[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:There is a persuasive argument ref the shirt fibres that they are pointing out to the front around the hole....

That's not a position a person can reasonably hold. Frazier made it quite clear that he could NOT testify to that.

Quote:Mr. FRAZIER - In each instance for these holes, the one through the button line and the one through the buttonhole line, the hole amounts to a ragged slit approximately one-half inch in height. It is oriented vertically, and the fibers of the cloth are protruding outward, that is, have been pushed from the inside out. I could not actually determine from the characteristics of the hole whether or not it was caused by a bullet. However, I can say that it was caused by a projectile of some type which exited from the shirt at that point and that is again assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was--it had not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was made.
Mr. SPECTER - What characteristics differ between the hole in the rear of the shirt and the holes in the front of the shirt which lead you to conclude that the hole in the rear of the shirt was caused by a bullet but which are absent as to the holes in the front of the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - The hole in the front of the shirt does not have the round characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth. It is an irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, since the cloth could have torn in a long slitlike way as the bullet passed through it. But that is not specifically characteristic of a bullethole to the extent that you could say it was to the exclusion of being a piece of bone or some other type of projectile.

Frazier would have been an even weaker witness had he faced any cross-examination. It's clear even from this quote that he was covering himself in case any further evidence came out.

He also admitted that the front of the shirt & the tie had no metal fragments found in it, in contradiction to the back...

And, as I'm sure you know, Dr. Carrico stated that the wound was ABOVE the tie.

A reasonable person would look at this FOREST of evidence, and avoid your conclusion you base on a witness who refused to confidently state anything for the record.

Patrick C Wrote:I am persuaded by the tie nicks as well, I probably dont by that a scalpel cut the tie in the knot area.....I am convinced the damage was from an exiting bullet.

Despite all the contradicting evidence... you are "convinced". I do appreciate that you're willing to list the evidence that "convinces" you... that allows readers to draw their own conclusions.

And despite Frazier's testimony that the nick was on the side, the only photo I know of shows it solidly in the FRONT of the tie.

Patrick C Wrote:Again, all the above require represent and astonishing outcome - far simpler is a bullet strikes the back and transits.

Yet amazingly, leaves all this evidence of a non-transit... Evidence that you simply discount or refuse to address.

Here's the list again:

• The depth of the wound.
  
• The location of the wound.
  
• The missing interior chest photo.
  
• The original description of the throat wound.
  
• The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
  
• The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
  
• The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
  
• The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
  
• The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)

Patrick C Wrote:Yes the autopsy doctors would have described the throat wound as a trach because they did not know about the bullet wound until they spoke with Perry in Dallas - I cannot recall the time on Saturday ref that - around 0800 perhaps...?

And has nothing to do with the historical fact that they were forbidden from dissecting that wound? Or the path of the wound?

Quote:Despite wide press coverage about it on the day of the murder, the pathologists said that when they began the autopsy later that night, they were completely in the dark that JFK had sustained a throat wound. They said they only learned of it the next day when one of the Dallas doctors told Humes during a phone conversation that he had enlarged a small wound in JFK’s throat in the emergency room in order to insert a tracheotomy tube to help JFK breathe.

This is just one of those things that takes the faith of a believer to believe... despite the evidence to the contrary.

Patrick C Wrote:I have no issue with the size of the neck wound - it was a shored wound by nature - see Lattimer of course.

Yet again another example of the faith of a believer. Something that in over 50 years, no believer has ever demonstrated.