[Patrick C]

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

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.

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

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...?

Dr Gary Aguilar

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm">http://www.history-matters.com/essays/j ... ong_1a.htm</a><!-- m -->

"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."

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