Tom Neal

Mr. SPECTER - Did you ever see his neck prior to the time you removed the trach tube? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. As I stated in my post #197: Diana Bowron never saw the untouched neck wound. Tom

Ray, Good job finding this testimony from her 1993 telephone interview with Harrison Livingston. IIRC it was published in his book "Killing the Truth." I've only found bits and pieces of it. Do you have the entire interview? Unfortunately, there is a problem here when you compare it with her 1964 WC testimony: 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. She did see the wound AFTER the trach tube had been removed -- but she never saw the untouched neck wound. In a filmed interview on CSPAN in 1997, Carrico (in an exceptionally badly-executed interview) says he didn't actually see the neck wound until AFTER the nurses had removed JFK's clothing. So he can't say whether the wound was visible above the collar or not. It seems that the person who is the most likely to know, is whichever nurse actually cut through JFK's necktie. If it was Bowron, then she didn't see it. If it was Hinchliffe, I've found no indication that she was ever asked. Not in official testimony anyway... In this 1993 interview she also states that she observed JFK's back wound when he was taken from the stretcher to be put in the coffin. Prior to this 1990s interview, neither she, Nurse Margaret Hincliffe, or Orderly David Sanders was specifically asked if they had observed JFK's back wound. No one ELSE at Parkland has testified that they saw the back wound. From his 1964 WC testimony: Carrico, who checked JFK "for a large back wound" only by raising JFK's back above the stretcher and feeling around with his gloved hands did not detect any large wound. He further stated that "with all the blood and debris" there "could have been a back wound." Dr. Carrico's testimony doesn't prove no back wound existed as some contend, nor does it prove that the back wound existed at Parkland. Tom

Ashton, By "throat butchery" are you referring to your belief that Perry created the 'throat wound' with a large-bore needle, the tracheostomy procedure, or surgery performed later that resulted in the ragged throat wound as described by Humes et al at Bethesda? Tom

He changed it after I commented, but either way it is STILL overly sarcastic, and is unacceptable as a factual rebuttal. Tom

Per your SOP you are continuing to substitute evasions, accusations, etc for actual counter-arguments. This is just one more discussion you've lost and turned into a pointless argument that clutters up the thread. Since you aren't listening, rather than continue to talk to myself, I'll stop talking and let you talk to yourself while I don't listen. Tom

Sandy, Tommy is NOT agreeing with you. He is being sarcastic. See his later responses... Tom

No one else here accuses people of being "paranoid" simply because they disagree with you. And those that you accuse are among the many who gladly accept new information without sarcasm, condescension, or accusations of mental illness.

If you actually have read the messages and still don't have the answer to your question then it is pointless to reiterate. Having read your recent responses to Jim D., Sandy, Robert, and me, I can only conclude that you are incapable of accepting input contrary to your own, regardless of its merit. Tom

Why do you find it necessary to state that the post will be on a "Christian" blog - why not say "blog"? Is a "Christian" blog somehow different than a "blog"? Tom

If you have to ask then you haven't read the posts. Or equally likely you simply ignore the parts that contradict your opinions. Tom

I've already answered it, but you keep substituting your personal opinions for what others are ACTUALLY thinking. Can you provide proof that you know what someone else is thinking, BETTER then they do? Until you do your arguments and sarcasm are totally and completely irrelevant. Tom

Robert, If he doesn't *intentionally* misinterpret, or completely ignore what others say, then he would have to admit he's wrong. In this case he is attempting to use your information to justify the statement he made BEFORE he learned this new information. Even if this new info was germane (and I agree with you, it is not) he was unaware of it when he made his statement, so either way it fails to justify his stance AT THAT TIME. Tom

First you state that you agree, then in the same sentence (sarcastically) state evidence that contradicts your original agreement. i.e. why would someone not want a "better" rifle. You fail to counter my argument that what you personally consider "better" is not what the customer considered "better" based upon the model he ordered. When you have no counter-argument, sarcasm is a lame substitute for admitting you are wrong... Tom

James, Do you think a bullet entering through the throat or through the back could end up on top of the lung with its velocity spent? IMO, an FMJ would have punched right through the body from either entrance. Tom

The rifle purchase has been thoroughly explored. There is no evidence that Kleins was out of 36" carbines. The above is your personal opinion. Whose to say Kleins would agree with you? Also, a Carbine was ordered, not a standard length rifle. You are presuming that a longer rifle would be as good or better for the purchaser. Would a business assume this? Perhaps someone who ORDERS a carbine WANTS a carbine, or they would have ordered a standard length. They run the risk of paying return postage if the customer is not satisfied. In what way is this better for Klein's profit and customer satisfaction? Tom

Agreed. I make it a point to regularly remind myself that all evidence and testimony in this case is suspect or missing. To summarize my previous post, I've reached the conclusion that the stronger the case for a tension pneumothorax of the right lung, the stronger the case for an actual back wound. I do believe the lung/pleura was damaged and an entry wound in the upper back that does not exit the chest could not be inflicted by a Carcano FMJ bullet. Thus, any lung damage would reveal that the back wound was caused by a frangible bullet. Sure would like to see a good chest x-ray...

A fragment exiting the throat could explain the small size (even for an entry shot) of this wound, but I'm still on the fence regarding an EOP entrance. Could a shot from the front enter the throat and cause the damage at C3/C4? Would this path pierce the pleura and/or lung? If not, then a back shot would be required to cause the tension pneumothorax which I am convinced did exist. Do you think your EOP entrance/throat exit is the most likely explanation for the 'throat wound'? Tom

Bob, Great job on this thread! IMO December 6, 1963 is the date that Stover and Galloway signed Humes completed report. Do you think that the tension pneumothorax was caused entirely by damage to the top of the lung from the throat entry shot or damage from the back entry shot? Thanks for any thoughts, Tom

The birth of the 'single-bullet theory' was many months later, but of course a shot from the front was not allowed, and the back wound was too low to serve as an entry wound for the throat "exit" wound. Raising the back wound to correspond with the throat wound solves this problem, but how do you explain the obvious indications of damage to lung/pleura? You state that the pleura was NOT violated. Not even by chest tubes. As discussed in a long previous thread, a FMJ bullet does not stop an inch or two into soft tissue. Considering the location of the shirt bullet holes and the downward trajectory, the back shot would have transited the lung and exited the chest. A chest exit wound was not observed at Parkland. To me this is proof that JFK was not shot in the back with a standard Carcano bullet. This leaves two possibilities: 1. The back wound was not caused by a bullet. It was created to prove shots came from behind. 2. The back wound was inflicted by a frangible bullet that damaged the lung and did not exit the body. Was this back wound observed prior to JFK's body departing Parkland? If so, then it is real. Dr. James Carrico checked JFK's back for wounds. In his testimony he clearly states that the body was raised enough for him to FEEL the back. He further states that at no time did he look at JFKS's back as this was an emergency examination. He later states that he was looking for LARGE wounds only. He repeats this statement. According to him, with all the blood and debris a small wound was unlikely to be detected. In a passage that appears to have been edited he states "There could have been a back wound." Several members have pointed out to me that the nurses testified that they did not see a back wound. During testimony, the two nurses were NEVER asked if they saw the back wound when they washed the body. They were asked if they saw it when JFK was removed from the limo. Many years after the assassination Diana Bowron stated that she DID see the back wound. Due to the elapsed time, this is not positive proof, but is evidence favoring an actual back wound. SS Glen Bennett stated that he observed the impact of a bullet in JFK's back. Per his written statement made on the plane returning to DC from Dallas he recorded this observation. SS Paul Landis stated that upon boarding AF-1 he broke down in tears. He wished he could have the self-control of Glen Bennett who at this time was calming recording his observations on paper. Not positive proof that GB saw what he says he saw, but this is supporting evidence. Per the above, insufficient evidence exists to entirely eliminate either of these two possibilities. Is there medical evidence supporting a real back wound? Yes. There is ample evidence that the pleura was violated, and not necessarily via the throat wound. If the back wound is real, then it MUST have penetrated the pleura and damaged the lung without exiting the chest. This could occur only with a frangible bullet which would eliminate LHO as the assassin -- an even more powerful reason to deny a penetration of the pleura than the throat wound.

Hi Greg, Sorry for being a pest, but I would like to read the rest of the article as well as vote. When I scroll down to the 'comments' this is what I see: As you can see, there is nothing between the Ebersole reference and "Install a video wordpress plugin" which is followed by the "comments" section. Thanks for your efforts! Tom

For some reason when I go to your site this poll does not appear. I do see the poll regarding what the conspirators had to gain. I have scrolled from top to bottom and still no poll... Tom Hey Tom, This poll isn't on the first page or on the side bar. That's where the old poll is located. The new poll is on the page containing Doctor Chesser's article. Click here: A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs -- then scroll all the way to the very end of the article and you will find the poll on the bottom toward the left side. Hi Greg, This link that you posted takes me to the page that I have BEEN looking for the poll on... I've scrolled from top to bottom. No poll. I do have messages dated 12-22-2015 so the page is updating. You can put me in the poll as a strong "both 5 and 6." I do appreciate the link you sent, and I have no idea why the poll is not appearing for me... Tom

Greg, For some reason when I go to your site this poll does not appear. I do see the poll regarding what the conspirators had to gain. I have scrolled from top to bottom and still no poll... Tom

Jon, Have you read Talbot's book? Tom

My response was based ONLY on why Obama MAY have responded the way he did. I doubt there will be anything in there that will jump out instantly, but I do think there will be one or two cold trails that will warm up enough to lead to something important. Tom

Its doing pretty well. It made both the NY Times and LA Times bestseller lists. It was number 20 in the former and number 7 in the latter. It has already gone into reprinting. Thanks, Jim! That 13 point East Coast v. West Coast spread is "interesting." Tom