Cliff Varnell

January 11, 2007

Ashton Gray:
Malcolm Perry is the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound.

The right side of the trachea was nicked, the right tip of the lung was bruised,

there was a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, right next to

a metallic debris field.

The 5 professionals at Bethesda thought it likely a blood soluble round

that would be known only in the intelligence community.

The Dealey Plaza photo evidence shows JFK acting paralyzed.

Points right to the CIA.

January 11, 2007

The dart was designed to dissolve without a trace.

We have our hands around yet another twosie: It was veteran FBI agent Sibert (of "orange-sized hole in back center of head" fame) who introduced the idea of a magic dissolving projectile—but in relation to the back wound, not the throat wound (which, by the time Sibert saw the body, had been conveniently hacked out of existence by Malcolm Perry).

This was a crucial moment in history. It was after the autopsy, and Humes, Boswell

and Finck huddled to discuss the implications of the wounds they saw, the FBI guys

with their ears on the conversation.

From the signed affidavit of FBI SA James Sibert:

(quote on)

I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection

with the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search.

They probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a

metal probe. They concluded that the wound went in only so far and

they couldn't find the bullet. It was my impression that both Finck

and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet through

the back. The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the

bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also

given to a type of bullet which fragments completely....Following

discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left

the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent

Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information

regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize...

(quote off)

Did such blood soluble technology exist at that time?

CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by H. Keith Melton, 1965

(forward by Richard Helms), pg 22:

(quote on)

DART GUN

The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a.03-caliber, mass

stabilized projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer

M-99 formed together with a blood/water soluble bonding agent...

If left in the body, the dartdissolves and becomes unidentifiable

on X-ray.

An adjustable shoulder stock is available as an accessory (must

be obtained seperately) for operations requiring ranges up to 100 feet.

(quote off)

From the signed affidavit of FBI SA Francis O'Neill:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet.

A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was

discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a

"plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

There was no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the

same kind of bullet.

(quote off)

Ashton Gray:
It was Sibert who purportedly took a little break from the autopsy vigil to go to a phone and call HQ to inquire about a magic disappearing bullet when the back wound was probed and determined to be shallow, with no bullet having at that time been discovered.

What's interesting here is that the autopsists and the FBI guys -- the professionals

on the scene, before any official story was thrust upon them -- took it as a very

serious possibility that the medical evidence was consistent with a weapon that

would only be known within the intelligence community.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf

Those 5 guys had the CIA on the spot at that very moment in time right

before Sibert went to call FBI HQ for info on blood soluble rounds.

The answer from FBI HQ -- the Magic Bullet solved the puzzle.

Well, not really.

January 11, 2007

ASIDE: There is an aspect of CIA operations that is one of their most covert, subtle, and insidious tricks, and is pervasive in everything I've ever studied where they are known to be involved: the insinuation of fictions, which by their very discussion, even in attempts to "disprove the negative," perpetuates the fiction. The seeker of fact encounters something that must be addressed and discussed, but that has no reality or substance.

Dr. Malcolm Perry's news conference, 11/22/63 (well before the formation

of the Warren Commission):

(quote on)

There was an entrance wound in the neck...It appeared to be coming at him...

The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes,

that is correct...The exit wound I don't know. It could have been the head or

there could have been a second wound of the head.

(quote off)

The seeker of fact weighs the evidence judiciously.

One autopsy photo has been cited, the Stare of Death with that big ugly

trach incision.

The size of that incision is inconsistent with another autopsy photo -- left

lateral -- that appears to show a smaller, neater wound.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

The size of the SOD wound is inconsistent with some Parkland witness testimony,

most notably Dr. Perry's insistence that the trach incision was sufficient to

put in the tube and no bigger.

Weigh the value of the SOD with the value of the x-ray described in

this HSCA report:

According to the HSCA:

(quote on)

In the post autopsy film of the thoracic region there is debris in the

radiographic image superimposed over the area to the right of the C7

vertebral body.

(quote off)

This metallic debris is consistent with a shot from the throat with

a blood soluble round using iron particles as a bonding agent.

Say hello to our little friend, because that debris field is 95%

likely to be his signature...

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwerbell.htm

January 11, 2007

Hello Cliff
I do not understand why the six points which you mention at the end of your last post are not in harmony with my spectator/assassin frontal throat shot.

I was under the impression your bullet track ended many inches higher in the brain.

And your scenario does not account for the metallic debris in the vicinity of T1.

And I do not find the first-shot/kill-shot approach a likely strategy.

When a well qualified Parkland Hospital trauma staff reported an anterior throat wound, which appeared to be a bullet entry wound.....why is it being considered that they were not qualified to make this diagnosis correctly. I consider this to be "expert" testimony given within minutes of the President's death.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I have absolutely "no reason to assume" them to be mistaken because some were later admittedly pressured to alter their testimony.
Of course in 1963, they had not yet had the paranoia or the wisdom which might be derived from James Bond films.

They had not yet heard the 1975 testimony of Charles Senseney, William Colby, and

Richard Helms to the effect that the CIA had a weapon that fired a round about the size

of a .22 that induced paralysis within 2 seconds.

It is apparent to me that JFK was reacting to violet throat trauma. It still makes absolutely no sense to me why this should be assumed to be anything other than a bullet wound as reported by
the only persons truly qualified to diagnose this wound.

I agree. Where we diverge is over the nature of the round and its firing position.

You have departed the realm of probability when you begin to insert James Bond "could have happened" possibilities.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it highly "improbable" that a conventional .22 round

struck only soft tissue and then stopped at the tip of the T1 transverse process.

The non-exiting rounds are consistent with blood soluble bullets -- as is the metallic

debris field at the point of deepest penetration of the throat wound.

CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by H. Keith Melton, pg 22:

(quote on, emphasis added)

DART GUN

The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a .03-caliber, mass stabilized

projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer M-99

formed together with a blood/water soluble bonding agent...If left in

the body, the dart dissolves and becomes unidentifiable on X-ray.

(quote off)

According to Senseney's Senate testimony the bigger the target the larger

the round, which would account for the metallic debris field showing up on

x-ray. It seems like the only probable explanation for two wounds and no

bullets, the internal damage noted at Parkland and Bethesdsa, and JFK's

paralysis many of us note in the Elm St. films/photos.

Many things seem possible, merely because it is impossible to "prove" the negative of the issue.
I prefer to stick to the probable as was reported on the afternoon of 11/22/63 by the persons whose profession it was "TO KNOW"......not to guess at things that could be possible.

The scenario I have laid out takes into account the extant first day witness testimonies,

the photographic evidence, the medical evidence, and JFK's photographed reactions to

being hit.

I'll argue that this is the ONLY scenario that accounts for every facet of the

evidence, and is well-supported by research indicating a high probability that

people connected to the CIA were involved.

You may of course continue to believe whatever you wish. If you were to propose that the assassination was carried out by 132 aliens from an out of galaxy planet.....I could not PROVE you wrong.
Since none of us can possibly truly know the answer, I have chosen to accept what I personally

believe to be the "most likely".

Charlie Black

My sentiments exactly, for the reasons I've already stated.

January 10, 2007

Hello Cliff
Didn't intend to be offensive. However there might be a reason that my lovely bride is always reminding me that "TACT is not something nailed into a wall".

Cliff, just because one has had military training, does not guarantee that one will duck "quick enough".

Correct. But the plotters would not assume he wouldn't duck, would they?

Are you going to bet your life on (1) a guaranteed first-shot/kill-shot given the

circumstances, or (2) that he would not duck if struck with a non-fatal round?

I wouldn't, not if I had another option that was available to any CIA-connected plotters.

There are many such in their graves.

That's not the point. There was no need for the plotters to make any kind of

assumption when they had the technology to paralyze the guy first.

You should also not forget that the Secret Service entourage, except for two individuals, did not react after several seconds. They did not return one shot of gunfire ! Why should JFK react any faster?

Because he was the one that was hit. Gave him a bit more motivation, doncha think?

Do you feel that he thought, "Oh...I have been struck by a paralysing dart and must duck" ?

I doubt if he knew what hit him, if his wife read him correctly.

This "reaction time" was instilled in the SS as a primary consideration. This was by far their most important consideration while assigned Presidential Protection detail.

The guy getting hit would react faster than a guy guarding him.

Agent Kellerman only ducked when he reported a "flurry of shots" entering the car.
From what I understand, during the millisecond that it takes to duck, the victim would not have been yet paralyzed ! You state "..what if the shooters wing the guy and he ducks ? He "could have ducked" in either case.

Charles Senseny developed blood soluble rounds that paralyzed dogs within 2 seconds,

rendering them unable to bark.

Less than 2 seconds was required for the paralyzation to take effect, and the shot to the

throat stunned JFK sufficiently for this to take place.

As far as paralysis is concerned, your thinking that he appears paralyzed is more consistent with looking at still frames, rather than the full speed film.

However you wish to characterize it....

Do you really believe that the shooting planners took it into consideration that they would use a paralysing shot because, as you stated, "it worked for scorpions" ? ?

No, I think the plotters regarded a first-shot/kill-shot as problematic and addressed

the problem in the most efficient manner possible.

Cliff, I would venture a guess that you are not a very efficient "duck hunter" !

Shoot'n a duck ain't treason -- unless yer at Disneyland...

I remain strongly in defense of my previous posts.
Charlie Black

I'm not out to change your mind, to be honest, I'm only arguing a position.

My scenario fits the following medical evidence:

1) shallow back wound

2) small throat entrance wound

3) the nick to the right side of the trachea

4) the bruised right lung tip

5) the hairline fracture of the tip of the T1 transverse process

6) and most importantly, the metallic debris field a the point of deepest

penetration.

January 10, 2007

Hello Cliff

Hi Charles

I agree that paralytic elements were available to "Black Ops" practitioners in 1963, however I cannot see it being used in this scenario.
Why the waste of using a paralysing element for a "hit" that could have been a "Kill Shot" ? It would have been none easier to score a direct hit with the former than with the latter. Why the wasted effort and the "extra assassin" ?

Because a first-shot/kill-shot was not 100% guaranteed.

What if the shooters only wing the guy with the first shot and he ducks down?

Why wouldn't the plotters account for that contingency?

And if the shooters were going for a first-shot/kill-shot -- why did it take

so long?

Just for the record, I do not believe that Umbrella Man would have called such attention to himself, if there was any way that he could have been implicated in firing "an umbrella shot". The umbrella could easily have been identified as "a weapon", if it were such.

I don't buy the Umbrella Man scenario. The pop-up/pop-down actions of Black Dog Man

are utterly consistent with a shooter, imo.

I feel that at times we tend to be more "James Bondish" than what is simpler and more practical.

What is more practical than insuring a kill shot by paralyzing the target?

It's worked for scorpions for eons...

And this scenario fits all the witness testimony and the medical record.

I personally, tho not at all medically qualified, do not see JFK as having been paralysed. In my eyes he is reacting to a typical "choking" type trauma as I have seen in persons choking on food or a blow to the throat. It is normal that the victim does not move around very much.....he brings arms and hands up to the throat area but "does not" clutch the throat. This is what I see in JFK's reaction !

I think it's "normal" for an ex-military man to hit the deck when he's struck.

I don't see how any well-thought-out assassination would fail to take this into

consideration.

Perhaps I am too simplistic. However I tend to believe that if it looks, walks, and talks like a
"duck"......then it probably is in fact, a "duck".

Charlie Black

What did Jackie say to her husband after he was struck?

"What are they doing to you?"

Not -- "You've been hit!" or "He's been shot!"

She said he looked "quizzical."

Both the shot to the throat and the back were non-fatal, and yet this man

with military training made no move to get out of the line of fire.

He certainly looks paralyzed to me, and maybe I'm too simplistic, but if he

acted paralyzed he probably was paralyzed.

January 10, 2007

...or the shallow back wound was the result of a short-fire / defective round.

Or a blood soluble paralytic fired from the Dal-Tex at Z227, from a firearm

designed by Mitchell WerBell III, following a shot to the throat with a similar

blood soluble round fired from the Black Dog Man position at Z197.

Most scenarios assume the shooters were going for a first-shot/kill-shot,

and the hits to the back and throat were misses.

I disagree.

The plotters had a contingency problem, firing on a subject in a moving car,

an ex-Navy man at that, who might be expected to duck down if struck with

an initial non-fatal round.

The plotters also had to consider the possibility that the shooters, committing

treason as well as murder, might be a tad nervous.

First-shot/kill-shot was not a guaranteed result. Since JFK acted paralyzed

in the Dealey Plaza photo evidence, the simplest explanation is that he was

paralyzed.

So the first two rounds to strike him contained not only a paralytic, but

some kind of fatal toxin, as well, I'd speculate.

This scenario matches the witness testimony, the medical record of the back and

throat wounds, the photographic evidence, and the historical record as to the

existence of this technology.

The technology existed to paralyze a man within two seconds -- why wouldn't they

use it?

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf

January 8, 2007

More evidence of early CIA involvement with George Bush and Zapata Offshore...

http://realnews.org/rn/content/zapata.html

I especially like this line:

Indeed, Zapata's annual reports portray a bewildering range of global activities, in the Mideast, Asia and the Caribbean (including off Cuba) that seem outsized for the company's modest bottom line.

That's all Bush ever had with Zapata -- a modest bottom line.

It's interesting that the Bush interests settled out with the Liedtkes by giving

the Texas boys the actual oil production company -- Zapata Petroleum, which

became very successful -- while the Bush clan got Zapata Offshore, which wasn't

much of a success at all unless they used it as a front for smuggling operations.

I'll bet Harriman/Bush got the best end of the stick when all was said and done.

January 8, 2007

I thought that at some point someone in this discussion of an alleged motive for the murder of John F. Kennedy being to provide an uninspected, unquestioned knee-jerk excuse for an all-out flags-and-flourishes spit-and-polish over-the-ramparts Congress-be-hanged military invasion of Cuba,

Reality check: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident occured on August 2 and 4, 1964. The Senate

passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 7, 1964.

I know they taught you in civics that only Congress can "declare war," Ashton,

but you might notice that it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world.

someone might mention, as a reality check, the fact that Lisa Howard's interview with Castro—in which Castro had said he was amenable to rapproachment "if the United States government wishes it"—had aired on ABC months earlier, on 10 May 1963.

Reality check: who was calling the shots in American foreign policy in 1963?

A guy named W. Averell Harriman. You've heard of him.

The Harrimans and Bushes were thick as thieves. Harriman money was well invested

in George Bush's Zapata Offshore oil exploration company

Harriman may have been aware, I'd speculate, that a whole lot of stuff was being

smuggled on and off Zapata's mobile oil drilling rig (the Scorpion) 57 miles off the

coast of Cuba in the Florida Straights because maintenance runs from the platform

to Florida, about 65 miles away, were not subject to a customs check.

This is pure speculation on my part, but I find it reasonable to conclude that the guys

who financed the Nazi war machine (Harriman/Bush) would not hesitate to help fuel a

heroin epidemic in the urban US in the 50's.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, I cannot condemn the amount of marijuna

they smuggled into our country, but the heroin, yes.

I also find it a reasonable speculation that if these guys were doing it, others

in the oil industry were doing it, as well.

From George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography --- by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8.htm

As for the SCORPION, during part of 1957 it was under contract to the Bahama-California Oil Company, drilling between Florida and Cuba. It was then leased by Gulf Oil and Standard Oil of California, on whose behalf it started drilling during 1958 at a position on the Cay Sal Bank, 131 miles south of Miami, Florida, and just 54 miles north of Isabela, Cuba. Cuba was an interesting place just then; the US-backed insurgency of Fidel Castro was rapidly undermining the older US-imposed regime of Fulgencio Batista. That meant that SCORPIO was located at a hot corner.
During 1957 a certain divergence began to appear between Uncle Herbie Walker, Bush, and the "New York guys" on the one hand, and the Liedtke brothers and their Tulsa backers on the other. As the annual report for that year noted, "There is no doubt that the drilling business in the Gulf of Mexico has become far more competitive in the last six months than it has been at any time in the past." Despite that, Bush, Walker and the New York investors wanted to push forward into the offshore drilling and drilling services business, while the Liedtkes and the Tulsa group wanted to concentrate on acquiring oil in the ground and natural gas deposits.

The 1958 annual report notes that with no major discoveries made, 1958 had been "a difficult year." It was, of course, the year of the brutal Eisenhower recession. SCOPRPION, VINEGAROON, and NOLA I, the offshore company's three drilling rigs, could not be kept fully occupied in the Gulf of Mexico during the whole year, and so Zapata Offshore had lost $524,441, more than Zapata Petroleum's own loss of $427,752 for that year. The Liedtke viewpoint was reflected in the notation that "disposing of the offshore business had been considered." The great tycoon Bush conceded in the Zapata Offshore annual report for 1958: "We erroneously predicted that most major [oil] companies would have active drilling programs for 1958. These drilling programs simply did not materialize..." In 1990 Bush denied for months that there was a recession, and through 1991 claimed that the recession had ended when it had long since turned into a depression. His blindness about economic conjunctures would appear to be nothing new.

By 1959, there were reports of increasing personal tensions between the domineering and abrasive J. Hugh Liedtke on the one hand and Bush's Uncle Herbie Walker on the other. Liedtke was obsessed with his plan for creating a new major oil company, the boundless ambition that would propel him down a path littered with asset-stripped corporations into the devastating Pennzoil-Getty-Texaco wars of a quarter century later. During the course of this year, the two groups of investors arrived at a separation that was billed as "amicable," and which in any case never interrupted the close cooperation among Bush and the Liedtke brothers. The solution was that the ever-present Uncle Herbie would buy out the Liedtke-Tulsa 40% stake in Zapata Offshore, while the Liedtke backers would buy out the Bush-Walker interest in Zapata Petroleum.

For this to be accomplished, George Bush would require yet another large infusion of capital. Uncle Herbie now raised yet another tranche for George, this time over $800,000. The money allegedly came from Bush-Walker friends and relatives. [fn 18] Even if the faithful efforts of Uncle Herbie are taken into account, it is still puzzling to see a series of large infusions of cash into a poorly managed small company that had posted a series of substantial losses and whose future prospects were anything but rosy. At this point it is therefore legitimate to pose the question: was Zapata Offshore an intelligence community front at its foundation in 1954, or did it become one in 1959, or perhaps at some later point? This question cannot be answered with finality.

In 1963, I'll argue, Harriman and his business partner Prescott Bush thought they

could cut more exclusive smuggling deals with Castro using Zapata Offshore platforms

for the Cuba-to-Florida smuggling funnel Castro, chafing under the Soviets, was eager

to negotiate.

The Texas boys called bullxxxx, to put it simply, and killed JFK in a last ditch bid to win

a open-smuggling-friendly Cuban government by blaming Castro and invading the island.

Castro could never trust the Americans again.

I'd speculate that George Bush, eager to get into Texas politics, sided with HL Hunt et al,

against the wishes of his father -- ironically echoed decades later by Dubya going against

GHWB's wishes on Iraq.

Since no one else has mentioned it, and I believe it warrants mentioning, I have.
Ashton

Thank you, Ashton.

January 5, 2007

Robin, Nick, Tom

Thank you, gentlemen.

I've run out of "A" tickets for this particular Parlor Game ride.

January 5, 2007

Was there a throat wound upon arrival at Parkland Hospital or not?

And on what basis do you impeach the two contemporaneous reports

and the 6 other witness statements to the effect there was an entrance

wound in his throat?

You impeach all these people by disputing Diana Bowron?

January 4, 2007

After Oswald was captured, Harriman/Bundy pulled a plug on the Castro-did-it
scenario to preserve relations with the Russians, and Cuba was "lost."

The Cuban angle was spiked along time before that!

Paul

Here's where we diverge. Had Oswald been gunned down as (I'd speculate)

planned -- Mickey and Minnie would be knocking back virgin Cuba Libres

at the Havana Disneyland, as we speak...

January 4, 2007

I'm curious what significance is found in Bowron's WC mis-statements.

When was Jackie Kennedy, Will Greer, and Roy Kellerman NOT with the

body after the arrival at Parkland?

January 4, 2007

I think it's clear from her later disclaimer that Bowron did not see any
other wound when she was standing on the other side of the car.

It appears she was under the impression Specter was asking her if she saw

any other wound at that exact moment -- and the answer was, "No, sir."

Here is how she testified under oath on 24 March 1964:
SPECTER: How many holes did you see?

BOWRON: I just saw one large hole [referring to hole in head].

SPECTER: ...Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

BOWRON: No, sir.

SPECTER: ...Did you ever see his [John F. Kennedy's] neck prior to the time you removed the trach tube?

BOWRON: No, sir.

Good point, Michael. She mis-spoke, clearly.

Here's what Henchliffe had to say about the visibility of the throat wound, from

her WC testimony:

(quote on)

Mr. SPECTER. Was the wound on the front of the neck surrounded by any blood?

Miss HENCHLIFFE. No, sir.

Mr. Specter. Was there any blood at all in that area?

Miss HENCHLIFFE. No, sir.

(quote off)

I find it hard to believe that Bowron did not see the throat wound.

I find it easier to buy the notion that she mis-stated out of nervousness,

since on every other point her testimony seems corroborated.

January 4, 2007

Well well well. All that time the CIA was supporting the Fidelistas Mr. George Bush
of the CIA had a mobile oil drilling platform 54 miles off the coast of Cuba. He could

run maintainence crews on and off that platform to the Florida mainland without

going thru US customs inspection.

Now this I like!

I knew you would...

By the by, I thought parts of Tarpley's Synthetic Terror: Made In USA (Progressive Press, 205) the best things I've read in years.
Paul

Here's a key point that I don't think Tarpley fully connected. From the Unauthorized Bush:

(quote on, emphasis added)

The raison d'être of the massive capability commanded by Theodore Shackley was

now Operation Mongoose, a program for sabotage raids and assassinations to be

conducted on Cuban territory, with a special effort to eliminate Fidel Castro personally.

In order to run these operations from US territory, flagrant and extensive violation of

federal and state laws was the order of the day. Documents regarding the incorporation

of businesses were falsified. Income tax returns were faked. FAA regulations were

violated by planes taking off for Cuba or for forward bases in the Bahamas and elsewhere.

Explosives moved across highways that were full of civilian traffic. The Munitions Act, the

Neutrality Act, the customs and immigrations laws were routinely flaunted. Above

all, the drug laws were massively violated as the gallant anti-communist fighters filled

their planes and boats with illegal narcotics to be smuggled back into the US when

they returned from their missions. By 1963, the drug-running activities of the covert

operatives were beginning to attract attention. JM/WAVE, in sum, accelerated the

slide of south Florida towards the status of drug and murder capital of the United States

it achieved during the 1980's, when it became as notorious as Chicago during Prohibition.

(quote off)

This is the most likely answer to the question: Why was Kennedy shot?

Harriman/Bush et al wanted to take advantage of the smuggling operations from

Havana, then to the drilling platforms, then to the mainland -- all nice and clean

and unobserved.

H.L. Hunt and the other Texan oil men were up to the same thing, I'd speculate.

Harriman wanted to woo Castro into the fold; Hunt wanted him assassinated

or overthrown.

If Oswald had been gunned down Friday afternoon, Harriman would have gone

along with the Castro-did-it scenario.

After Oswald was captured, Harriman/Bundy pulled a plug on the Castro-did-it

scenario to preserve relations with the Russians, and Cuba was "lost."

January 4, 2007

How very odd. If she just did not see it because of the gaping head wound would be one thing, but to later say she saw a throat wound is indeed curious. Why would she lie? And which time is she lying? Conventional wisdom holds that the more truthful memory is the one closer in time to the event.
Dawn

Hi Dawn,

While Diana Bowron certainly mis-spoke in her WC testimony, I think

when put into context it is apparent she mis-understood Specter's

question.

First, let's keep in mind she was all of 22 years old, in-country only four

months.

From Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg. 184, Bowron wrote:

(quote on)

When I arrived in Minor Medicine [after prepping the body for the casket], I found

the patients had been removed elsewhere, and the department had been taken

over by the Vice President and his staff. They were getting ready to leave when

I got there, as they passed me. I heard the Vice President say to his wife,

"Make a note of what everyone says and does."

(quote off)

Did LBJ actually assign his wife to make a note of what everyone said and did?

Obviously not.

Why would Lyndon Baines Johnson say such a thing right in front of one of the

most important witnesses in the case?

For intimidating effect, I'd speculate.

Did this obvious intimidation tactic work with Ms. Bowron?

KTT, pg 197:

(quote on)

With regard to Arlen Specter's questioning of her, which seems to give

an erroneous impression as to how many wounds she saw, she says:

"My answer, 'I just saw one large hole,' was in response to a series of

questions about what I saw and did in the car and the condition of his

head. As I understand it at the time Specter was taking things

sequentially and one large hole in the back of the head was what I

first saw in the back of the car. He never asked me about any other

wounds, and by the time we got to the end of the interview, I was

probably so nervous I put the back wound out of my mind."

(quote off)

Let's put the above into the context of her WC testimony:

(quote on)

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to

President Kennedy's condition?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and

there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of

the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

(quote off)

I think it's clear from her later disclaimer that Bowron did not see any

other wound when she was standing on the other side of the car.

It appears she was under the impression Specter was asking her if she saw

any other wound at that exact moment -- and the answer was, "No, sir."

January 4, 2007

Cross posted from the "Throat Wound" thread:

Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission very thoroughly omitted any careful timeline or chain of custody of the President of the United States from the time the limosine arrived at Parkland Hospital until Dr. Carrico arrived in Trauma Room 1 where Kennedy had been taken.

Arlen Specter and the WC were given with the job of covering up an obvious

conspiracy, so this ought not surprise.

It shouldn't be that difficult to establish such a time-line, since we're only looking

at a few minutes.

Nurse Henchliffe testified that Dr. Carrico did not arrive in Trauma Room 1 until some indeterminate, if brief, amount of time after she helped roll the stretcher into Trauma Room 1.

There's nothing "indeterminate" here...

From Henchliffe's WC testimony:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Mr. SPECTER. And who else was present at the time you first saw [JFK] when

he had just come into the emergency area?

Miss HENCHLIFFE. Let me see, I think Dr. Carrico was there--he was there very

shortly after--afterwards.

Mr. SPECTER. He was there when you arrived? Or arrived shortly after you did?

Miss HENCHLIFFE. Well, actually I went in ahead of the cart with him and I was

the first one in with him, and just in a minute, or seconds, Dr. Carrico came in.

(quote off)

"In a minute, or seconds..."

Nurse Henchliffe left Trauma Room 1 to go to the blood bank in the hospital for blood.
Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission very thoroughly omitted any testimony

concerning who removed John F. Kennedy's tie and opened his shirt, and when.

From the WC testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Mr. SPECTER - Would you continue to describe your observations of the President?

Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen,

bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no

voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed

a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard

a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and detected no large or sucking

chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head.

(quote off)

From the WC testimony of Nurse Diana Bowron:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Mr. SPECTER - And who was in the trauma room when you arrived there?

Miss BOWRON - Dr. Carrico.

Mr. SPECTER - Where did Dr. Carrico join you?

Miss BOWRON - At the---I couldn't really tell you exactly, but it was inside major

surgery. Miss Henchliffe, the other nurse who is assigned to major surgery, was

in the trauma room already setting the I.V.'s---the intravenous bottles up.

Mr. SPECTER - And were there any other nurses present at that time when the

President arrived in the trauma area?

Miss BOWRON - I don't think so, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Were there any doctors present besides Dr. Carrico?

Miss BOWRON - I didn't notice anybody---there may have been.

Mr. SPECTER - What action did you observe Dr. Carrico take, if any?

Miss BOWRON - We tried to start an I.V. cutdown and I don't know whether it

was his left or his right leg, and Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing

and then after that everybody just arrived at once and it was more or less

everybody sort of helping everybody else. We opened the chest tube trays and

the venesectron trays.

(quote off)

The omissions of Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission concerning these
crucial moments make the Grand Canyon look like a gopher hole.

Ashton Gray

Which is nothing compared to the holes in your theory, Ashton.

At what point did Jackie Kennedy, Will Greer, and Roy Kellerman leave

the body unattended so "Joe" and Di could diddle with the dead Prez?

Charles Carrico, WC:

(quote on)

Mr. SPECTER - Who was the first doctor to reach President Kennedy on his arrival

at Parkland Hospital?

Dr. CARRICO - I was.

Mr. SPECTER - And who else was with President Kennedy on his arrival, as best

you can recollect it?

Dr. CARRICO - Mrs. Kennedy was there, and there were some men in the room,

who I assumed were Secret Service men; I don't know.

(quote on)

And what did the Secret Service report?

From his original written report, Roy Kellerman:

(quote on)

When we got to the hospital I called to the agents to get two stretchers. The special

agents of the follow-up car with the police ran into the hospital, obtained two stretchers

on wheels. We placed the Governor on the first one at which time I noticed he was

conscious and I spoke to him saying, "Governor, everything is going to be all right."

His eyes were wide open and he nodded his head in agreement. Just before we

removed the President, SA Hill took off his coat, placed it over the President's head

and chest and we placed him on the stretcher. Both were taken into separate

emergency rooms. The hospital staff appeared quickly and went immediately to

work. I accompanied the President to the emergency room.

(quote off)

From Will Greer's original Secret Service report:

(quote on, emphasis added)

I drove as fast as I could to the hospital and helped to get the President

into the emergency room. I guarded the emergency room door until the

doctors and nurses had completed their duty.

(quote off)

Let's return to Ms. Bowron's unduly maligned WC testimony, where she

describes what she did at the limo:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Miss BOWRON - I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and

lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and

walked off with it. We ran on with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us.

(quote off)

It would appear that Jackie, Kellerman, and Greer were with the body from the time

the limo arrived to when the Parkland staff took over in the ER.

Does this indict Jackie?

Did she pull out a pillbox hat pin and shiv the guy in the throat on the drive to Parkland?

January 4, 2007