Tom Neal

Jim, Thanks for the acknowledgement. "Pan Am" and Greg have it right. Tom

Presumably I am one of these "three" and as honored as I am by membership in this elite group, I can't comprehend the lack of interest in this book. Even those who believe that Talbot has tried and convicted Dulles as the Mastermind without proving so, would appreciate the formerly unknown facts regarding AWD that are in abundant supply. Should someone choose to separate AWD from the DeGaulle assassination attempts, this account alone is worth the price of the book. Jim DiEugenio - I tried to PM you with a question and received a response that you are "unable to receive messages at this time." If you have checked the box to block PM, considering some of the responses on this and other recent threads - I understand! Tom

Kirk, My take on "The Devil's Chessboard" is that Talbot believes that Dulles is the most likely candidate, but not the ONLY candidate as "Mastermind" or whatever term is appropriate. Agreed. And Talbot makes it clear that throughout Dulles career, he never acted without the assurance from his peers that he was doing the right thing. I doubt the genesis of the assassination plot could be placed at the feet of any individual. IMO it was a solution that simultaneously coalesced in the minds of a LARGE group, and Dulles was most likely their first choice to 'make it happen.' BTW, what did you think of the way the Footnotes were designated only by page rather the precise sentence or phrase that they referred to? I wish they had stuck to the traditional method, but this seems to be the way of the future. Tom

Paul, I have read Brothers and The Devil's Chessboard, as well as all of Newman's books. Tom

Presumably, you are going to state that if these are the only qualifications for designation as the master of the assassination, then the line of candidates is long indeed... If not, then I don't see the relevance to my post. Tom

Hello Bob, Just so you don't feel like a "voice in the wilderness", in previous posts on this thread, I have included this as a possibility, also. But IMO, a bullet fragment or a bone fragment seems an unlikely candidate to create a 1/5" round hole in JFK's neck yet in fabric that is actually touching this hole, create a 1/2" slit that just happens to be vertical. Although the order of passage (flesh, then shirt) is the reverse for the back wound, both the shirt hole and the wound were round or elliptical - not vertical slits. My credentials to make a judgement regarding your question include only what I have read in several forensics books and documentation. My research has indicated that a bullet that passes through a clothed person leaves 'metal' on the clothing at the entrance and exit site. No mention of blood at the site of the shirt slits in anything I've discovered, despite Perry's description of the wound as 'weeping' blood prior to his incision. A spectrographic analysis would indicate the presence of blood. Whether or not they looked for those results I can't say. If no blood was detected on the shirt slit would they have mentioned it? Tom

Greg, Having more than 30 years experience in the airlines, although not with Pan Am, the series was accurate. CIA et al DID utilize airline flight personnel as couriers, handlers, mules, etc. Why wouldn't they? Flight crews were familiar faces to the customs people who rarely made anything more than a cursory inspection of our luggage. Prior to 911 anyway, if a departure was running late, crews were routinely routed around customs. The series "Pan Am" was cancelled after a single season due to "low ratings". Nancy Hult Ganis who was also the executive producer made a number of valiant efforts to find a home for a second season of Pan Am, but several promising opportunities were abruptly terminated. Howard Hughes and the CIA had a long-term well-known working agreement. When Hughes was running TWA, at least according to several old-time TWA pilots that I knew many years ago, CIA cameras were regularly installed in the nose or belly of their aircraft. Especially on charter flights to "unusual" destinations. Tom PS OOOPS! I was reading this thread from the beginning and I didn't notice until just now that this post is kinda old'.

Perry Mason first evaluated a statement and only then objected due to an "assumption of facts not in evidence." John G. Tidd has clearly NOT evaluated "the whole of JFK research" yet he has rendered the verdict that in its entirety, it "is bunk." IMHO the ghost of Perry Mason stood up and loudly objected that the statement of John G. Tidd is an "assumption of facts not in evidence." Your statement is an insult to the MANY JFK researchers who deserve credit for producing research that is decidedly NOT "bunk." A number of them regularly post on this site. Tom PS I agree with this statement in its entirety, and have said so. Jon, as I'm certain you are aware, Mark Lane is a 'rather' well known "JFK researcher." By your own declaration, he too is a purveyor of "bunk." By virtue of this fact in evidence as stated by you, your statement re the "greatest failure" of the WC is indeed "an assumption of facts not in evidence." [Edited to replace PS which was deleted by the software]

Jon, If you read "The Devil's Chessboard" with an open mind, IMO your confidence that CIA was NOT involved in the assassination will greatly diminish, if not vanish altogether. Tom (who obviously thinks that a reasonable analysis of Dulles is impossible without reading THIS book)

Ashton, Excellent reply! Thanks for acknowledging facts I had stated earlier. As I'm sure you have noticed, I asked a question regarding the alleged blood stain, rather than stating an opinion (although I did imply one) as to it's cause. My intent was to: 1. elicit comments on this "stain" - no one had mentioned this when Bob posted the close-up of the "nick" in the tie. 2. determine whether the lack of comments was due to a belief that it couldn't be anything else (an homage to your response re the scalpel v. scissors question) 3. get input as to other likely and/or possible explanations for this "stain" 4. provoke a response to my comment that although they tested the hole in the back of the shirt, and the slit in the front, they ignored the tie altogether. 5. put it out there that in addition to all their OTHER flaws, the incorrect exhibit number was either designed to confuse or an indication of their carelessness 6. Hint that the only stain on the tie happened to occur at the site of the "nick" in the tie I give your response two thumbs up (alas, I only have two to give...) Tom PS You reminded me that Raymond Burr's "Perry Mason" is still my favorite lawyer - "Assumption of facts not in evidence!" - possibly his must-often-used phrase...

Eggs Benedict? Or...[insert identity of substance here] Hint. Hint. Hint-Hint... Tom

In consideration of the 'scalpel v. scissors' controversy, I thought it might prove interesting to examine the actual cut through the tie: Before I take the back of the tie from a different photo and paste it here to see if the ends match and check out the cut itself, can someone tell me if the side I have labelled in RED is actually the FRONT of the tie? I don't see a twist in the tie so I think I have it right... Note that the tag in this display indicates this is CE-394, which is the shirt. The tie should be labelled CE-395. Thanks for any assistance, Tom

As you can tell from my post #272: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=19#entry324254 IMO, viable options are sparse, indeed. Thus far I certainly still consider a bone fragment as a possibility, but the 1/5" round throat exit and the 1/2" vertical slit in a shirt that was touching the wound at the time of exit strike me as incompatible. Tom

Neither have I, and I will be surprised if I do find one. But I have not yet seen Henchliffe's entire interview conducted by Wallace Milam, and I want to see whatever is extant before forming a conclusion. Agreed. I'm hoping that Mr. Milam was aware of the scalpel issue, and as he did with the back wound, asked direct questions that would resolve the issue. He was obviously aware of the importance of whether or not anyone at Parkland observed the back wound. While studying this issue I was told that Henchliffe stated she had "washed the body" and there was no back wound. However, in her interview with Milam, what she actually says is that she washed the blood off JFK, but she "could not rule out a back wound." I've read similar statements regarding Carrico. 'He states that he performed a back exam and there was no back wound.' In his testimony he states that he performed an emergency examination by running his hands down JFK's back and feeling for any 'large' wounds. He further stated that with 'all the blood and debris' there 'could have been a back wound.' So I prefer to read the original documents myself. My other question is did anyone report seeing the throat wound while JFK was still clothed? If so, this would place the wound above the collar. Carrico did not see the throat wound until JFK's shirt was opened. Thank you for confirming this and it is gratifying to realize that some people actually read the entire post. If you're interested; in an earlier Memo to Mrs. Elizabeth L. Wright, Director of Nursing Services (and wife of O.P. Wright) Miss Bowron states "I took the nearest cart and together with Joe Richards the orderly ran down the hall to the ER entrance." Ashton, thanks for your usual thorough and detailed reply. Tom

Hey Bob, In an earlier post I mentioned that I remembered the tear was at the 3rd tracheal ring, but I could not recall where I found that info. You replied that you thought the same thing but couldn't remember where you got that info either. Does this mean you located a source? Tom

Hey Bob, Ian and Ashton, In an FBI memo, the damage to the tie is described as "a HOLE in the outer layer of the tie that exposes the white inner lining". So there's a HOLE in the outer layer, and a NICK in the tie... Does everyone agree that the 'stain' is a dried blood clot? Tom

Sandy, In the above photo of JFK, the "nick" is located on the anatomical left SIDE of the tie. I already have the photo Bob P. has posted as well as one that depicts the "nick". This photo however is a crop that does NOT show enough of the necktie to decide exactly where the nick is located in the vertical direction. The 1/2" vertical slit in the shirt is located on a vertical line from the collar button. The way the tie is 'tied' has pointed the BOTTOM of the knot toward JFK's anatomical right. IMO, the "nick" aligns well with the slit in the shirt IF it is located just above the vertical midpoint of the knot in the tie. As I have said in previous posts, the problem I am having with this scenario is that a bullet fragment (or bone fragment) that left a 1/5" ROUND hole in JFK's neck produced a 1/2" vertical slit in the shirt and deposited NO BULLET METAL on the shirt. Within the memo that gives the results of the spectrographic examination of the hole in the back of the shirt and coat, there is no indication that this test was performed on the "nick" in the necktie. It seems unlikely that a scalpel WOULD be used to remove his necktie. As I stated in an earlier post and Ashton has posted in agreement - no nurse has stated that she used a scalpel OR scissors to remove the clothing. Carrico stated in a 1997 video that they used scissors. IIRC correctly, (and I have not had the opportunity to check) the belief that a scalpel was used originated with Harold Weisberg following an interview with Carrico. As Bob P. has asked: Why didn't the nurse pull the tie away from his neck prior to cutting it? To cut the tie without loosening it would require her to first cut through the collar that was on top of the tie. The upper margin of the slit in the shirt would be higher than it appears on the shirt. She may well have pulled the tie away from his neck and then cut it. *Assuming* that she actually DID cut it with a scalpel - something that neither nurse has stated. As I have stated earlier, Dr. C. James Currico stated in his WC testimony that HE unbuttoned JFK's shirt himself. To do so would have required him to undo the collar button which is still attached to the shirt. I find it unlikely that he would fail to notice a throat wound while performing this act. Additionally, he is also clear in WC testimony that he did NOT observe the throat wound until AFTER the shirt was opened. Nurse Margaret Henchliffe observed the neck wound, however it is unclear whether she FIRST saw it before or after the clothing was removed. In her WC statement, Nurse Diana Bowron was asked when she first saw the neck wound and she indicated that she did not see it until they removed the trach tube. Unfortunately, in a 1993 interview she clearly states that she first observed it while JFK was still in the limo. IMO, this is due to her faulty memory of a 30 year old incident. As discussed in an earlier post, other members believe the WC may have altered her statement. FWIW, at the moment anyway, my OPINION is that: 1. The "throat wound" was located behind the tie - not above it - and was not seen until JFK's shirt was opened. 2. An exiting bullet fragment or bone fragment did NOT create the slit in the front of the shirt. 3. The shirt slit and tie nick were made with a scalpel. 4. Until (and IF) credible evidence emerges that a nurse did actually use a scalpel to remove JFK's tie, there is a strong chance that the slit and nick were created as false indications of an exiting bullet or bullet fragment. 5. The throat wound is located behind the tie and collar and there is no BULLET DAMAGE to the shirt or tie -- so WHAT made the hole in JFK's throat??? If anyone can produce reasonable evidence to the contrary I will GLADLY revise any or all of the above opinions! Tom

Hey Jim, I agree that "no one can explain the whole Carl Mather mystery", but I think anyone can explain why "the WC did not even deal with it." BTW, do you happen to have a current contact for Wallace Milam or know if he's recently deceased? I'm trying to find a transcript of his 1993 interview with Parkland nurse Margaret M. Henchliffe. Thanks for any info, Tom

Ashton, Thanks for editing and posting this. Very informative as to Burkley's arrival time at TR-1 I'm trying to determine if either Bowron or Henchliffe ever stated that they used a scalpel to remove JFK's tie. Blunt-nosed scissors appear to be the weapon of choice for this task. IIRC the origin of the idea that scalpels were used originated with Harold Weisberg who stated that he obtained that info during an interview with Carrico. I'm certain that in a video interview made in 1997 Carrico stated that scissors were used. My other question is did anyone report seeing the throat wound while JFK was still clothed? If so, this would place the wound above the collar. Carrico did not see the throat wound until JFK's shirt was opened. Henchliffe describes the wound without mentioning the transverse tracheostomy incision so she apparently saw the wound prior to the incision. She gives no indication that she first observed it prior to clothing removal or after. Bowron stated in 1964 that she did not see the throat wound until AFTER the trach tube was removed. She also stated that she did not observe the back wound. However, as I suspect you know, she stated in a 1993 interview that she first observed the throat wound while JFK was still in the limo. She also states that she observed the back wound that she doesn't mention in the 1964 testimony. Probably a result of imperfect memory recall after 30 years, or possibly an alteration of her testimony by the WC. Henchliffe is certain that she did NOT see the back wound while washing the body, but she DEFINITELY does NOT rule out the possibility that it was there. The reason for the above is I'm currently seeking a transcript of Henchliffe's 1993 interview with Wallace Milam. Would you perhaps have that, or current contact info for Mr. Milam? Tom

All that reading and only a few books you liked? Apparently most of your reading time was time wasted. Does that mean you seldom read anymore? Tom

As I've said earlier there are a number of reasons to believe those vertical slits were NOT made by a scalpel in order to remove his tie, and certainly not to remove his shirt. There is NO evidence that they were made by a bullet fragment. The two slits appear to have been made separately while the shirt was unbuttoned, and in no manner do they appear to represent an exiting fragment. Who made them, why did they make them, and when were they made. I can't even speculate as to their purpose. Tom

First allow me to state that I would prefer that the testimony indicated that the "throat wound" was located ABOVE JFK's collar. ABOVE COLLAR: The higher the throat wound, the more evidence against the SBT BEHIND COLLAR: There is no shirt damage that can be attributed to the exit of a bullet fragment -- Where did the fragment exit? From my interpretation of the testimony; as much as I'd like to, I can NOT agree that BOTH nurses described the throat wound location as "above the collar." IF there is any interest in this post, I'll continue with Nurse Margaret Henchliffe and Doctor C. James Carrico on this issue. Let's start with NURSE DIANA BOWRON: Ray Mitcham POST#193 1993 INTERVIEW: REFERRING TO WHEN SHE WAS INSIDE JFK'S LIMO AT PARKLAND: "I turned his head back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat." TOM NEAL post#197: 1964 WC STATEMENT: Mr. SPECTER - While the doctors were working on President Kennedy, did you ever have any opportunity to observe his neck? Miss BOWRON - No; I didn't, until afterwards.. Mr. SPECTER - Until after what? Miss BOWRON - Until after they had pronounced him dead and we cleaned up and removed the trach tube, and indeed we were really too shocked to really take much notice. Mr. SPECTER - Did you ever see his neck prior to the time you removed the trach tube? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. ROBERT PRUDHOMME POST#201: Regarding the discrepancy between Nurse Bowron's WC testimony and her 1993 interview, as they pertain to the neck wound... Dare I suggest alterations to the WC testimony of many witnesses by WC lawyers? TOM NEAL post#205: Ample evidence exists that the WC altered *SOME* testimony, but *ONLY* when it conflicted with their agenda. But they obviously did NOT alter EVERY single word of conflicting testimony. Miss Bowron's 1993 interview is 30 years after the event, while her 1964 testimony is only a few months after. When she makes the statement that she saw the throat wound while in JFK's limo, Harrison Livingstone doesn't ask her "Why" she clearly stated in her WC testimony that she did not see the throat wound until after the trach tube was removed. He could have offerred to read it to her affording her the opportunity to state that they must have changed it, or to say that's right I didn't see it until the trach tube was removed. Based upon Livingstone's writing, he would have been in heaven at the prospect of her accusing the WC of alteration. Yet another lost opportunity due to an interviewer's lack of knowledge. In 1964 no one at Parkland acknowledged seeing the back wound. In her 1993 interview she states that she also saw the *back* wound. HL expresses surprise but AGAIN does not ask why this went unmentioned in her 1964 testimony. If at any time prior to this interview Miss Bowron had read her testimony AS PUBLISHED she would have pointed out any alterations to Livingstone. Therefore she either didn't read it, it wasn't presented to her or it wasn't altered. By whater degree of likelyhood one estimates her having read the testimony, it diminishes the likelyhood of altered testimony to the same degree. The same for Carrico and Margaret Henchliffe. I wonder if Harrison Livingstone ever sent her transcripts? If no one volunteers contact information for him, I'll start looking myself... The WC had to counter the Parkland reports and call the throat wound a wound of exit. To accomplish this they had to designate a wound that was obviously an entrance wound. They had a suit coat and shirt with a bullet hole in the back, and a hole in JFK's body. In her 1964 testimony, despite being asked more than once about wounds "other" than the head wound, Miss Bowron EITHER does NOT mention seeing the *back wound* or it has been obliterated from her testimony. If she indicated that it was too low, they would alter her statement as to its exact location as they have done the autopsy report and other documents to represent the path of a single bullet. They had nothing to gain by removing any mention of the back wound so why would they do it? If you believe that there was NO reason to alter her testimony regarding the back wound then it is more likely that the two differences in her testimony occurred due to the 30 year interval between the two testimonies than it is that *BOTH* were alterred by the WC. IMO. Tom

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the "scalpel" theory IIRC came from Harold Weisberg after an interview with C. James Carrico who in a c1997 interview stated that scissors were used. I haven't found all of the interviews with the two nurses but what I have found does not state whether scissors or scalpels were used or which nurse actually removed the necktie. As I said earlier, I don't know why they didn't remove the collar button. Carrico states in testimony that they "opened his shirt" and observed the "neck wound." Considering this, there exists the possibility that they unbuttoned the shirt for this. That's why I asked in my earlier post if the other buttons were still on the shirt. They COULD have used a scalpel to remove the tie, and after the chest was examined, used scissors for the actual removal of the shirt. IIRC the sides of the shirt and the sleeves were cut from bottom to top. In Canada you wear leather boots, heavy canvas and thin sheet metal? I didn't realize the climate was so severe! Also, as I asked in my earlier post, with a 1/5" round wound exit, why would anyone make a 1/2" slit to indicate a bullet fragment exit in the shirt? It was his lucky day... Tom

Thanks for sharing that, Jim. She positively NAILED IT with that "Nazi" comment. For those who haven't read the book, "Mistress" Mary and Clover Dulles referred to him as "Shark." As Bobby Darin sang: "When the SHARK bites..." Tom

My pleasure, Jim. I was already reading "The Devil's Chessboard" when you put up your EXCELLENT review. Based on that, I am AMAZED at how few have actually read this book, or have decided that since there's "No Smoking Gun" to prove Dulles did it, they have no desire to read it. He knew at once that all his plans for the people of The Congo were gone. Had he been alive when Bobby was assassinated, that's the look I would have expected to see on his face. Tom