The Throat Wound as an Exit
Many researchers, including Dr. Mantik, for whom I have the greatest respect, believe that the throat wound was an "entrance." The main evidence they use to support this is that Dr. Malcolm Perry, who performed the tracheostomy, believed it was an entrance, and said so in a same-day press conference. Perry was apparently bullied to try to get him to recant that initial assessment--a reprehensible action that I certainly don't condone. However, I do believe that Perry was wrong in his initial assessment, and that the throat wound was, in fact, the exit wound for a small bullet fragment.
Here's why.
Here's why.
-----
Attempting to Bully Dr. Perry
In The Final Analysis: Forensic Analysis, Dr. Mantik and Jerome Corsi lay out a strong case that attempts were made to bully Dr. Perry into recanting the statements he made at his same-day Press Conference.
Perry apparently related to a number of people how he was pressured to retract his statements. The Final Analysis references an article written about Perry upon his death in 2010, by Dr. Gary Aguilar, found at https://www.kennedysandking.com/obituaries/481. Aguilar writes:
A Very Private Conversation
Even though Dr. Perry swore that he believed the throat wound was an exit wound, he may not have actually believed what he said. On 2-14-92 an emergency room physician in Baltimore, Robert Artwohl, M.D. told an interesting tale in a "Prodigy" on-line post: Dr. Artwohl said that he had had a private conversation with Dr. Perry in 1986, and that Dr. Perry had said, "one of the biggest regrets in his life was having to make the incision for the emergency tracheotomy through the bullet wound, because he was certain that it was an entrance wound. He remembered making a very good mental note of the wound since he was cutting through it ... speaking with Dr. Perry that night, one physician to another in (sic) Dr Perry stated he firmly believed the wound to be an entrance wound." [17]
.
.
.
A Knock on Dr. Perry's Door
In a memo written to House Select Committee counsel, Robert Tanenbaum on 6.1.77, investigator Howard Gilbert described an interview with a man named James Gochenaur who had quite a story to tell about conversations he had had with a Secret Service agent named Elmer Moore. Agent Moore apparently told Mr. Gochenaur in 1970 that the Secret Service had sent him to Parkland Hospital to speak with the doctors about the wounds. Agent Moore told Mr. Gochenaur that he felt guilty about what he had done to Dr. Perry a few days after the assassination.
Gilbert: "All right. What did he (Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore) have to say about Kennedy? Or anything that indicates to you that he may have knowledge – ah, or may have done something wrong in the investigation."
Gochenaur: "Ok, what he told me was this, he said that he had badgered Doctor Perry into changing his testimony, he did not feel good about that."
Gilbert: "He – being Moore?"
Gochenaur: "Yes, Moore talked to Perry and, I guess, really laid it on to the poor guy."
Gilbert: "In what respect, what areas did he badger Perry with respect (sic)"
Gochenaur: "Ah, what Perry had seen, as he was doing his emergency operation, apparently."
Gilbert: "Well, in what way's did he indicate to you that he had Perry distort the truth?"
Gochenaur: "In – I think that what he was trying to say was him [sic] to making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck, or that where the position of the wound in the back [sic], what Moore was telling me after he talked about that was the fact that his study, and the study that went into talking with the Doctors [sic], is that there was no conclusive evidence where any of the shots had come from, at that point. Ok? If the report that he had written up ..." [38]
Mr. Gochenaur said that Agent Moore offered him an explanation why he'd done the things he did in investigating the Kennedy case: " [W]e had to do what we were told, in regards to, you know, the way the way they were investigating the assassination, or we get our heads cut off."
To these accounts, Mantik and Corsi add an account given in 2017 by Dr. Michael Chesser, reportedly from a conversation that Perry had with "a medical colleague," in which Perry had "advised this colleague that the throat wound had indeed been an entrance wound."
Mantik and Corsi further add recollections from Drl Donald Miller, Jr., who was a colleague of Perry's in the 1970's. Perry evidently told Miller that he saw "entry wounds on JFK--from both front and rear, thus contradicting his 1964 WC testimony. In particular, the throat wound was an entry. Perry recalled that he 'was pressured by government officials and the Secret Service to back away from the entry wound claim since the official autopsy showed it to be an exit wound.'"
The Final Analysis also references a November 19, 2017 article by Rick Anderson entitled "The JFK assassination files lead back to Seattle." (The provided link no longer works, but I was able to find the article at https://www.cascadepbs.org/politics/2017/11/john-f-kennedy-assassination-files-seattle-trump-release-shooters/ .)
In The Final Analysis: Forensic Analysis, Dr. Mantik and Jerome Corsi lay out a strong case that attempts were made to bully Dr. Perry into recanting the statements he made at his same-day Press Conference.
Perry apparently related to a number of people how he was pressured to retract his statements. The Final Analysis references an article written about Perry upon his death in 2010, by Dr. Gary Aguilar, found at https://www.kennedysandking.com/obituaries/481. Aguilar writes:
A Very Private Conversation
Even though Dr. Perry swore that he believed the throat wound was an exit wound, he may not have actually believed what he said. On 2-14-92 an emergency room physician in Baltimore, Robert Artwohl, M.D. told an interesting tale in a "Prodigy" on-line post: Dr. Artwohl said that he had had a private conversation with Dr. Perry in 1986, and that Dr. Perry had said, "one of the biggest regrets in his life was having to make the incision for the emergency tracheotomy through the bullet wound, because he was certain that it was an entrance wound. He remembered making a very good mental note of the wound since he was cutting through it ... speaking with Dr. Perry that night, one physician to another in (sic) Dr Perry stated he firmly believed the wound to be an entrance wound." [17]
.
.
.
A Knock on Dr. Perry's Door
In a memo written to House Select Committee counsel, Robert Tanenbaum on 6.1.77, investigator Howard Gilbert described an interview with a man named James Gochenaur who had quite a story to tell about conversations he had had with a Secret Service agent named Elmer Moore. Agent Moore apparently told Mr. Gochenaur in 1970 that the Secret Service had sent him to Parkland Hospital to speak with the doctors about the wounds. Agent Moore told Mr. Gochenaur that he felt guilty about what he had done to Dr. Perry a few days after the assassination.
Gilbert: "All right. What did he (Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore) have to say about Kennedy? Or anything that indicates to you that he may have knowledge – ah, or may have done something wrong in the investigation."
Gochenaur: "Ok, what he told me was this, he said that he had badgered Doctor Perry into changing his testimony, he did not feel good about that."
Gilbert: "He – being Moore?"
Gochenaur: "Yes, Moore talked to Perry and, I guess, really laid it on to the poor guy."
Gilbert: "In what respect, what areas did he badger Perry with respect (sic)"
Gochenaur: "Ah, what Perry had seen, as he was doing his emergency operation, apparently."
Gilbert: "Well, in what way's did he indicate to you that he had Perry distort the truth?"
Gochenaur: "In – I think that what he was trying to say was him [sic] to making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck, or that where the position of the wound in the back [sic], what Moore was telling me after he talked about that was the fact that his study, and the study that went into talking with the Doctors [sic], is that there was no conclusive evidence where any of the shots had come from, at that point. Ok? If the report that he had written up ..." [38]
Mr. Gochenaur said that Agent Moore offered him an explanation why he'd done the things he did in investigating the Kennedy case: " [W]e had to do what we were told, in regards to, you know, the way the way they were investigating the assassination, or we get our heads cut off."
To these accounts, Mantik and Corsi add an account given in 2017 by Dr. Michael Chesser, reportedly from a conversation that Perry had with "a medical colleague," in which Perry had "advised this colleague that the throat wound had indeed been an entrance wound."
Mantik and Corsi further add recollections from Drl Donald Miller, Jr., who was a colleague of Perry's in the 1970's. Perry evidently told Miller that he saw "entry wounds on JFK--from both front and rear, thus contradicting his 1964 WC testimony. In particular, the throat wound was an entry. Perry recalled that he 'was pressured by government officials and the Secret Service to back away from the entry wound claim since the official autopsy showed it to be an exit wound.'"
The Final Analysis also references a November 19, 2017 article by Rick Anderson entitled "The JFK assassination files lead back to Seattle." (The provided link no longer works, but I was able to find the article at https://www.cascadepbs.org/politics/2017/11/john-f-kennedy-assassination-files-seattle-trump-release-shooters/ .)
-----
Dr. Perry's Warren Commission Testimony
Dr. Malcolm Perry's Warren Commission testimony can be found in Volume III of the Hearings.
In his testimony, he was asked to describe the wounds that he saw, and described two: a "large avulse
Dr. Malcolm Perry's Warren Commission testimony can be found in Volume III of the Hearings.
In his testimony, he was asked to describe the wounds that he saw, and described two: a "large avulse
From Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III
Note a couple of things here:
1. Perry described the blow-out wound as "a large avulse wound on the right posterior cranium." This "posterior" wound certainly does not comport with the right front of the head that was pretended to have existed. And
2. When he first saw the throat wound, he wasn't even sure that it was a bullet wound. He thought perhaps that Dr. Carrico had begun the tracheotomy.
1. Perry described the blow-out wound as "a large avulse wound on the right posterior cranium." This "posterior" wound certainly does not comport with the right front of the head that was pretended to have existed. And
2. When he first saw the throat wound, he wasn't even sure that it was a bullet wound. He thought perhaps that Dr. Carrico had begun the tracheotomy.
-----
Dr. Perry's Warren Commission Testimony
Text
Text
-----
Jerrol Custer's Bullet Fragments in C3/C4
Text
Text
-----
Thomas Robinson's Probe from the Back of the Head
Text
Text
-----
Leaked FBI Autopsy Report News Accounts
Text
Text
-----
Atypical Exit Wounds
A Google search of "Can bullet exit wounds be confused with entrances?" yielded an AI answer of "Yes, bullet exit wounds can sometimes be confused with entrance wounds."
The response went on:
Why Confusion Happens
As for any "abrasion ring," I have never come across any description by Perry or anyone else at Parkland or Bethesda that the throat wound had an "abrasion ring." I assume that it did not.
As for "atypical sizes," especially for a "deformed or fragmenting bullet," I believe that this applies to JFK's throat wound. The exiting missile was not an intact bullet. It was a fragment, and probably created the tiny fragments found in the rug at the rear of the limousine.
A Google search of "Can bullet exit wounds be confused with entrances?" yielded an AI answer of "Yes, bullet exit wounds can sometimes be confused with entrance wounds."
The response went on:
Why Confusion Happens
- Shored Exit Wounds: If a person's skin presses against an external object (like a belt, a wall, or a tight waistband) when the bullet leaves the body, it creates a "shored" exit wound. [1, 2]
- False Abrasion Rings: This pressure causes an irregular scraped area on the skin. It mimics the abrasion collar typically found only on entrance wounds. [1, 2]
- Atypical Sizes: While exit wounds are usually larger and more irregular, a deformed or fragmenting bullet can sometimes leave an exit hole that is smaller than or similar in size to the entrance. [1, 2, 3]
As for any "abrasion ring," I have never come across any description by Perry or anyone else at Parkland or Bethesda that the throat wound had an "abrasion ring." I assume that it did not.
As for "atypical sizes," especially for a "deformed or fragmenting bullet," I believe that this applies to JFK's throat wound. The exiting missile was not an intact bullet. It was a fragment, and probably created the tiny fragments found in the rug at the rear of the limousine.
-----
In Conclusion
I accept as fact that Dr. Malcolm Perry was pressured to retract the statements he made in his November 22, 1963 press conference. However, that pressure does not mean that Dr. Perry was correct in his assumption that the throat wound was an entrance wound. When the (original) autopsy determined that the throat wound had been caused by the exit of a "deflected fragment," it was no doubt a source of frustration for those who may have been trying to get the truth out. Who knows. The application of such pressure is repulsive. A better way to approach it would have to quietly meet with Dr. Perry, explain what happened, show him the autopsy X-rays and photographs, including the neck X-ray showing the fragments in the C3/C4 region, a photograph of the probe from the back of the head emerging from the neck, and so on. Those who applied the pressure were wrong to try to bully Dr. Perry. That doesn't mean they were wrong that the throat wound was an exit.
At any rate, the stories of the pressure are second- and third-hand. Again, I don't doubt that the pressure occurred, but being second- and third-hand, it introduces the possibility of misunderstanding. A statement like, "I absolutely believed it was an entrance" and "I was sure it was an entrance" becomes "It was definitely an entrance." Like that. The contrary statements of Jerrol Custer (describing the metallic fragments in the C3/C4 region of the neck) and Thomas Robinson (who was "adamant" that the throat wound had been successfully probed from the back of the head), however, are first-person accounts, with less likelihood of misunderstanding occurring. Moreover, witnesses like the Connally's, whom Mantik and Corsi like because their statements destroy the Single Bullet Theory, do not support the notion of more than two shots striking Kennedy. The only evidence they have, really, that the throat wound was an "entrance" was Dr. Perry's description that the wound apparently had smooth and not jagged edges.
I accept as fact that Dr. Malcolm Perry was pressured to retract the statements he made in his November 22, 1963 press conference. However, that pressure does not mean that Dr. Perry was correct in his assumption that the throat wound was an entrance wound. When the (original) autopsy determined that the throat wound had been caused by the exit of a "deflected fragment," it was no doubt a source of frustration for those who may have been trying to get the truth out. Who knows. The application of such pressure is repulsive. A better way to approach it would have to quietly meet with Dr. Perry, explain what happened, show him the autopsy X-rays and photographs, including the neck X-ray showing the fragments in the C3/C4 region, a photograph of the probe from the back of the head emerging from the neck, and so on. Those who applied the pressure were wrong to try to bully Dr. Perry. That doesn't mean they were wrong that the throat wound was an exit.
At any rate, the stories of the pressure are second- and third-hand. Again, I don't doubt that the pressure occurred, but being second- and third-hand, it introduces the possibility of misunderstanding. A statement like, "I absolutely believed it was an entrance" and "I was sure it was an entrance" becomes "It was definitely an entrance." Like that. The contrary statements of Jerrol Custer (describing the metallic fragments in the C3/C4 region of the neck) and Thomas Robinson (who was "adamant" that the throat wound had been successfully probed from the back of the head), however, are first-person accounts, with less likelihood of misunderstanding occurring. Moreover, witnesses like the Connally's, whom Mantik and Corsi like because their statements destroy the Single Bullet Theory, do not support the notion of more than two shots striking Kennedy. The only evidence they have, really, that the throat wound was an "entrance" was Dr. Perry's description that the wound apparently had smooth and not jagged edges.