testimony about the metallic fragments in the C3/C4 region of the neck in now-missing X-ray supports this.
- A bullet "tore the right-rear portion of the head so destructively that it was completely incompatible with life." Thus confirming the Parkland doctors' observations of an "occipital" (or some cases, "occipital-parietal") blow-out.
- The autopsists thought that "both" shots to strike Kennedy came "from behind." Apparently the autopsy doctors could only envision one head shot, or were told to find that there was only one head shot, from behind. The back wound being caused by a "ricochet" was considered. But where did that ricochet come from? I contend that it came from a bullet entering at the forehead/temple location, fragmenting on impact, and exiting (for the most part) at the back of the head, and then ricocheting off the limousine's seat back. (One small fragment made an internal ricochet off the inside of the skull to angle down to the throat wound location.) More recent medical experts have found evidence for two head shots, one from the front. There is evidence that the forehead/temple shot occurred first, when Oswald still had a frontal shot. Then the second head shot (the AR-15 slam-fire accident) occurred when the limousine was farther down Elm Street.
- Some reports described damage to the "forehead." ("tore open" per WaPo, "severely damaged" by other accounts). This was damage that the Parkland medical team did not see. I contend that there was damage to the forehead, but created by an entering bullet, the first bullet, rather than an exiting bullet.
- When officials were asked to comment on the leaked report, the response was "no comment." There was a pervasive willingness to remain silent about what was known. Gag orders had been issued to autopsy participants. Some people, like Dr. Charles Crenshaw, were worried about their careers if they spoke up (hence, Crenshaw didn't speak to 20/20 until he was ready to retire.)
- Where the first bullet was found: some sources saying that the bullet was "embedded" deep in Kennedy's shoulder, some saying that the bullet had been "recovered" during the autopsy, some saying the the bullet was the "stretcher" bullet.
- One account saying that the Connally bullet fragmented (which would certainly not describe CE-399.
My contentions:
- I contend the Jerrol Custer was correct when he testified that a "king-size" fragment fell out of the body when it was lifted for X-rays, and that other fragments from this same bullet (nose and tail) were the fragments recovered from the limousine (not from the Connally bullet).
- I contend that the first bullet was a frontal shot that struck Kennedy in the forehead/temple region and starting the back of the head blow-out, (which the AR-15/EOP bullet then enlarged).
- I contend that a process of fragmentation and ricochets (both internal and external) from this first bullet caused the back of the head blow-out, the shallow back wound, and the throat wound. The fragmented bullet was recovered in pieces, with a large piece recovered during the autopsy (where it had been embedded in the body, but then fell out), and smaller pieces (nose, tail, rug fragments) found in the limousine.
- I contend that the "pointed" (as described by the witnesses who saw it) Parkland stretcher bullet was the AR-15 bullet from the EOP head shot, originally found in the limousine and then moved to the stretcher. (See https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/multiple-stretcher-bullets-aka-the-connally-bullet-revisited.html)
I suspect that the variation between accounts, especially between the WaPo/UPI and AP versions, was that the leaker (Hoover?) made calls or spoke with different people, and may have said something slightly different each time he spoke. Hence the differences between bullets being found "in the body" versus "in the limousine" versus "on the hospital stretcher." When he spoke with medical writer Nate Haseltine at the WaPo, for example, Haseltine may have known that exit wounds are bigger than entrance wounds, and when a large hole at the rear of the head was reported by the leaker, Haseltine may have stated as much and then been told, "Oh, yes, there was damage to the forehead. Uh, severe damage. Uh, tore the forehead open." or something like that, with some improvising done on the part of the leaker. Or, as another example, "Wasn't there a bullet found on a Parkland stretcher?" "Oh, yes, uh, that came out of the head during cardiac massage." Like that. But I believe there was a general consensus by the in charge to perpetuate the fiction that all shots came "from behind" in order to hide the large Secret Service inaction to the first shot (e.g., Ralph Yarborough being "lulled into a false sense of security for the President's safety" because the Secret Service men were so slow to respond--see https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/ralph-yarborough.html).
Note the accounts that the autopsy report was in the hands of the Secret Service. This puts the evidence in control of those most interested in covering it up. Remember the rumors of a Secret Service "burn party" on December 6 or 7, 1963? (https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/multiple-stretcher-bullets-aka-the-connally-bullet-revisited.html#December-1963-SS-burn-party)
In attempting to sort truth from fiction in the early leaked FBI report accounts, I make the following assertions:
Truth: I contend that the following are true:
- that the back of the shoulder wound was shallow, and that the bullet--or rather large fragment--that caused this wound did "ricochet off some part of the limousine" and become embedded into the upper back, but it fell out of the body during the autopsy, per Jerrol Custer's ARRB deposition. It may have been loosened during cardiac massage and/or by jostling during placement into the coffin or removal from the coffin, or the like.
- that a bullet fragment from a head shot was deflected and angled downward to exit at the throat. (After all, mortician Thomas Robinson saw the throat wound being probed from the back of the head.)
- that an intact bullet was recovered from the limousine--however, this bullet caused no injuries to any of the passengers (Dr. Young's "Extra" bullet, see Episode 8 of my documentary series, "The Five Shots"), along with bullet nose and tail fragments. Confusing the "king-size" fragment with an intact bullet, plus the fragments, plus the Young "extra" bullet may have confused the leaker, especially if he were put on the spot with questions he wasn't too sure about, and caused him to improvise his answers, hence some slightly different accounts of where the "head shot" bullet was found.
Fiction: I contend that the following ideas were fiction, intended to cover up Secret Service accidents and mistakes:
- that all shots were fired "from behind." The idea that it was "well established that the assassin was firing from above and behind the President is nonsense. (See https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/what-happened---shot-1.html for witness and other accounts of an early first shot, when Oswald would have had a frontal view.)
- that both shots hitting Kennedy were fired by Oswald (I contend that there was a concerted effort to cover up the Secret Service AR-15 accident.)
- that both the first and second bullets to strike President Kennedy were head shots, with the first one fragmented on impact and caused both the shallow back wound and the throat wound. Part of this bullet was recovered from the limousine, and part was recovered in the morgue during the autopsy. Cardiac massage may have loosened it, and the jostling of being moved in and out of the casket, onto the autopsy table, and being lifted for the X-rays caused it to fall out of the body.
- that the nose and tail fragments (found at the front of the car) were part of the same bullet as Jerrol Custer's "king-size" fragment that fell out of the back during the autopsy, per his ARRB deposition (giving rise to the "embedded" or "buried" in the shoulder reports). The nose and tail sections of the same fragmented bullet were found at the front of the limousine. (Together, the nose and tail fragments did not equal the weight of even 1/2 of a Carcanno bullet, leaving the greater part of the bullet's mass to either be unaccounted for, or, as I believe, to be Custer's "king-size fragment.")
Note that the nose and tail bullet fragments found in the limousine have a combined weight (44.6 grains and 21.0 grains, respectively, totaling 64.6 grains together) that don't make up even half of the weight of a Carcano bullet (which is about 161 grains, per FBI expert Robert Frazier's testimony). Where is the rest of the bullet? I contend that most of the rest of it was Custer's "king-size" fragment, with the brain fragments and tiny fragments found in the rug making up a minute portion of the bullet. Note that the forehead/temple bullet fragmenting on impact accounts for the minute fragment trail near the top of the head, the back of the head blow-out (including the semi-circular notch with exterior beveling seen in the F8 autopsy photo). A process of internal and external ricochets accounts for the throat wound, the back wound, and the nose and tail bullet fragments found in the front of the limousine, as I explain in Part 7 of my documentary series, "The Four Shots."
That the first shot was a frontal shot was covered up to hide the inaction by most of the Secret Service agents to the first shot (note Ralph Yarborough's feeling "lulled into a false sense of security for the President's safety"--see https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/ralph-yarborough.html and the very telling John Norris comment, "Except for George Hickey and Clint Hill, the others basically sat there with their thumbs up their butts while the President was gunned down in front of them." See my documentary Episode 1 "The Players").
I also believe that the autopsy doctors were aware that there was a frontal shot entering at the forehead/temple location (above and slightly to the outside of the right eye, right at the hairline), and that the bullet fragmented on impact. I believe that the autopsy doctors were under orders from the very beginning to find that all shots came "from behind" in order to hide the large Secret Service inaction to it (aside from George Hickey, who reached for the AR-15). Either that, or simply being told that only "three" shots had been fired and "all shots came from behind" created a mindset that the pathologists couldn't shake. Then, when Oswald was killed (on the same when Humes said he wrote his report), the cover-up began in earnest.
The discussion of whether Kennedy could have survived the first shot was actually a discussion of whether he could have survived the first head shot. If the bullet only struck him in the back, hitting no vital organs, why would it even be a question of whether he would survive it? Of course he would! But if the first shot was a head shot, there would have been considerable reason to question whether or not Kennedy would have survived it. The bullet seemed confined to the right side of the head. And the strange questioning of the Parkland doctors about whether or not he would have survived the head shot and what impairments he would have had in their WC testimonies seems strange, given that the "one" bullet that struck Kennedy was "incompatible with life." But if there was questioning about whether Kennedy would have survived the first head shot, and if so, what impairments he would have had makes more sense if one considers that there was a second head shot unintentionally fired by a Secret Service agent.
Not mentioned much in the accounts based on the leaked autopsy report, of course, was the bullet that struck Connally. It is, however, mentioned that the Connally bullet fragmented. In fact, it did leave tiny fragments that were either removed from Connally during surgery or left in his body. But "fragmented" doesn't describe CE-399, which I believe was a substitution for the actual stretcher bullet. This bullet I discuss in https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/multiple-stretcher-bullets-aka-the-connally-bullet-revisited.html. The Connally bullet was not the "pointed" stretcher bullet, but was turned over to the DPD by Texas Highway Patrol officer Bobby Nolan, and then given to the FBI.
That's four bullets.
In order of firing, these were:
- the fragmented Kennedy head/back/throat bullet, parts of which (including the "king-size" fragment and the brain fragments) were recovered during the autopsy, and parts of which (nose and tail fragments, tiny rug fragments) were recovered from the limousine.
- the intact SS warning shot bullet (the Dr. James Young "extra" bullet, recovered from the limousine).
- the at least somewhat fragmented Connally bullet, (turned over to the DPD by Bobby Nolan, with small fragments recovered during the surgery and other small fragments left in the body).
- the intact AR-15 "pointed" stretcher bullet.
The fifth bullet, of course, was the one causing all of Tague's wounds, and I have no idea whether this bullet or any of its fragments were ever recovered.
And son of a gun if "five" doesn't match the number of suspect impulses found in the acoustical evidence. I discuss the acoustical evidence in Part 9 "The Acoustics" in my documentary series.)
I'd really love to get the original AP and UPI wires on this FBI report, but I'm not sure how to obtain those. If anyone can get them for me or tell me how to obtain them, please use the "Contact" page to let me know. But the exact contents of the AP wire, at least, can be inferred to be what the identical versions of the report say.
The Herold Weisberg collection also contains some newspaper accounts of JFK's wounds from November, 1963. These are not based on the FBI report leaked on or before the December 18, 1963, but on other sources. (See http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Meagher%20Sylvia%20Folders/Meagher%20Working%20Papers%20Reference%20Notes/Meagher%20Work%2035.pdf). These news articles are as important as the leaked FBI autopsy newspaper accounts that are the subject of this article. The Weisberg collection provides text descriptions of various news accounts, though not the clippings themselves. Some of them contain bits that are quite interesting. For example, an 11/27/63 account by the NY Herald-Tribune said that "investigators have concluded that the first shot, fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body." So we get a news account (based on an unknown source) of Kennedy being struck from the front, but in the neck/throat, (matching the FBI "Visual Aid" image presented in the New York Times section above.) I believe this account to have been based on the original (unaltered) Zapruder film, because I contend that while the bullet didn't first enter the neck directly, the neck wound appeared at the same time as the first shot. Note the FBI "visual aid" model with its string-line running to the doll's neck in the odd "not-a-shot" image (as I discuss in my article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/what-happened---shot-1.html#FBI-visual-aid and in my documentary series Part 5 "The Kill Shot.") I can explain why a TSBD head shot from the front could create the throat wound with a "deflected fragment", as the leaked autopsy accounts claim.