Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 28, 2022 14:00:18 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Malcolm-Perry.jpg
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) included a number of House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) medical interviews during their tenure in the late 1990s. The focus of this post will look at one such interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry.
It took place on January 11, 1978, at the University of Washington Medical Center. Dr. Perry was in the Parkland Memorial Hospital (PMH) Emergency Room on November 22, 1963, when President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was brought in following the shooting in Dealey Plaza (DP). There was a discussion of the wounds and what he observed that day first, then the official interview began. He was asked to describe the wounds that he observed first.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image03.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image04.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image05.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image06.gif
P/F: Could you describe, generally, President Kennedy's condition when you entered the room, and what treatment was underway?
Perry: ...I attempted to feel for a pulse in the left groin and didn't feel one, and Jim [Carrico] said he had no blood pressure, but that he was breathing and he also appraised me at that time that there was a wound of the trachea that he that he could see through the laryngoscope but he couldn't get the tube past it. It was too far down...I noted a wound in the anterior aspect of the neck in the lower third, which was roughly round, exuding very slowly dark blood, partially obscuring its edges. The wound was somewhere probably 4 to 6 millimeters in diameter I did not, however, wipe the blood off and inspect the wound, but gave it a cursory glance while I was putting my gloves on and preparing the trach tray...I noticed the head injury but I didn't examine it at that time. But I did see evidence of some brain tissue on the cart...And we persisted with that until it became apparent that it was futile and Kemp said that it was too late, so I quit. And then I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive. There was visible brain tissue on the cord and cerebellum seen, and I didn't inspect it further, I just glanced at it and went on outside.
P/F: Could you give us a characterization of the edges of the anterior neck wound?
Perry: I previously pointed out that they were neither ragged nor clean cut and I suppose that is a misnomer because actually I didn't inspect it that well. What I meant to infer by that initial description was the fact that I couldn't see a clean punched wound. It was roughly round, the edges were bruised, and a little blurred, because as I mentioned there were several big drops of old blood and some of it coagulated of course, on or about the wound. So I didn't really inspect the margins carefully. (ARRB MD 58; HSCA Interview of Dr. Malcolm Perry, 1/11/78, pp. 3-6)
maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=322#relPageId=3
Dr. Perry would tell the ARRB in 1998 that he "put his foot in his mouth" by saying the neck would was one of entrance back in 1963, but how many exit wounds are small and neat? He nearly did verbal gymnastics before the Warren Commission (WC) to go along with their ridiculous Single Bullet Theory (SBT).
Mr. SPECTER - And what is the basis for your conclusion that the situation that I presented to you would be entirely compatible with your observations and findings?
Dr. PERRY - The wound in the throat, although as I noted, I did not examine it minutely, was fairly small in nature, and an undeformed, unexpanded missile exiting at rather high speed would leave very little injury behind, since the majority of its energy was expended after it had left the tissues.
Mr. SPECTER - And would the hole that you observed on the President's throat then be consistent with such an exit wound?
Dr. PERRY - It would. There is no way to determine from my examination as to exactly how accurately I could depict an entrance wound from an exit wound, without ascertaining the entire trajectory. Such a wound could be produced by such a missile.
This is preposterous as an exit wound is always larger than a wound of entrance. This is purely physics. We are asked to believe that the bullet exiting the neck of JFK left no large hole, but the one that exited his head left a massive (avulsive) wound! Sure, that makes sense. Dr. Perry kept telling the HSCA and the ARRB that he didn't examine the throat/neck wound, but look at this description of the wound he gave the WC in 1964.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe that wound as precisely as you can, please?
Dr. PERRY - The wound was roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched-out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut, but the blood obscured any detail about the edges of the wound exactly.
Doesn't this seem like he did get a good look at it and that it does match a wound of entrance as he said in 1963? It sure does to me. So, why the verbal gymnastics then? Because he was going along with the nonsensical official theory in 1964 is why. Doesn't all of this remind you of the Mauser and Seymour Weitzman issue? He supposedly only "got a glance" too and then perfectly described the rifle and scope before the WC. What observation powers these folks have with "just a glance."
We know that he knew that an entrance wound is smaller than an exit wound because he said so before the WC.
Mr. SPECTER - And which would be the wound of entrance, then?
Dr. PERRY - The smaller wound--the smaller wound.
So why the confusion now? Dr. Perry did describe the head wound in the manner that is consistent with what others observed that day in 1963. The back of the head was involved and it was a large wound. This alone shows a shot had to come from the front of the limousine, so why was he avoiding saying that the neck wound was an entrance wound? Dr. Perry left out the "occipital" when he testified before the WC in 1964 on the first go-round.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the President's condition at the time you first saw him?
Dr. PERRY - ...I noted there was a large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head exposing lacerated brain. There was blood and brain tissue on the cart. The President's eyes were deviated and dilated and he was unresponsive...
Later when asked to describe the head wound specifically he added the occiput back in.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the President's head, specifically?
Dr. PERRY - I saw no injuries other than the one which I noted to you, which was a large avulsive injury of the right occipitoparietal area, but I did not do a minute examination of his head.
The interviewers then ask him an interesting question.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image07.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image08.gif
P/F: Would President Kennedy have survived if he had only suffered the injury to the neck?
Perry: Assuming the lack of complications, the odds are quite well and good that he would have. Occasionally, tracheal wounds are associated with subsequent stenosis and require repairs, but they are generally, a wound such as this, is usually survivable, yes. (Ibid., pp. 7-8)
maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=322#relPageId=8
This shows that JFK would have survived in all likelihood from this wound had the Secret Service (SS) done their job and had driven off before the head wound had been delivered. This is why so many people think that the SS was involved in some way as the driver, Agent William Greer, made no attempt to leave the scene until AFTER JFK was hit in the head. Why is this so IF there wasn't a conspiracy?
Dr. Perry even said that JFK would have been able to speak after he had recovered as the bullet had hit below the larynx. He certainly would have been able to still give speeches and addresses to the country it would seem. This is why the limousine nearly stopped, or did stop, UNTIL the head shot was delivered. JFK was NOT allowed to leave DP alive.
He is asked about the telephone calls with Dr. James Humes who was performing the autopsy (and totally unqualified to do so) about the neck wound, but I won't get into that as to me this is all irrelevant as the wound was obviously one of entrance before the cutting took place for the tube. It was described as a small neat wound by several doctors. For example here is Dr. Charles Carrico's testimony.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior third of the neck which you have Just described, could you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
Dr. CARRICO - This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.
This describes an entrance wound. We know Dr. Perry knew this so the tracheostomy issue is just a smoke and mirrors show for me. The neck wound was most definitely one of entrance. He was asked about his opinion regarding the direction of the shot to the neck, but he refused to give an opinion. So overall he is a help with showing that both wounds (neck and head) were the result of frontal shots. Albeit, reluctantly. This is just more of the overwhelming evidence that show JFK was shot from the front, and from behind also, and the assassination was a conspiracy.
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Malcolm-Perry.jpg
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) included a number of House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) medical interviews during their tenure in the late 1990s. The focus of this post will look at one such interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry.
It took place on January 11, 1978, at the University of Washington Medical Center. Dr. Perry was in the Parkland Memorial Hospital (PMH) Emergency Room on November 22, 1963, when President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was brought in following the shooting in Dealey Plaza (DP). There was a discussion of the wounds and what he observed that day first, then the official interview began. He was asked to describe the wounds that he observed first.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image03.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image04.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image05.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image06.gif
P/F: Could you describe, generally, President Kennedy's condition when you entered the room, and what treatment was underway?
Perry: ...I attempted to feel for a pulse in the left groin and didn't feel one, and Jim [Carrico] said he had no blood pressure, but that he was breathing and he also appraised me at that time that there was a wound of the trachea that he that he could see through the laryngoscope but he couldn't get the tube past it. It was too far down...I noted a wound in the anterior aspect of the neck in the lower third, which was roughly round, exuding very slowly dark blood, partially obscuring its edges. The wound was somewhere probably 4 to 6 millimeters in diameter I did not, however, wipe the blood off and inspect the wound, but gave it a cursory glance while I was putting my gloves on and preparing the trach tray...I noticed the head injury but I didn't examine it at that time. But I did see evidence of some brain tissue on the cart...And we persisted with that until it became apparent that it was futile and Kemp said that it was too late, so I quit. And then I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive. There was visible brain tissue on the cord and cerebellum seen, and I didn't inspect it further, I just glanced at it and went on outside.
P/F: Could you give us a characterization of the edges of the anterior neck wound?
Perry: I previously pointed out that they were neither ragged nor clean cut and I suppose that is a misnomer because actually I didn't inspect it that well. What I meant to infer by that initial description was the fact that I couldn't see a clean punched wound. It was roughly round, the edges were bruised, and a little blurred, because as I mentioned there were several big drops of old blood and some of it coagulated of course, on or about the wound. So I didn't really inspect the margins carefully. (ARRB MD 58; HSCA Interview of Dr. Malcolm Perry, 1/11/78, pp. 3-6)
maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=322#relPageId=3
Dr. Perry would tell the ARRB in 1998 that he "put his foot in his mouth" by saying the neck would was one of entrance back in 1963, but how many exit wounds are small and neat? He nearly did verbal gymnastics before the Warren Commission (WC) to go along with their ridiculous Single Bullet Theory (SBT).
Mr. SPECTER - And what is the basis for your conclusion that the situation that I presented to you would be entirely compatible with your observations and findings?
Dr. PERRY - The wound in the throat, although as I noted, I did not examine it minutely, was fairly small in nature, and an undeformed, unexpanded missile exiting at rather high speed would leave very little injury behind, since the majority of its energy was expended after it had left the tissues.
Mr. SPECTER - And would the hole that you observed on the President's throat then be consistent with such an exit wound?
Dr. PERRY - It would. There is no way to determine from my examination as to exactly how accurately I could depict an entrance wound from an exit wound, without ascertaining the entire trajectory. Such a wound could be produced by such a missile.
This is preposterous as an exit wound is always larger than a wound of entrance. This is purely physics. We are asked to believe that the bullet exiting the neck of JFK left no large hole, but the one that exited his head left a massive (avulsive) wound! Sure, that makes sense. Dr. Perry kept telling the HSCA and the ARRB that he didn't examine the throat/neck wound, but look at this description of the wound he gave the WC in 1964.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe that wound as precisely as you can, please?
Dr. PERRY - The wound was roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched-out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut, but the blood obscured any detail about the edges of the wound exactly.
Doesn't this seem like he did get a good look at it and that it does match a wound of entrance as he said in 1963? It sure does to me. So, why the verbal gymnastics then? Because he was going along with the nonsensical official theory in 1964 is why. Doesn't all of this remind you of the Mauser and Seymour Weitzman issue? He supposedly only "got a glance" too and then perfectly described the rifle and scope before the WC. What observation powers these folks have with "just a glance."
We know that he knew that an entrance wound is smaller than an exit wound because he said so before the WC.
Mr. SPECTER - And which would be the wound of entrance, then?
Dr. PERRY - The smaller wound--the smaller wound.
So why the confusion now? Dr. Perry did describe the head wound in the manner that is consistent with what others observed that day in 1963. The back of the head was involved and it was a large wound. This alone shows a shot had to come from the front of the limousine, so why was he avoiding saying that the neck wound was an entrance wound? Dr. Perry left out the "occipital" when he testified before the WC in 1964 on the first go-round.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the President's condition at the time you first saw him?
Dr. PERRY - ...I noted there was a large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head exposing lacerated brain. There was blood and brain tissue on the cart. The President's eyes were deviated and dilated and he was unresponsive...
Later when asked to describe the head wound specifically he added the occiput back in.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the President's head, specifically?
Dr. PERRY - I saw no injuries other than the one which I noted to you, which was a large avulsive injury of the right occipitoparietal area, but I did not do a minute examination of his head.
The interviewers then ask him an interesting question.
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image07.gif
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md58/pages/Image08.gif
P/F: Would President Kennedy have survived if he had only suffered the injury to the neck?
Perry: Assuming the lack of complications, the odds are quite well and good that he would have. Occasionally, tracheal wounds are associated with subsequent stenosis and require repairs, but they are generally, a wound such as this, is usually survivable, yes. (Ibid., pp. 7-8)
maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=322#relPageId=8
This shows that JFK would have survived in all likelihood from this wound had the Secret Service (SS) done their job and had driven off before the head wound had been delivered. This is why so many people think that the SS was involved in some way as the driver, Agent William Greer, made no attempt to leave the scene until AFTER JFK was hit in the head. Why is this so IF there wasn't a conspiracy?
Dr. Perry even said that JFK would have been able to speak after he had recovered as the bullet had hit below the larynx. He certainly would have been able to still give speeches and addresses to the country it would seem. This is why the limousine nearly stopped, or did stop, UNTIL the head shot was delivered. JFK was NOT allowed to leave DP alive.
He is asked about the telephone calls with Dr. James Humes who was performing the autopsy (and totally unqualified to do so) about the neck wound, but I won't get into that as to me this is all irrelevant as the wound was obviously one of entrance before the cutting took place for the tube. It was described as a small neat wound by several doctors. For example here is Dr. Charles Carrico's testimony.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior third of the neck which you have Just described, could you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
Dr. CARRICO - This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.
This describes an entrance wound. We know Dr. Perry knew this so the tracheostomy issue is just a smoke and mirrors show for me. The neck wound was most definitely one of entrance. He was asked about his opinion regarding the direction of the shot to the neck, but he refused to give an opinion. So overall he is a help with showing that both wounds (neck and head) were the result of frontal shots. Albeit, reluctantly. This is just more of the overwhelming evidence that show JFK was shot from the front, and from behind also, and the assassination was a conspiracy.