Re: Dr. Malcolm Perry II, 80 (first surgeon to attend to JFK in Dallas)
Sam McClung
François Carlier
Doctor Perry (Rest in Peace, you were a fine man !) once wrote a letter to
me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the medical
evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street".
It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
He was an honest man who "was there", saw the body, and did not buy the
conspiracy idiotic theories.
He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
Everybody should know it.
As for me, if I have to choose between, on the one hand, doctor Perry, and
on the other, the likes of Lifton or Groden, ... boy, the decision is
quickly reached !!!
May God bless Doctor Perry.
/Fran�ois Carlier/
"A" <aa...@att.net> a �crit dans le message de
news:4N-dnaXXf5qCToDW...@earthlink.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBIT_JFK_DOCTOR?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
>
> Dec. 7, 11:00PM EST
>
> "Doctor who attended JFK in Dallas has died"
>
> By TERRY WALLACE
> Associated Press Writer
>
>
> DALLAS (AP) -- Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry II, who attended to President John
> F. Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital after he was shot in Dallas on
> Nov. 22, 1963, has died. He was 80.
>
> The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center says Perry died
> Saturday after a battle with lung cancer.
>
> Perry was an assistant professor of surgery at UT Southwestern and a
> vascular surgeon on the Parkland staff when he became the first staff
> surgeon to treat Kennedy. He found no vital signs but noted a convulsive
> effort to breath. Perry performed a tracheotomy on Kennedy while other
> doctors and surgeons gathered to help.
>
> Perry and another surgeon performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation on
> Kennedy until no brain activity was detected and the president was
> declared dead.
>
Gil Jesus
> Hello, everybody,
>
> Doctor Perry (Rest in Peace, you were a fine man !) once wrote a letter to
> me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the medical
> evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street".
>
> It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
>
> He was an honest man who "was there", saw the body, and did not buy the
> conspiracy idiotic theories.
>
> He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
>
> Everybody should know it.
When Perry described the neck wound in his press conference, he called
it a wound of entry. Then he denied that he did so.
In this telephone interview, "honest man" Perry's denial is compared
to a transcript of the press conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFEoAmF4SbM
Go peddle your BS someplace else, Frenchy.
timstter
Why, how very tasteful of you, Gil.
How very Christian.
KUTGW, Gil...
Disgusted Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
lazu...@webtv.net
emphatic...Doug Horne has an excellent summary of Dr. Perry on his blog
Inside The ARRB...Laz
Walt
Here in the recording we can see an excellent example of a man backing
away from the truth...... Dr Perry said the wound in JFK's throat
"LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND"
He then quickly added.... "BUT IT WASN'T". Dr Perry knew what bullet
entry wounds looked like and he recognized the throat wound as an
entrance wound.....He also knew that he couldn't say with absolute
certainty that ..."IT WASN'T".......Unless he had probed the wound and
examined it thoroughly. Obviously he was attempting to undo what
he'd done.....He had no idea that he was stepping into quicksand when
he made the off the cuff remark that the wound "LOOKED LIKE AN
ENTRANCE WOUND". He was merely calling on his past experience of
seeing hundreds of bullet entry wounds and using that experience to
pronounce that the wound he'd seen "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND".
Later when the FBI told him that he'd be wise to retract that
statement he attempted to say that it wasn't a entry wound. But there
is NO WAY he could honestyly make that statement UNLESS HE HAD
THOROUGHLY EXAMINED THE WOUND. Dr Perry never thoroughly examined
that wound. It looked like an entrance wound and that's what it
was......
Walt
Hoorah!!..... Way ta go, Gil.... irrefutable evidence like this is
what we need. The LNer's will chastise you because they can't
honestly refute what you've posted.
Pay no attention to the ad hominem attacks that are headed your
way..... And chalk up another KO.......
mucher1
How can you honestly make that statement?
Walt
What's your problem, Friar ( ryhmes with liar) .... Gil merely post
a link to a recording of the actual telephone interview. It's
HISTORY.....Are you attempting to rewrite history Friar??
Perhaps you'd be interested in another bit of history .....Did you
know that Dr Carrico independently and unknowingly corroborated Dr
Perry's observation that the throat wound "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE
WOUND" ??
Dr Carrico wrote in his memo of the event...Quote.."Two external
wounds were noticed. One small penetrating wound of anterior neck in
the lower 1/3"...unquote.. Charles J Carrico 11 /22 /63
Dr Carrico wrote this memo at 4:20 pm, only a couple of hours after he
worked on JFK in the emergency room. Do you know what the word
"PENETRATING" means??
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
I can honestly make that statement because Dr perry's observation was
corroborated by Dr Carrico's statement. Dr Carrico said the wound in
JFK's throat was a "PENETRATING WOUND"
Therefore TWO of the doctors who worked on JFK reported independently
reported the same thing..... That the wound in JFK's throat was an
entrance wound.
Gil Jesus
>
> What's your problem, Friar ( ryhmes with liar) .... � Gil merely post
> a link to a recording of the actual telephone interview. � It's
> HISTORY.....Are you attempting to rewrite history Friar??
They can't respond to the evidence, so they attack the poster.
S.O.S.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Dec 8, 6:10 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 2:22 am, Fran ois Carlier <Fra-Carl...@orange.fr> wrote:
>
> > > Hello, everybody,
>
> > > Doctor Perry (Rest in Peace, you were a fine man !) once wrote a letter to
> > > me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the medical
> > > evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street".
>
> > > It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
>
> > > He was an honest man who "was there", saw the body, and did not buy the
> > > conspiracy idiotic theories.
>
> > > He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
>
> > > Everybody should know it.
>
> > When Perry described the neck wound in his press conference, he called
> > it a wound of entry. Then he denied that he did so.
>
> > In this telephone interview, "honest man" Perry's denial is compared
> > to a transcript of the press conference:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFEoAmF4SbM
>
> > Go peddle your BS someplace else, Frenchy.
>
> Here in the recording we can see an excellent example of a man backing
> away from the truth...... Dr Perry said the wound in JFK's throat
> "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND"
Good point Wally for once!!
NOW, I am NOT disagreeing with you below, BUT it needs to be "pointed
out" that your gay lover disagrees with these kinds of comments and
since he WON'T call you out ever, I thought I would drop his words in
here for him!
> He then quickly added.... "BUT IT WASN'T". Dr Perry knew what bullet
> entry wounds looked like....
How? YOUR gay lover Ben has said this about Doctors and bullet wounds!
Your problem is your inability to demonstrate that doctors are
ballistics
experts.” (Bendsie Holmes – 5/24/09)
NOW he included this comment, and many others, in rebuttal to my claim
that the PH doctors doctors said JFK died as a result of a high
velocity bullet to the head!
IF they didn't know this due to NOT being "ballistic experts", how
could they know if the wound in the throat was one of entry or exit?
This is the DANGER this man named Ben Holmes creates!!
> ...and he recognized the throat wound as an
> entrance wound.....He also knew that he couldn't say with absolute
> certainty that ..."IT WASN'T".......Unless he had probed the wound and
> examined it thoroughly.
So NOW you are getting as bad as Ben! YOU are saying doctors who work
with hundreds of gunshot wounds in a year don't know the difference
between an entry or exit wound "without probing?"
> Obviously he was attempting to undo what
> he'd done.....He had no idea that he was stepping into quicksand when
> he made the off the cuff remark that the wound "LOOKED LIKE AN
> ENTRANCE WOUND".
NOR would anyone else think TELLING THE TRUTH would lead to a
"quicksand" of pain!
> He was merely calling on his past experience of
> seeing hundreds of bullet entry wounds and using that experience to
> pronounce that the wound he'd seen "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND".
Correct.
> Later when the FBI told him that he'd be wise to retract that
> statement he attempted to say that it wasn't a entry wound. But there
> is NO WAY he could honestyly make that statement UNLESS HE HAD
> THOROUGHLY EXAMINED THE WOUND. Dr Perry never thoroughly examined
> that wound.
How do you know for sure?
> It looked like an entrance wound and that's what it
> was......
Yes.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 9, 8:38=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 6:10=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 8, 2:22 am, Fran ois Carlier <Fra-Carl...@orange.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > > Hello, everybody,
>>
>er to
>> > > me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the medi=
>cal
>> > > evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street".
>>
>> > > It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
>>
>he
>> > > conspiracy idiotic theories.
>>
>> > > He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
>>
>> > > Everybody should know it.
>>
>> > When Perry described the neck wound in his press conference, he called
>> > it a wound of entry. Then he denied that he did so.
>>
>> > In this telephone interview, "honest man" Perry's denial is compared
>> > to a transcript of the press conference:
>>
>>
>> > Go peddle your BS someplace else, Frenchy.
>>
>> Here in the recording we can see an excellent example of a man backing
>> away from the truth...... Dr Perry said the wound in JFK's throat
>> "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND"
>
>Good point Wally for once!!
>
>NOW, I am NOT disagreeing with you below, BUT it needs to be "pointed
>out" that your gay lover disagrees with these kinds of comments
Strangely enough, it's *YOU* I disagree with, stupid!!
I wonder why a government shill finds it necessary to keep lying about my
beliefs and assertions?
>and
>since he WON'T call you out ever, I thought I would drop his words in
>here for him!
Nah... you're lying again...
>> He then quickly added.... "BUT IT WASN'T". Dr Perry knew what bullet
>> entry wounds looked like....
>
>How? YOUR gay lover Ben has said this about Doctors and bullet wounds!
>
>Your problem is your inability to demonstrate that doctors are
>ballistics experts.=94 (Bendsie Holmes =96 5/24/09)
Still true.
>NOW he included this comment, and many others, in rebuttal to my claim
>that the PH doctors
You're a liar, stupid. The Parkland Hospital doctors WERE NOT being discussed.
It was Dr. Burkley and the Death Certificate (which you provably lied about)
I defy you to produce, IN CONTEXT, any such discussion.
But you won't.
>doctors said JFK died as a result of a high
>velocity bullet to the head!
Yep... *NOT* as support for any silly assertion that doctors are incapable of
correctly placing a wound on the body.
>IF they didn't know this due to NOT being "ballistic experts", how
>could they know if the wound in the throat was one of entry or exit?
How could they know the color of JFK's suit? How could they differentiate skin
from blood vessels? You ask perfectly meaningless questions.
Dr. Burkley was *NOT* a ballistics expert, so his alleged (you've NEVER quoted
it) statement that the wounds were caused by a high velocity rifle is just as
meaningless as a quoting a ballistics expert that the wound was located at T-3
(or T-1, or C-7, or anywhere else)
The fact that you STILL can't understand this point illustrates why I keep
referring to you as a stupid moron.
>This is the DANGER this man named Ben Holmes creates!!
The "danger" I create is to force people to read the evidence for themselves,
and stop lying about it.
You lied about the Death Certificate, as just one example, I pointed it out.
You lied about eyewitness testimony for Oswald owning a watch, I pointed it out.
You lied abgut the Silvia Duran notation being written in the "Historic Diary",
I pointed it out.
You lied about 'most CT'ers don't believe Oswald traveled to Mexico City', I
pointed it out.
You lied about.... well, why continue?
>> ...and he recognized the throat wound as an
>> entrance wound.....He also knew that he couldn't say with absolute
>> certainty that ..."IT WASN'T".......Unless he had probed the wound and
>> examined it thoroughly.
>
>So NOW you are getting as bad as Ben! YOU are saying doctors who work
>with hundreds of gunshot wounds in a year don't know the difference
>between an entry or exit wound "without probing?"
What did Dr. Perry testify to, stupid?
>> Obviously he was attempting to undo what
>> he'd done.....He had no idea that he was stepping into quicksand when
>> he made the off the cuff remark that the wound "LOOKED LIKE AN
>> ENTRANCE WOUND".
>
>NOR would anyone else think TELLING THE TRUTH would lead to a
>"quicksand" of pain!
Truth is something I think you're not very familiar with...
>> He was merely calling on his past experience of
>> seeing hundreds of bullet entry wounds and using that experience to
>> pronounce that the wound he'd seen "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND".
>
>Correct.
Good of you to so admit.
>> Later when the FBI told him that he'd be wise to retract that
>> statement he attempted to say that it wasn't a entry wound. But there
>> is NO WAY he could honestyly make that statement UNLESS HE HAD
>> THOROUGHLY EXAMINED THE WOUND. Dr Perry never thoroughly examined
>> that wound.
>
>How do you know for sure?
Read the testimony, stupid!!!
>> It looked like an entrance wound and that's what it
>> was......
>
>Yes.
Good of you to admit that.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <84fdd5f9-f5e5-41da-b7f5-ea67c2e6e...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
What else is NEW?? YOU can't disagree with YOURSELF, now can you?
> I wonder why a government shill finds it necessary to keep lying about my
> beliefs and assertions?
Too bad you can't quote me saying anything close to SUPPORTING the
government, but we all SEE YOU DO EVERY DAY!
YOU are ruining another post of mine in DEFENSE OF THE WC right now
you stinking WC shill!
> >and
> >since he WON'T call you out ever, I thought I would drop his words in
> >here for him!
>
> Nah... you're lying again...
Nah... I'm NOT!
> >> He then quickly added.... "BUT IT WASN'T". Dr Perry knew what bullet
> >> entry wounds looked like....
>
> >How? YOUR gay lover Ben has said this about Doctors and bullet wounds!
>
> >Your problem is your inability to demonstrate that doctors are
> >ballistics experts.=94 (Bendsie Holmes =96 5/24/09)
>
> Still true.
According to you it is true, but your OPINION and claims ALWAYS go
unproven!
> >NOW he included this comment, and many others, in rebuttal to my claim
> >that the PH doctors
>
> You're a liar, stupid. The Parkland Hospital doctors WERE NOT being discussed.
> It was Dr. Burkley and the Death Certificate (which you provably lied about)
Where do you THINK HE GOT HIS INFO YOU STINKING, LYING, MORONIC WC
SHILL?
Just how dumb are you? San Jose State should give you a refund as
they did NOT enhance your thinkig ability in the least!
> I defy you to produce, IN CONTEXT, any such discussion.
It was the discussion you moron! Unless you can show us where Dr.
Burkley PERSONALLY treated JFK to the exclusion of anyone else at PH!
> But you won't.
Why would I as it has nothing to do with reality!
> >doctors said JFK died as a result of a high
> >velocity bullet to the head!
>
> Yep... *NOT* as support for any silly assertion that doctors are incapable of
> correctly placing a wound on the body.
Hey, I'm simply USING YOUR WORDS! Like these!
“Bravo! Doctors are now ballistics experts in your world.
Sadly for you, they aren't in any thinking man's world.” (Bendsie
Holmes – 5/.24/09)
> >IF they didn't know this due to NOT being "ballistic experts", how
> >could they know if the wound in the throat was one of entry or exit?
>
> How could they know the color of JFK's suit? How could they differentiate skin
> from blood vessels? You ask perfectly meaningless questions.
LOL!! They are ONLY meaningless to a liar like you!
They illustrate YOUR LIES perfectly!
> Dr. Burkley was *NOT* a ballistics expert, so his alleged (you've NEVER quoted
> it) statement that the wounds were caused by a high velocity rifle
Whoa, hold on there liar! I said he has said JFK died due to a high
velocity BULLET, NOT rifle. Why do you lie all the time about what I
say?
NO wonder he is PARANOID about me doing this to him, huh?
> is just as
> meaningless as a quoting a ballistics expert that the wound was located at T-3
> (or T-1, or C-7, or anywhere else)
He got his info from the doctors at PH you moron! By calling him
wrong you ARE calling them wrong as well, just like the WC did!
Backpeddling won't save you know liar!
> The fact that you STILL can't understand this point illustrates why I keep
> referring to you as a stupid moron.
NOW, you are just using slander BECAUSE I have shown you to be the
liar and WC shill you are!
> >This is the DANGER this man named Ben Holmes creates!!
>
> The "danger" I create is to force people to read the evidence for themselves,
> and stop lying about it.
YOU and Wally, along with the other LNers, are the ONLY ones lying
about it on here!
> You lied about the Death Certificate, as just one example, I pointed it out.
Too bad you couldn't show or prove this claim, huh?
> You lied about eyewitness testimony for Oswald owning a watch, I pointed it out.
Too bad you couldn't show or prove this claim, huh?
Plus, YOU HAD TO LIE about the time period being discussed to even get
this lie of your off the ground.
> You lied abgut the Silvia Duran notation being written in the "Historic Diary",
> I pointed it out.
I think you need to learn to read moron as the HSCA said this, NOT me!
> You lied about 'most CT'ers don't believe Oswald traveled to Mexico City', I
> pointed it out.
Most don't, you simply inferred that "supposedly", "might have",
"could have", "perhaps did" mean the same as YOUR CLAIM which was HE
DID DEFINITELY GO AND THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING TO SHOW THIS!
Flat-out lied, didn't you?
> You lied about.... well, why continue?
When did you start?
> >> ...and he recognized the throat wound as an
> >> entrance wound.....He also knew that he couldn't say with absolute
> >> certainty that ..."IT WASN'T".......Unless he had probed the wound and
> >> examined it thoroughly.
>
> >So NOW you are getting as bad as Ben! YOU are saying doctors who work
> >with hundreds of gunshot wounds in a year don't know the difference
> >between an entry or exit wound "without probing?"
>
> What did Dr. Perry testify to, stupid?
YOU tell us since it is YOUR point? I am simply asking why he thinks
doctors need to probe a wound to determine if it is one of entry or
exit moron!
> >> Obviously he was attempting to undo what
> >> he'd done.....He had no idea that he was stepping into quicksand when
> >> he made the off the cuff remark that the wound "LOOKED LIKE AN
> >> ENTRANCE WOUND".
>
> >NOR would anyone else think TELLING THE TRUTH would lead to a
> >"quicksand" of pain!
>
> Truth is something I think you're not very familiar with...
LOL!! YOU are a comedian, huh?
> >> He was merely calling on his past experience of
> >> seeing hundreds of bullet entry wounds and using that experience to
> >> pronounce that the wound he'd seen "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND".
>
> >Correct.
>
> Good of you to so admit.
Why wouldn't I admit the truth?? That was my point, he did NOT need to
probe it to know it was one of entry based on its size and appearance.
> >> Later when the FBI told him that he'd be wise to retract that
> >> statement he attempted to say that it wasn't a entry wound. But there
> >> is NO WAY he could honestyly make that statement UNLESS HE HAD
> >> THOROUGHLY EXAMINED THE WOUND. Dr Perry never thoroughly examined
> >> that wound.
>
> >How do you know for sure?
>
> Read the testimony, stupid!!!
So you are saying NO lied to the WC??
As Wally once said, FIRST STATEMENTS ARE THE MORE ACCURATE ONES, and
his first statement was it was of entry.
> >> It looked like an entrance wound and that's what it
> >> was......
>
> >Yes.
>
> Good of you to admit that.
Why wouldn't I admit the truth liar? I'm NOT the one SUPPORTING THE
LIE HE TOLD THE WC (it being of exit), YOU are!
Walt
wrote:
The Stupid Bastard wrote:....How? YOUR gay lover Ben has said this
about Doctors and bullet wounds!
Your problem is your inability to demonstrate that doctors are
ballistics experts.” (Bendsie Holmes – 5/24/09)
Dud...Stupid bastard.... "ballistics" is the study of projectiles and
how they fly......It also includes the study of projectiles and guns
but it has NOTHING to do with the pathology of gunshot wounds
> Yes.- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 9, 10:23=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <84fdd5f9-f5e5-41da-b7f5-ea67c2e6e...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Dec 9, 8:38=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 8, 6:10=3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 8, 2:22 am, Fran ois Carlier <Fra-Carl...@orange.fr> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Hello, everybody,
>>
>ett=3D
>> >er to
>> >> > > me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the m=
>edi=3D
>> >cal
>> >> > > evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street"=
>.
>>
>> >> > > It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
>>
>y t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > > conspiracy idiotic theories.
>>
>> >> > > He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
>>
>> >> > > Everybody should know it.
>>
>ed
>> >> > it a wound of entry. Then he denied that he did so.
>>
>> >> > In this telephone interview, "honest man" Perry's denial is compared
>> >> > to a transcript of the press conference:
>>
>>
>> >> > Go peddle your BS someplace else, Frenchy.
>>
>> >> Here in the recording we can see an excellent example of a man backing
>> >> away from the truth...... Dr Perry said the wound in JFK's throat
>> >> "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND"
>>
>> >Good point Wally for once!!
>>
>> >NOW, I am NOT disagreeing with you below, BUT it needs to be "pointed
>> >out" that your gay lover disagrees with these kinds of comments
>>
>> Strangely enough, it's *YOU* I disagree with, stupid!!
>
>What else is NEW?? YOU can't disagree with YOURSELF, now can you?
You continually claim I do - yet can't show any such thing...
>> I wonder why a government shill finds it necessary to keep lying about my
>> beliefs and assertions?
>
>Too bad you can't quote me saying anything close to SUPPORTING the
>government, but we all SEE YOU DO EVERY DAY!
You assert that JFK died on 11/22/63, don't you?
>YOU are ruining another post of mine in DEFENSE OF THE WC right now
>you stinking WC shill!
Lies are lies, no matter *WHO* tells 'em.
>> >and
>> >since he WON'T call you out ever, I thought I would drop his words in
>> >here for him!
>>
>> Nah... you're lying again...
>
>Nah... I'm NOT!
Oswald's own words prove that you are.
>> >> He then quickly added.... "BUT IT WASN'T". Dr Perry knew what bullet
>> >> entry wounds looked like....
>>
>> >How? YOUR gay lover Ben has said this about Doctors and bullet wounds!
>>
>> >Your problem is your inability to demonstrate that doctors are
>> >ballistics experts.=3D94 (Bendsie Holmes =3D96 5/24/09)
>>
>> Still true.
>
>According to you it is true, but your OPINION and claims ALWAYS go
>unproven!
Until you can prove otherwise, that assertion is perfectly true.
>> >NOW he included this comment, and many others, in rebuttal to my claim
>> >that the PH doctors
>>
>> You're a liar, stupid. The Parkland Hospital doctors WERE NOT being
>> discussed. It was Dr. Burkley and the Death Certificate (which you
>> provably lied about)
>
>Where do you THINK HE GOT HIS INFO YOU STINKING, LYING, MORONIC WC
>SHILL?
This is quite simple, stupid. We were *NOT* discussing the PH staff - and you
keep insisting that we were. You're lying.
The fact that you can't quote any support for your assertion simply proves it.
>Just how dumb are you? San Jose State should give you a refund as
>they did NOT enhance your thinkig ability in the least!
They did well enough...
>> I defy you to produce, IN CONTEXT, any such discussion.
>
>It was the discussion you moron!
I defy you to produce, IN CONTEXT, any such discussion. But you will continue
to refuse to do so, because you can't.
>Unless you can show us where Dr.
>Burkley PERSONALLY treated JFK to the exclusion of anyone else at PH!
Dr. Burkley was who you were referring to, as well as the death certificate.
It's up to *YOU* to support your argument.
>> But you won't.
>
>Why would I as it has nothing to do with reality!
The reality is that you're making claims you can't support. Liar, aren't you?
>> >doctors said JFK died as a result of a high
>> >velocity bullet to the head!
>>
>> Yep... *NOT* as support for any silly assertion that doctors are
>> incapable of correctly placing a wound on the body.
>
>Hey, I'm simply USING YOUR WORDS! Like these!
And that's PRECISELY what my words say.
>=93Bravo! Doctors are now ballistics experts in your world.
>
>Sadly for you, they aren't in any thinking man's world.=94 (Bendsie
>Holmes =96 5/.24/09)
Yep... still true.
>> >IF they didn't know this due to NOT being "ballistic experts", how
>> >could they know if the wound in the throat was one of entry or exit?
>>
>> How could they know the color of JFK's suit? How could they differentiate
>> skin from blood vessels? You ask perfectly meaningless questions.
>
>LOL!! They are ONLY meaningless to a liar like you!
>
>They illustrate YOUR LIES perfectly!
You ask perfectly meaningless questions. And can't explain 'em.
Nor can you produce any evidence of ballistics training on the part of Dr.
Burkley.
>> Dr. Burkley was *NOT* a ballistics expert, so his alleged (you've NEVER
>> quoted it) statement that the wounds were caused by a high velocity rifle
>
>Whoa, hold on there liar! I said he has said JFK died due to a high
>velocity BULLET, NOT rifle.
You've said both, I've quoted you.
What you REFUSE to quote is Dr. Burkley saying that. Or the Death Certificate
saying that.
>Why do you lie all the time about what I
>say?
Produce your quote from Dr. Burkley... or the Death Certificate. But you can't.
>NO wonder he is PARANOID about me doing this to him, huh?
Just pointing out lies.
>> is just as
>> meaningless as a quoting a ballistics expert that the wound was located
>> at T-3 (or T-1, or C-7, or anywhere else)
>
>He got his info from the doctors at PH you moron!
So which doctor at PH was a ballistics expert? And why not stop lying that my
comments had anything to do with PH?
>By calling him
>wrong you ARE calling them wrong as well, just like the WC did!
Where's your citation of ballistics training, stupid?
>Backpeddling won't save you know liar!
Who's "backpeddling?" You STILL can't support your claims.
>> The fact that you STILL can't understand this point illustrates why I keep
>> referring to you as a stupid moron.
>
>NOW, you are just using slander BECAUSE I have shown you to be the
>liar and WC shill you are!
And yet, you provably still can't understand it... despite my frequent
explanations.
>> >This is the DANGER this man named Ben Holmes creates!!
>>
>> The "danger" I create is to force people to read the evidence for
>> themselves, and stop lying about it.
>
>YOU and Wally, along with the other LNers, are the ONLY ones lying
>about it on here!
And yet, you got caught several times in this very post, refusing to cite the
evidence.
>> You lied about the Death Certificate, as just one example, I pointed it
>> out.
>
>Too bad you couldn't show or prove this claim, huh?
Already did. You keep running from it. You cannot quote any Death Certificate
that says what *YOU* claimed it said.
>> You lied about eyewitness testimony for Oswald owning a watch, I pointed
>> it out.
>
>Too bad you couldn't show or prove this claim, huh?
Marina's testimony did precisely that. You claimed such testimony didn't exist,
yet I quoted it.
>Plus, YOU HAD TO LIE about the time period being discussed to even get
>this lie of your off the ground.
Quote your statement about eyewitnesses, let's examine it.
>> You lied abgut the Silvia Duran notation being written in the
>> "Historic Diary", I pointed it out.
>
>I think you need to learn to read moron as the HSCA said this, NOT me!
The HSCA *labeled* it the "historic diary", But *YOU'VE* continually claimed
that the Silvia Duran notation was in that diary.
Lied, didn't you?
>> You lied about 'most CT'ers don't believe Oswald traveled to Mexico City', I
>> pointed it out.
>
>Most don't, you simply inferred that "supposedly", "might have",
>"could have", "perhaps did"
None of which were quoted in the statements I gave.
Liar, aren't you?
>mean the same as YOUR CLAIM which was HE
>DID DEFINITELY GO AND THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING TO SHOW THIS!
>
>Flat-out lied, didn't you?
Clearly not. My citations & quotes supported my assertion, and demolished
yours.
Liar, aren't you?
>> You lied about.... well, why continue?
>
>When did you start?
Pointing out your lies? Pretty much as soon as you started posting 'em.
>> >> ...and he recognized the throat wound as an
>> >> entrance wound.....He also knew that he couldn't say with absolute
>> >> certainty that ..."IT WASN'T".......Unless he had probed the wound and
>> >> examined it thoroughly.
>>
>> >So NOW you are getting as bad as Ben! YOU are saying doctors who work
>> >with hundreds of gunshot wounds in a year don't know the difference
>> >between an entry or exit wound "without probing?"
>>
>> What did Dr. Perry testify to, stupid?
>
>YOU tell us since it is YOUR point? I am simply asking why he thinks
>doctors need to probe a wound to determine if it is one of entry or
>exit moron!
What did Dr. Perry testify to, stupid?
>> >> Obviously he was attempting to undo what
>> >> he'd done.....He had no idea that he was stepping into quicksand when
>> >> he made the off the cuff remark that the wound "LOOKED LIKE AN
>> >> ENTRANCE WOUND".
>>
>> >NOR would anyone else think TELLING THE TRUTH would lead to a
>> >"quicksand" of pain!
>>
>> Truth is something I think you're not very familiar with...
>
>LOL!! YOU are a comedian, huh?
Is the truth funny to you?
>> >> He was merely calling on his past experience of
>> >> seeing hundreds of bullet entry wounds and using that experience to
>> >> pronounce that the wound he'd seen "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND".
>>
>> >Correct.
>>
>> Good of you to so admit.
>
>Why wouldn't I admit the truth??
Your track record, for one.
>That was my point, he did NOT need to
>probe it to know it was one of entry based on its size and appearance.
Of course not.
>> >> Later when the FBI told him that he'd be wise to retract that
>> >> statement he attempted to say that it wasn't a entry wound. But there
>> >> is NO WAY he could honestyly make that statement UNLESS HE HAD
>> >> THOROUGHLY EXAMINED THE WOUND. Dr Perry never thoroughly examined
>> >> that wound.
>>
>> >How do you know for sure?
>>
>> Read the testimony, stupid!!!
>
>So you are saying NO lied to the WC??
I'm saying that you're too stupid to take the time to read the testimony. It's
perfectly clear, AND HISTORICAL FACT - that no-one at Parkland had any great
length of time to "examine" wounds.
>As Wally once said, FIRST STATEMENTS ARE THE MORE ACCURATE ONES, and
>his first statement was it was of entry.
Not only his first statement, but many later ones as well.
>> >> It looked like an entrance wound and that's what it
>> >> was......
>>
>> >Yes.
>>
>> Good of you to admit that.
>
>Why wouldn't I admit the truth liar?
Because you have a track record of lying about the evidence.
>I'm NOT the one SUPPORTING THE
>LIE HE TOLD THE WC (it being of exit), YOU are!
Your mother shouldn't be the neighborhood's sex toy. Tell her that for me, then
stop telling me these things.
Walt
The above may not be perfectly clear..... Rob you're a stupid bastard
who doesn't know that the science of "ballistics" and the science the
pathology of gun shot wounds are two different things.
Ballistics deals with the flight of projectiles through the barrel and
out of the muzzle of a gun. Ballistics is also used as a way of
identifing a projectile to determine if it had been fired from a
specific weapon.
Many doctors who are well educated in the pathology of gun shot wounds
no NOTHING about ballistics.... And many ballistics experts know
nothing about the pathology of gun shot wounds.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 6:10 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 2:22 am, Fran ois Carlier <Fra-Carl...@orange.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > Hello, everybody,
>
> > > > Doctor Perry (Rest in Peace, you were a fine man !) once wrote a letter to
> > > > me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the medical
> > > > evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street".
>
> > > > It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
>
> > > > He was an honest man who "was there", saw the body, and did not buy the
> > > > conspiracy idiotic theories.
>
> > > > He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
>
> > > > Everybody should know it.
>
> > > When Perry described the neck wound in his press conference, he called
> > > it a wound of entry. Then he denied that he did so.
>
> > > In this telephone interview, "honest man" Perry's denial is compared
> > > to a transcript of the press conference:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFEoAmF4SbM
>
> > > Go peddle your BS someplace else, Frenchy.
>
> > Here in the recording we can see an excellent example of a man backing
> > away from the truth...... Dr Perry said the wound in JFK's throat
> > "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND"
>
> Good point Wally for once!!
>
NOW, I am NOT disagreeing with you below, BUT.....
Ha,ha,ha, hee,hee,hee .... I'm not disagreeing with you ...but I will
try to cast doubt on what you've posted. What you've posted is
irrefutable, but as a Warren Commission schill it's my job to attempt
to discredit you. Signed ( rob caprio)...aka The Stupid Bastard
robcap...@netscape.com
Can't you read homo?? I said YOUR gay lover Ben has casted doubt on
what you posted.
> What you've posted is
> irrefutable, but as a Warren Commission schill it's my job to attempt
> to discredit you. Signed ( rob caprio)...aka The Stupid Bastard
Lie away homo, but YOU can't show me SUPPORTING THE WC or any other
government body LIKE YOU HAVE!
Remember these claims liar?
**New – Walt never proved his claim that LHO worked for J. Edgar
Hoover!**
**New – Walt never proved his claim that LHO posed with Mike Paine’s
“MC” in the one and only BY photo he claims is authentic! (Of course
he NEVER proved the photo is authentic either!)
Walt never proved his claim that Marina “folded a BY photo and put it
in her shoe to hide it!”**
Walt never proved his claim that LHO was LBJ’s “puppet!”
Walt never proved his claim that LHO wanted the 40” Carcano because it
was “illustrated” in the ad when he made the money order out for the
36” Carbine w/scope. (The catalog number and the dollar amount matched
this weapon – NOT the 40” Carcano that Klein’s did NOT have in stock
at the time.)
Walt never proved his claim that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling
Mounts".
Walt never proved his claim that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved his claim that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved his claim that Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the
CE-133A photo on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that the wallet was found "INSIDE" the
owner's car (allegedly LHO’s).
Walt never proved his claim that Michael Paine had the same model
rifle as LHO (Carcano 40”).
Walt never proved his claim that General Walker believed LHO shot at
him in 4/63.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker on
4/10/63.
Walt never proved his claim that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT
General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO RECEIVED a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that the bill of lading proved a 40"
Carcano was ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO ORDERED a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the weapon found on the roof was a
DPD shotgun.
Walt never proved his claim that Lt. Day performed a “lift” off of the
Carcano on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a “smudged print” on the
wooden foregrip of CE139 when found.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a clip inside the Carcano
when it was found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved his claim that Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved his claim that Truly held a “roll call” and LHO was
the ONLY one missing.
Walt never proved his claim that DeMohrenschildt actually owned the
40” Carcano allegedly ordered from Klein’s.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct.
1963.
Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that the weight listed on the “Bill of
lading” was TARE weight.
Walt never proved his claim that the weight of the 40” Carcano is
7.5LBS when the ad the WC used says 7.0LBS.
Walt never proved his claim that the bullet recovered from Walker
shooting was copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO ordered a rifle that was easily
traceable so he could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved his claim that the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm
ammo) came from a Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved his claim that BY photo 133A (deMohrenschildt BY
photo) came from the SAME negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the
money order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved his claim Fritz was just sloppy when timing the
arrest report ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved his claim of a “signed affadavit with a notary seal”
signed by the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the
pilot fly him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO was part of a plot to kill Castro
(probably claims he was going to be the “trigger man” too).
Walt never proved his claim that a reporter lied because he was “bent
on hyperbole”, and said the bullet found at Walker’s was a .30.06
caliber instead of a 6.5mm bullet as Walt and the WC claim.
Walt never proved his claim that CE573 was the bullet actually fired
at Gen. Walker on 4/10/63.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a “bullet pock mark on the
concrete ledge beneath the SE corner window on the sixth floor.”
Walt
wrote:
Duh...Stupid Bastard.....How do you think a doctor locates a bullet
that has not exited a body??
He examines the wound and determines by using his training and
experience that it is the place that the bullet entered the victim.
( In this case Dr Perry knew in a heart beat that the wound was an
entrance wound) Then, depending on where that entry wound is he will
probe to see if he can locate it, and extract it. Not ALL wounds are
probed and I never made that statement. I said ..unless Dr perry had
examined the throat wound carefully and throughly he could not have
determined that it was NOT what he said it looked like.....AN ENTRANCE
WOUND... Dr Perrry RECOGNIZED the wound as an entry wound, and
that's what he said. Somebody certainly talked to him and told him he
was wrong, and the wound was not an entry wound. Dr.Perry accepted
the word of another that it was not an entry wound, because he wanted
to continue working as a doctor in Texas. We can be certain that Dr
Perry's observation and assessment of the wound as being an entrance
wound was correct simply because he KNEW an entrance wound when he saw
one.....And so did Dr. Carrico.
> LIE HE TOLD THE WC (it being of exit), YOU are!- Hide quoted text -
mucher1
That's simply not good enough, Walt. If, as you pointed out yourself,
no thorough examination of the throat wound was performed, how can you
honestly conclude that it couldn't possibly have been caused by an
exiting bullet?
Walt
I'll bet it would be good enough to hold up in court...... When two
experienced doctors observe the same thing, I'll bet a jury would
accept it.
mucher1
Accept what? Two entry wounds + no corresponding exits = two
disappearing bullets? Yeah, right...
Walt
Oh there was an exit wound alright....On JFK's back....But the lyin
bastards claimed it was an entrance wound.
Are you aware that doctors Perry and Carrico were far and away more
qualified to identify bullet wouinds than ANYBODY at the autopsy?
Bud
What tests did they perform to determine whether it was an entrance
or an exit?
Bud
Where could a shot that entered JFK throat and exited the wound in
his back been fired from?
> Are you aware that doctors Perry and Carrico were far and away more
> qualified to identify bullet wouinds than ANYBODY at the autopsy?
Nobody has disputed that the wound in Kennedy`s neck was a bullet
wound, have they?
Bud
This is how it would play out in court...
Prosecutor: How did you determine it was an entrance wound?
Perry: I assumed it was an entrance wound basically because it
looked like one, small and round. Usually when a bullet enters a body
it causes a small round hole, and flattens and distorts when
traversing a body, causes a larger and irregular shaped exit.
Prosecutor: Is this always the case?
Perry: No, if a bullet doesn`t distort or flatten, an exit can look
like an entrance.
Prosecutor: Is just looking at a wound a sure way of determining
whether a wound is an entrance or exit?
Perry: No.
Walt
it causes a small round hole, with an abrasion collar ( bruising ) on
the circumference. The edges point inward in the direction the bullet
was traveling. That's how I know it was an entrance wound.
Prosecutor: Is this always the case?
Perry: Yes..... Only an idiot would believe the surrounding skin
would be pointed AWAY from the direction the bullet was
traveling......
Prosecutor: Judge, I move that the witness's response be stricken
from the record........
>
> Prosecutor: How did you determine it was an entrance wound?
>
> Perry: I assumed it was an entrance wound basically because it
> looked like one, small and round. Usually when a bullet enters a body
> it causes a small round hole, and flattens and distorts when
> traversing a body, causes a larger and irregular shaped exit.
>
> Prosecutor: Is this always the case?
>
> Perry: No, if a bullet doesn`t distort or flatten, an exit can look
> like an entrance.
>
> Prosecutor: Is just looking at a wound a sure way of determining
> whether a wound is an entrance or exit?
>
> Perry: No.
>
>
>
> > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
YOUR gay lover disagrees with YOU!
“I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
bullet, his doctor and the WC did.” (Robert)
“Which one was a ballistics expert?” (Bendsie Holmes – 5/23/09)
Of course the lying WC shill going by the name of "Ben Holmes"
claimed was lying because the Navy Death Certificate does NOT mention
this, but the truth is Dr. Burkley reached this conclusion after he
spoke with the doctors at PH as did the WC.
The fact he did NOT mention it on the Navy copy does NOT change the
fact that this was the "OFFICIAL CAUSE OF DEATH!"
But since NO one was a "ballistics expert" they were ALL wrong
according to Ben.
So to paraphrase YOUR gay lover Wally:
Which doctor who looked at the throat wound was a "ballistics expert?"
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 9, 5:45=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 4:36=A0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 9 Dec., 15:14, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > On 9 Dec., 14:38, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > > > On Dec 8, 2:22 am, Fran ois Carlier <Fra-Carl...@orange.fr> wro=
>te:
>>
>> > > > > > > Hello, everybody,
>>
>> > > > > > > Doctor Perry (Rest in Peace, you were a fine man !) once wrot=
>e a letter to
>> > > > > > > me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions on =
>the medical
>> > > > > > > evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm St=
>reet".
>>
>> > > > > > > It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
>>
>ot buy the
>> > > > > > > conspiracy idiotic theories.
>>
>> > > > > > > He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
>>
>> > > > > > > Everybody should know it.
>>
> called
>> > > > > > it a wound of entry. Then he denied that he did so.
>>
>pared
>> > > > > > to a transcript of the press conference:
>>
>>
>> > > > > > Go peddle your BS someplace else, Frenchy.
>>
>cking
>> > > > > away from the truth...... Dr Perry said the wound in JFK's throat
>> > > > > "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND"
>>
> bullet
>> > > > > entry wounds looked like and he recognized the throat wound as an
>e
>> > > > > certainty that ..."IT WASN'T".......Unless he had probed the woun=
>d and
>> > > > > examined it thoroughly. =A0 =A0Obviously he was attempting to und=
>o what
>> > > > > he'd done.....He had no idea that he was stepping into quicksand =
>when
>> > > > > he made the off the cuff remark that the wound "LOOKED LIKE AN
>> > > > > ENTRANCE WOUND". He was merely calling on his past experience of
>to
>> > > > > pronounce that the wound he'd seen "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND=
>".
>> > > > > Later when the FBI told him that he'd be wise to retract that
>here
>> > > > > is NO WAY he could honestyly make that statement UNLESS HE HAD
>ned
>> > > > > that wound. =A0It looked like an entrance wound and that's what i=
>t
>> > > > > was......
>>
>> > > > How can you honestly make that statement?
>>
>> > > I can honestly make that statement because Dr perry's observation was
> in
>> > > JFK's throat was a "PENETRATING WOUND"
>>
>> > > Therefore TWO of the doctors who worked on JFK reported independently
>> > > reported the same thing..... That the wound in JFK's throat was an
>> > > entrance wound.
>>
>> > That's simply not good enough, Walt. If, as you pointed out yourself,
>> > no thorough examination of the throat wound was performed, how can you
>> > honestly conclude that it couldn't possibly have been caused by an
>> > exiting bullet?
>>
>> I'll bet it would be good enough to hold up in court...... When two
>> experienced doctors observe the same thing, I'll bet a jury would
>> accept it.
>
>YOUR gay lover disagrees with YOU!
I rather doubt if Walt has a "gay lover", but undoubtedly you're referring to me
again. It's another illustration of your stupidity to think that I would
disagree, since I've been on record in this forum for 8 years that the neck
wound was an ENTRY wound. Dr. Perry was correct. He was threatened into
changing his story when he testified, but both before and afterwords, he was
consistent... it was an entry wound.
It would certainly be good enough to hold up in court, IT WAS THE ONLY MEDICAL
OPINION BASED ON A PRIMARY MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THAT WOUND!!
>=93I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
>shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
>bullet, his doctor and the WC did.=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Which one was a ballistics expert?=94 (Bendsie Holmes =96 5/23/09)
What "velocity" has to do with an entry/exit determination of a wound is rather
a mystery.
Sorta makes me think that if this kook were faced with a Queens Gambit Declined
opening, he'd run to a Checkers player for advice...
>Of course the lying WC shill going by the name of "Ben Holmes"
>claimed was lying because the Navy Death Certificate does NOT mention
>this,
It doesn't. And the kook claimed that it did. That's a prima facie case if
ever I saw one.
>but the truth is Dr. Burkley reached this conclusion after he
>spoke with the doctors at PH as did the WC.
You STILL can't quote Dr. Burkley on this issue.
>The fact he did NOT mention it on the Navy copy does NOT change the
>fact that this was the "OFFICIAL CAUSE OF DEATH!"
What do you consider the authoritative source for the "Official cause of death"?
You clearly don't think it was the Naval Death Certificate. (Which, of course,
would be the *LEGAL* authority.
>But since NO one was a "ballistics expert" they were ALL wrong
>according to Ben.
No stupid, they were *NOT* wrong. I've stated repeatedly (and cited for) that
the MC is a high velocity rifle. I'm pointing out that you are using sources
that don't have the authority to say what you're using them for.
>So to paraphrase YOUR gay lover Wally:
>
>Which doctor who looked at the throat wound was a "ballistics expert?"
A very poor paraphrase indeed... since doctors ARE fully qualified to make
entry/exit determinations of a body wound. An analogy to what the kook was
doing is to ask why a BALLISTICS EXPERT asserted that the neck wound was an
entry wound. (And it would be equally wrong)
Walt
> > me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the medical
> > evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street".
>
> > It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
>
> > conspiracy idiotic theories.
>
> > He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
>
> > Everybody should know it.
>
> it a wound of entry. Then he denied that he did so.
>
> to a transcript of the press conference:
>
>
> Go peddle your BS someplace else, Frenchy.
I've listened to the tape many times and it seems to me that Dr Perry
reveals why he hedged on his earlier statement, that the tiny bullet
hole in JFK's throat looked like an entrance wound.
Out of the blue Dr Perry says ..."I didn't know about the back
wound"... Obviously someone had told him that the wound that he saw in
JFK's throat was not an entrance wound because JFK had been shot from
behind and there was a bullet entrance wound on JFK's back. Dr Perry
was not ready to lay down his life and security over this issue so he
simply went along with the program.
However he never waivered... he repeatedly said that the wound "LOOKED
LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND". Dr Perry was imminently qualified to know
what a bullrt entrance wound looked like, and he was supported by Dr
Carrico who also saw the wound as a "PENETRATING" wound. Dr Perry
obviously had been told by someone that the prosectors at the autopsy
found an entrance wound on JFK's back and they found that it exited
his throat. How could Dr Perry argue with such a statement?? Of
course it's common knowledge now that the back wound was never
properly examined or the path of the bullet determined...but Dr Perry
didn't know that at the time.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <4a410e05-16ee-4df5-8880-d32dd686f...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
How would you know homo?
> but undoubtedly you're referring to me
> again.
Mighty sensitive, aren't you? Guilty, aren't you?
> It's another illustration of your stupidity to think that I would
> disagree, since I've been on record in this forum for 8 years that the neck
> wound was an ENTRY wound.
I'm simply GOING BY YOUR WORDS LIAR!
Remember. you said this!
“Wouldn't it be more honest to attack or defend a man based ON HIS OWN
WORDS?” (Ben Holmes – 11/7/03)
It seems NOT so much so when it is Ben's words, huh?
> Dr. Perry was correct. He was threatened into
> changing his story when he testified, but both before and afterwords, he was
> consistent... it was an entry wound.
Nice of you to admit it, but it seems a tad late given you DEVOUT
CLAIM that doctors have to be "ballistic experts" to know anything
about wounds.
> It would certainly be good enough to hold up in court, IT WAS THE ONLY MEDICAL
> OPINION BASED ON A PRIMARY MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THAT WOUND!!
But which one was a "ballistic expert?"
That was your claim for the head wound, remember? And the back
wound,so why is the neck wound any different?
Lied, didn't you?
> >=93I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
> >shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
> >bullet, his doctor and the WC did.=94 (Robert)
>
> >=93Which one was a ballistics expert?=94 (Bendsie Holmes =96 5/23/09)
>
> What "velocity" has to do with an entry/exit determination of a wound is rather
> a mystery.
NOT to doctors who know what the heck they are doing. It is a mystery
only to LIARS like you!
> Sorta makes me think that if this kook were faced with a Queens Gambit Declined
> opening, he'd run to a Checkers player for advice...
Keep your "Queenie" stuff to yourself homo.
> >Of course the lying WC shill going by the name of "Ben Holmes"
> >claimed was lying because the Navy Death Certificate does NOT mention
> >this,
>
> It doesn't. And the kook claimed that it did. That's a prima facie case if
> ever I saw one.
Prove I claimed it! According to Bendsie, IF you mention Burkely YOU
have to be menting the Navy D.C.
When will he cite for this claim of his?
> >but the truth is Dr. Burkley reached this conclusion after he
> >spoke with the doctors at PH as did the WC.
>
> You STILL can't quote Dr. Burkley on this issue.
The official conclusion was death by high velocity bullet, he has
agreed with it.
Live with it liar. Don't worry, you can just keep lying by claiming
the M-C he never ordered was a high velocity rifle to earn your Troll
checks.
> >The fact he did NOT mention it on the Navy copy does NOT change the
> >fact that this was the "OFFICIAL CAUSE OF DEATH!"
>
> What do you consider the authoritative source for the "Official cause of death"?
The verdict of those who treated him and did the autopsy.
> You clearly don't think it was the Naval Death Certificate. (Which, of course,
> would be the *LEGAL* authority.
NO it wouldn't liar...the *LEGAL* AUTHORITY was the STATE OF TEXAS who
had jurisdiction!
Why do you lie all the time?
> >But since NO one was a "ballistics expert" they were ALL wrong
> >according to Ben.
>
> No stupid, they were *NOT* wrong. I've stated repeatedly (and cited for) that
> the MC is a high velocity rifle.
You lied moron as NO one believes 2,000 f.p.s. is high velocity! Even
your homosexual lover disagreed with you!
> I'm pointing out that you are using sources
> that don't have the authority to say what you're using them for.
NO liar, you are trying to hide your lies as usual.
> >So to paraphrase YOUR gay lover Wally:
>
> >Which doctor who looked at the throat wound was a "ballistics expert?"
>
> A very poor paraphrase indeed... since doctors ARE fully qualified to make
> entry/exit determinations of a body wound.
But not to determine if a high velocity bullet hit the victim's head?
OR to determine the location of a back would it would seem to this
lying WC shill!
> An analogy to what the kook was
> doing is to ask why a BALLISTICS EXPERT asserted that the neck wound was an
> entry wound. (And it would be equally wrong)
NO it isn't you lying WC shill as YOUR claim has been there was NO
ballistic expert there, so how would they know anything about any
wounds!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 10, 1:08=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <4a410e05-16ee-4df5-8880-d32dd686f...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Dec 9, 5:45=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 9, 4:36=3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On 9 Dec., 15:14, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> > > > On 9 Dec., 14:38, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> > > > > > On Dec 8, 2:22 am, Fran ois Carlier <Fra-Carl...@orange.fr> =
>wro=3D
>> >te:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Hello, everybody,
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Doctor Perry (Rest in Peace, you were a fine man !) once w=
>rot=3D
>> >e a letter to
>> >> > > > > > > me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions =
>on =3D
>> >the medical
>> >> > > > > > > evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm=
> St=3D
>> >reet".
>>
>> >> > > > > > > It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren repor=
>t.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > He was an honest man who "was there", saw the body, and di=
>d n=3D
>> >ot buy the
>> >> > > > > > > conspiracy idiotic theories.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Everybody should know it.
>>
> he=3D
>> > called
>> >> > > > > > it a wound of entry. Then he denied that he did so.
>>
>com=3D
>> >pared
>> >> > > > > > to a transcript of the press conference:
>>
>>
>> >> > > > > > Go peddle your BS someplace else, Frenchy.
>>
> ba=3D
>> >cking
>> >> > > > > away from the truth...... Dr Perry said the wound in JFK's thr=
>oat
>> >> > > > > "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND"
>>
> what=3D
>> > bullet
>> >> > > > > entry wounds looked like and he recognized the throat wound as=
> an
>> >> > > > > entrance wound.....He also knew that he couldn't say with abso=
>lut=3D
>> >e
>> >> > > > > certainty that ..."IT WASN'T".......Unless he had probed the w=
>oun=3D
>> >d and
>> >> > > > > examined it thoroughly. =3DA0 =3DA0Obviously he was attempting=
> to und=3D
>> >o what
>> >> > > > > he'd done.....He had no idea that he was stepping into quicksa=
>nd =3D
>> >when
>> >> > > > > he made the off the cuff remark that the wound "LOOKED LIKE AN
>of
>> >> > > > > seeing hundreds of bullet entry wounds and using that experien=
>ce =3D
>> >to
>> >> > > > > pronounce that the wound he'd seen "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WO=
>UND=3D
>> >".
>> >> > > > > Later when the FBI told him that he'd be wise to retract that
>t t=3D
>> >here
>> >> > > > > is NO WAY he could honestyly make that statement UNLESS HE HAD
>exami=3D
>> >ned
>> >> > > > > that wound. =3DA0It looked like an entrance wound and that's w=
>hat i=3D
>> >t
>> >> > > > > was......
>>
>> >> > > > How can you honestly make that statement?
>>
>was
>> >> > > corroborated by Dr Carrico's statement. =3DA0 Dr Carrico said the =
>wound=3D
>> > in
>> >> > > JFK's throat was a "PENETRATING WOUND"
>>
>tly
>> >> > > reported the same thing..... That the wound in JFK's throat was an
>> >> > > entrance wound.
>>
>,
>> >> > no thorough examination of the throat wound was performed, how can y=
>ou
>> >> > honestly conclude that it couldn't possibly have been caused by an
>> >> > exiting bullet?
>>
>> >> I'll bet it would be good enough to hold up in court...... When two
>> >> experienced doctors observe the same thing, I'll bet a jury would
>> >> accept it.
>>
>> >YOUR gay lover disagrees with YOU!
>>
>> I rather doubt if Walt has a "gay lover",
>
>How would you know homo?
>
>> but undoubtedly you're referring to me
>> again.
>
>Mighty sensitive, aren't you? Guilty, aren't you?
>
>> disagree, since I've been on record in this forum for 8 years that the ne=
>ck
>> wound was an ENTRY wound.
>
>I'm simply GOING BY YOUR WORDS LIAR!
>
>Remember. you said this!
>
>WORDS?=94 (Ben Holmes =96 11/7/03)
>
>It seems NOT so much so when it is Ben's words, huh?
>
>> changing his story when he testified, but both before and afterwords, he =
>was
>> consistent... it was an entry wound.
>
>Nice of you to admit it, but it seems a tad late
Been saying so for the last 8 years...
>given you DEVOUT
>CLAIM that doctors have to be "ballistic experts" to know anything
>about wounds.
Never said that. When all you have is lies, you'll have to argue with yourself.
>> It would certainly be good enough to hold up in court, IT WAS THE ONLY ME=
>DICAL
>> OPINION BASED ON A PRIMARY MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THAT WOUND!!
>
>But which one was a "ballistic expert?"
>
>That was your claim for the head wound, remember? And the back
>wound,so why is the neck wound any different?
>
>Lied, didn't you?
Stupid, aren't you? How many times do I need to tell you that ballistics
experts make authoritative judgments about weapon velocity, and doctors make
authoritative judgments about wounds and wound locations?
>> >=3D93I don't need to defend anything as I did NOT claim JFK died from a
>> >shot to the head by a "high-velocity"
>> >bullet, his doctor and the WC did.=3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >=3D93Which one was a ballistics expert?=3D94 (Bendsie Holmes =3D96 5/23/=
>09)
>>
>> What "velocity" has to do with an entry/exit determination of a wound is
>> rather a mystery.
>
>NOT to doctors who know what the heck they are doing. It is a mystery
>only to LIARS like you!
Moron, aren't you? Next time you're sick, be sure to look up a ballistics
expert to heal you.
>> Sorta makes me think that if this kook were faced with a Queens Gambit
>> Declined opening, he'd run to a Checkers player for advice...
>
>Keep your "Queenie" stuff to yourself homo.
The ignorant are always frightened of intellect.
>> >Of course the lying WC shill going by the name of "Ben Holmes"
>> >claimed was lying because the Navy Death Certificate does NOT mention
>> >this,
>>
>> It doesn't. And the kook claimed that it did. That's a prima facie case if
>> ever I saw one.
>
>Prove I claimed it!
Already did.
>According to Bendsie, IF you mention Burkely
Untrue.
>YOU have to be menting the Navy D.C.
>
>When will he cite for this claim of his?
Today. Already did.
>> >but the truth is Dr. Burkley reached this conclusion after he
>> >spoke with the doctors at PH as did the WC.
>>
>> You STILL can't quote Dr. Burkley on this issue.
>
>The official conclusion was death by high velocity bullet, he has
>agreed with it.
You STILL can't quote Dr. Burkley on this issue. In any case, you stated that
HE ASSERTED IT (not agreed with what someone else said)... indeed, you stated
that he wrote it in the Death Certificate.
But you lied.
>Live with it liar. Don't worry, you can just keep lying by claiming
>the M-C he never ordered was a high velocity rifle to earn your Troll
>checks.
Nah... the cites I provided do that for me.
>> >The fact he did NOT mention it on the Navy copy does NOT change the
>> >fact that this was the "OFFICIAL CAUSE OF DEATH!"
>>
>> What do you consider the authoritative source for the "Official cause of =
>death"?
>
>The verdict of those who treated him and did the autopsy.
So the Autopsy Report is the authoritative source for the cause of death?
>> You clearly don't think it was the Naval Death Certificate. (Which, of
>> course, would be the *LEGAL* authority.
>
>NO it wouldn't liar...the *LEGAL* AUTHORITY was the STATE OF TEXAS who
>had jurisdiction!
Courts disagree.
>Why do you lie all the time?
>
>
>> >But since NO one was a "ballistics expert" they were ALL wrong
>> >according to Ben.
>>
>> No stupid, they were *NOT* wrong. =A0I've stated repeatedly (and cited fo=
>r) that
>> the MC is a high velocity rifle.
>
>You lied moron as NO one believes 2,000 f.p.s. is high velocity! Even
>your homosexual lover disagreed with you!
And yet, none of my cites was from a doctor.
>>=A0I'm pointing out that you are using sources
>> that don't have the authority to say what you're using them for.
>
>NO liar, you are trying to hide your lies as usual.
>
>> >So to paraphrase YOUR gay lover Wally:
>>
>> >Which doctor who looked at the throat wound was a "ballistics expert?"
>>
>> A very poor paraphrase indeed... since doctors ARE fully qualified to make
>> entry/exit determinations of a body wound.
>
>But not to determine if a high velocity bullet hit the victim's head?
Unless trained, no.
>OR to determine the location of a back would it would seem to this
>lying WC shill!
Lies won't save you.
>>=A0An analogy to what the kook was
>> doing is to ask why a BALLISTICS EXPERT asserted that the neck wound was an
>> entry wound. =A0(And it would be equally wrong)
>
>NO it isn't
ROTFLMAO!!! I rest my case.
>you lying WC shill as YOUR claim has been there was NO
>ballistic expert there, so how would they know anything about any
>wounds!
Bud
> On Dec 9, 8:28 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 5:45 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 4:36 pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 9 Dec., 15:14, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 9, 7:48 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 9 Dec., 14:38, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 8, 6:10 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 2:22 am, Fran ois Carlier <Fra-Carl...@orange.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Hello, everybody,
>
> > > > > > > > > me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the medical
> > > > > > > > > evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street".
>
> > > > > > > > > It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
>
> > > > > > > > > He was an honest man who "was there", saw the body, and did not buy the
> > > > > > > > > conspiracy idiotic theories.
>
> > > > > > > > > He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
>
> > > > > > > > > Everybody should know it.
>
> > > > > > > > it a wound of entry. Then he denied that he did so.
>
> > > > > > > > to a transcript of the press conference:
>
> > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFEoAmF4SbM
>
> > > > > > > > Go peddle your BS someplace else, Frenchy.
>
> > > > > > > Here in the recording we can see an excellent example of a man backing
> > > > > > > "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND"
>
> > > > > > > entry wounds looked like and he recognized the throat wound as an
> > > > > > > entrance wound.....He also knew that he couldn't say with absolute
> > > > > > > certainty that ..."IT WASN'T".......Unless he had probed the wound and
> > > > > > > examined it thoroughly. Obviously he was attempting to undo what
> > > > > > > he'd done.....He had no idea that he was stepping into quicksand when
> > > > > > > he made the off the cuff remark that the wound "LOOKED LIKE AN
> > > > > > > ENTRANCE WOUND". He was merely calling on his past experience of
> > > > > > > seeing hundreds of bullet entry wounds and using that experience to
> > > > > > > pronounce that the wound he'd seen "LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRANCE WOUND".
> > > > > > > Later when the FBI told him that he'd be wise to retract that
> > > > > > > statement he attempted to say that it wasn't a entry wound. But there
> > > > > > > is NO WAY he could honestyly make that statement UNLESS HE HAD
> > > > > > > that wound. It looked like an entrance wound and that's what it
> > > > > > > was......
>
> > > > > > How can you honestly make that statement?
>
Walt, can you show where Perry ever said he saw an abrasion collar?
Can you cite a wound ballistic source that says skin edges point in
the direction the bullet was traveling?
David Von Pein
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/12/doctor-who-attended-jfk-in-dallas-has.html
>>> "Dr. Malcolm Perry...first surgeon to attend to JFK in Dallas..." <<<
That's incorrect. Dr. Charles Carrico was the first doctor to attend
to JFK at Parkland Hospital, not Dr. Perry. (And Dr. Carrico was
definitely a "surgeon" as well.)
From Dr. Carrico's 3/30/64 Warren Commission testimony [at 3 H 359]:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Who was the first doctor to actually see the
President?"
DR. CHARLES CARRICO -- "I was."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0184a.htm
From Vince Bugliosi's epic book:
"Dr. Charles Carrico is standing in Trauma Room One...when the
president is wheeled in on an emergency cart. Carrico...rapidly
assesses the president's condition--his color is "blue white, ashen,"
an indication of failing blood circulation; his respiration is slow,
agonal (death throes), and spasmodic, with no coordination; there are
no voluntary movements at all; his eyes are open and staring, with no
reaction to light, his pupils dilated; and there is no palpable pulse.
"With the assistance of Drs. Don T. Curtis and Martin G. White
and Nurse Diana Bowron, Dr. Carrico opens the president's suit coat
and shirt and puts his ear to the president's chest. He listens for a
few seconds and detects a faint heartbeat.
"Other nurses arrive and continue to remove Kennedy's clothing.
Carrico slips his hands under the president's midsection and runs them
up his back past his back brace. He can feel blood and debris, but no
wounds. He looks briefly at the president's head wound--a gaping hole,
oozing with blood and shredded scalp and brain tissue--then turns his
attention to restoring the president's breathing and circulation.
"Carrico orders Drs. Curtis and White to do a cutdown on the
president's right ankle--a small incision to lay bare a large vein
into which they can insert polyethylene catheters through which fluid,
medicine, and blood can be administered to maintain the body's
circulatory system.
"The president is losing so much blood that the trauma room is
already awash with it. Meanwhile, Carrico inserts a plastic
endotracheal tube down the president's throat into the trachea
(windpipe) in order to create an adequate air passage. He notices a
small ragged tear to the right of the larynx (voice box) and ragged
tissue below, indicating tracheal injury. Carrico steers the plastic
tube deep into the throat and begins connecting the cuff inflator (a
latex cuff designed to prevent air leakage) to a respiratory machine.
"Just then, Drs. Perry and Jones arrive. Perry sheds his dark
blue glen-plaid jacket and wristwatch in the corner, and takes charge.
Dr. Charles Baxter...arrives around the same time, having made a dead
run from the school as fast as he could when he heard the news.
"The trauma room is now filled with law enforcement officers and
several members of the president's party. Supervising nurse Doris
Nelson has already arrived and is struggling to clear them from the
room.
"Dr. Perry steps over toward the ambulance gurney where the
president is lying under the hot glare of an overhead lamp, a sheet
over his lower extremities and trunk. He is surprised to find the
president a bigger man than he thought, and is momentarily awed by the
thought, "Here is the most important man in the world." Perry quickly
notes the deep blue color of his face. He is in agonal respiration,
his chin jerking, as his otherwise motionless body struggles to draw a
breath." -- Pages 58-60 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"
http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6758471.html
Walt
Heu Von Pea Brain....Just what the hell is this fanciful fiction
supposed to prove?? Anybody who has studied this case knows that
both Dr's Carrico and Perry saw a bullet entry wound in JFK's
throat...... Why did yer hero, da Bug, omit that little detail?
What you've posted is an excellent example of lying by omission .
> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/12/doctor-who-attended-jfk-in-dalla...
>
> >>> "Dr. Malcolm Perry...first surgeon to attend to JFK in Dallas..." <<<
>
> That's incorrect. Dr. Charles Carrico was the first doctor to attend
> to JFK at Parkland Hospital, not Dr. Perry. (And Dr. Carrico was
> definitely a "surgeon" as well.)
>
> From Dr. Carrico's 3/30/64 Warren Commission testimony [at 3 H 359]:
>
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "Who was the first doctor to actually see the
> President?"
>
> DR. CHARLES CARRICO -- "I was."
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_018...
Bud
> On Dec 10, 9:24 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Heu Von Pea Brain....Just what the hell is this fanciful fiction
> supposed to prove?? Anybody who has studied this case knows that
> both Dr's Carrico and Perry saw a bullet entry wound in JFK's
> throat......
Only the retards who have looked at the case have. Retards always
cling to erroneous information, it`s what keeps them from figuring out
this very simple case.
Walt
> On Dec 8, 2:22 am, Fran ois Carlier <Fra-Carl...@orange.fr> wrote:
>
> > Hello, everybody,
>
> > DoctorPerry(Rest in Peace, you were a fine man !) once wrote a letter to
> > me, a very nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the medical
> > evidence and gave his opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street".
>
> > It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
>
> > He was an honest man who "was there", saw the body, and did not buy the
> > conspiracy idiotic theories.
>
> > He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
>
> > Everybody should know it.
>
> WhenPerrydescribed the neck wound in his press conference, he called
> it a wound of entry. Then he denied that he did so.
>
> In this telephone interview, "honest man"Perry'sdenial is compared
> to a transcript of the press conference:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFEoAmF4SbM
>
> Go peddle your BS someplace else, Frenchy.
Hey Gil,....I ran across this item in a commenorative book abot the
assassination. The book is basically a chronological history of events
for 11 /22 /63.
Here's what is listed for 3:32 pm.....
Robert Mc Neil ( talking to NY from Dallas) "we will have a picture
in about 15 minutes" ...."Dr Malcolm Perry reported that the President
arrived at Parkland Hospital in critical condition with neck and head
injuries.'
Here we have Robert Mc Neil at 3:32 pm telling NY that Dr Perry said
that JFK had NECK and head injuries. Clearly, Dr Perry saw that
throat wound and thought it to be of prime importance because he
said.... JFK had suffered NECK and head injuries.