Jump to content
The Education Forum

ZAPRUDER FRAME # 374 & a few others


Recommended Posts

I have spent a lot of time over the years on Parkland. They know what they saw ... and

recorded it for the medico-legal record that very afternoon.

Barb: Does the medico-legal record at Parkland include ANY RECORD of a BACK WOUND?

No, it doesn't.

Nurse Diana Bowron told Livingstone she had seen it when they rolled the body while

getting JFK cleaned up to go in the casket. That interview was in 1993, I believe. But no mention by

anyone in any of the chart notes as having seen it that day at Parkland.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb

Quick question. In your opinion, is there any reason they would have looked for it or found it given the traumatic nature of JFK's head wound? Especially if they perhaps thought an immediate autopsy would follow in Dallas?

Regards

Lee

Hi Lee,

I don't think so given they had two wounds ... one that looked like an entrance, and one that was a big mess and could have been an exit. On top of that, they had immediate concerns with establishing an airway and circulation and dealing with the bleeding from the gaping wound in the rear of the head. Had he lived long enough to be even remotely stabilized (at least with an air supply and functional circulation), then they would have explored further. But once he was pronounced, their job was over - so I don't think they thought beyond that (autopsy, which was a given, probably didn't play into it,imo) and given the situation with the SS, Jackie there, the priest, a casket coming in, etc ... it wasn't the usual ER code death with time to look at anything else even if they had wanted to out of medical curiosity. The mood in the ER after an unsuccessful code is subdued and a little surreal in any circumstance, hard to even imagine what it must have been like for the folks at Parkland.

It does cross my mind that given the throat wound, it would have been almost expected for someone to have done a quick "pat down" type feel on the back of the neck and down the shoulders for an additional wound, but .... see above. Hindsight is always 20/20 and they had more than enough to cope with and not much time before he was pronounced.

I'd be interested in your thoughts?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Barb: Does the medico-legal record at Parkland include ANY RECORD of a BACK WOUND?

No, it doesn't.

It does cross my mind that given the throat wound, it would have been almost expected for someone to have done a quick "pat down" type feel on the back of the neck and down the shoulders for an additional wound

Thank you Barb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barb: Does the medico-legal record at Parkland include ANY RECORD of a BACK WOUND?

No, it doesn't.

It does cross my mind that given the throat wound, it would have been almost expected for someone to have done a quick "pat down" type feel on the back of the neck and down the shoulders for an additional wound

Thank you Barb.

You are welcome. And lest anyone get confused, the two quotes are from separate posts and the bottom one is incomplete ... as I referred to what I had written just above it in that post .... that given the two wounds they saw and what all they were dealing with at the time until he was pronounced, no, it didn't surprise me that no one reported doing that quick "pat down."

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Craig,

I don't see Jackie actually put her hand on the back of his head and push the hair up. I see her start to place her hand on the back of his head, hesitate, then place her hand down lower ... on his neck.

Here is a gif....

hair.gif

Hi Craig,

Don't know how I missed seeing this before! Just saw several posts on this page I somehow missed. Anyway, thanks for this ... interesting. I never had the impression that she had her hand on even the lower part of the back of his head enough to run it upwards a bit, pushing the hair. Your gif shows her hand running up to/just below the areas where I think she saw wound .... where that frizzled hair is. I think she saw that as she was about to place her hand there and dropped it back down to neck/upper back as noted in what you posted before.

I want to look at this some more .... but her hand movement upward seems to be in synch with the hair (your tuft?) flopping down against the head .... do you understand what I am referring to?

If so, what does that mean about the hair ... and scalp ... in that area. Hmmmm. Could that rather odd movement of that area above her hand when she pushes, be indicative of movement of loose, torn scalp and shattered bone down in that frizzled looking hair in that area?

Hope that is clear as mud. <g>

BTW, I can bore you to death with evidence there was a gaping wound in the rear of the head ... I don't use the word "blowout" because that's the word LNs latch onto to sneer at as they seem to think blowout = bullet exit ... and that is not necessarily the case. Virtually the entire right side of his skull was a "blowout" ... not all of it was from direct contact with bullet. "Blowout" is also used by some to mean complete obliteration, everything gone...the bone, the scalp, the hair .... and that is not what Parkland described seeing. Anyway, can get into that later if you want. ;-)

Thanks again for this.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even know the medical definition of a pulse?

I dont care

What do you not understand?

Your not proving anything to me because I could care less what the medical definition of a pulse is

Jack is correct in that the second the bullet hit JFKs head he was gone forever, im saying that the Doctors saw some signs of life, why else would they do CPR and other life saving procedures instead of just pronouncing him DOA?

Dont reply Barb, your wasting your time because I dont care

Dean "No Pulse" Hagerman

Oh, it's obvious you don't care. It is also obvious *why*. I understand completely. But, some others might care.

Of course they saw some signs of life (a few agonal breaths, sporadic heartbeats by stethoscope) and immediately started measures to see if they could get some Cardio and Pulmonary Resuscitation happening ... that is what CPR is for . Then Jenkins drew their attention to the wound in the rear of the head, Clark took a look ... and they pronounced him. Since you claimed he had a pulse, then go figure why you sign off as "No Pulse" Hagerman. <g> Chill. A simple error is no big deal, go figure why you made it one. The point was to not start a factoid that he had a pulse at Parkland. He didn't ... as the doctors reported. Accuracy is what matters.

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clark checked the head first, then squeezed 1.5 liters of blood out through the wounds in Kennedys head, achieving a momentary pulse, (which of course stopped), he then checked the head again. (Lancer) He was finally totally dead after this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clark checked the head first, then squeezed 1.5 liters of blood out through the wounds in Kennedys head,

John, you say HEAD WOUNDS PLURAL. I'm sure thousands will correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall Clark only referred to a SINGLE (tangential) wound in the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say wounds because Clark said so in so many words. He noticed brainmatter and blood. I say wounds because wwithin the skull cavity were numerous woundings to various tissues, eg blood vessels carrying blood to the head which rises up by the ear and branched out. After squeezing the heart, through these torn vessels, 1.5cc blood was noted to have flowed, (plus more brain tissue had spilled out).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even know the medical definition of a pulse?

I dont care

What do you not understand?

Your not proving anything to me because I could care less what the medical definition of a pulse is

Jack is correct in that the second the bullet hit JFKs head he was gone forever, im saying that the Doctors saw some signs of life, why else would they do CPR and other life saving procedures instead of just pronouncing him DOA?

Dont reply Barb, your wasting your time because I dont care

Dean "No Pulse" Hagerman

Oh, it's obvious you don't care. It is also obvious *why*. I understand completely. But, some others might care.

Of course they saw some signs of life (a few agonal breaths, sporadic heartbeats by stethoscope) and immediately started measures to see if they could get some Cardio and Pulmonary Resuscitation happening ... that is what CPR is for . Then Jenkins drew their attention to the wound in the rear of the head, Clark took a look ... and they pronounced him. Since you claimed he had a pulse, then go figure why you sign off as "No Pulse" Hagerman. <g> Chill. A simple error is no big deal, go figure why you made it one. The point was to not start a factoid that he had a pulse at Parkland. He didn't ... as the doctors reported. Accuracy is what matters.

Barb :-)

Ok I was wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Lee,

I don't think so given they had two wounds ... one that looked like an entrance, and one that was a big mess and could have been an exit. On top of that, they had immediate concerns with establishing an airway and circulation and dealing with the bleeding from the gaping wound in the rear of the head. Had he lived long enough to be even remotely stabilized (at least with an air supply and functional circulation), then they would have explored further. But once he was pronounced, their job was over - so I don't think they thought beyond that (autopsy, which was a given, probably didn't play into it,imo) and given the situation with the SS, Jackie there, the priest, a casket coming in, etc ... it wasn't the usual ER code death with time to look at anything else even if they had wanted to out of medical curiosity. The mood in the ER after an unsuccessful code is subdued and a little surreal in any circumstance, hard to even imagine what it must have been like for the folks at Parkland.

It does cross my mind that given the throat wound, it would have been almost expected for someone to have done a quick "pat down" type feel on the back of the neck and down the shoulders for an additional wound, but .... see above. Hindsight is always 20/20 and they had more than enough to cope with and not much time before he was pronounced.

I'd be interested in your thoughts?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Hi Barb

My Mother was a nurse for 35 years and I totally agree with your comments. I have asked her and some of her colleagues about this on a few occasions and they claim that if a head wound of the type that was presented to the Parkland doctors was presented to them, then the patient could have wounds in their legs, their chest (unless damage to the heart), their arms, their hands, their back - the primary focus would be the head wound and trying to regain some sort of circulation.

In my opinion there was a back wound but considering the massive trauma to the head and obvious wound in the throat it would not have been looked for or found - the question is - why bother?

I 100% believe Diana Bowron. I don't see how she could be confused about this and don't for the life of me know why she would lie, oh and she's British to boot.

Lee

Hi Lee,

Exactly. Your mom and her colleagues probably had stints in the ER or had to respond to codes occasionally at some point in their working days. I was a lab person, and one of us always had to respond to codes, and sometimes it was me ... so I have seen many. Nothing trumps air and circulation ... that's priority.

We are in agreement on the back wound too. And who is going to quibble with a Brit gal, eh? <g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for 30 -year old memories, see thread on Homer McMahon.

I have spent a lot of time over the years on Parkland. They know what they saw ... and

recorded it for the medico-legal record that very afternoon.

Barb: Does the medico-legal record at Parkland include ANY RECORD of a BACK WOUND?

No, it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for 30 -year old memories, see thread on Homer McMahon.
I have spent a lot of time over the years on Parkland. They know what they saw ... and

recorded it for the medico-legal record that very afternoon.

Barb: Does the medico-legal record at Parkland include ANY RECORD of a BACK WOUND?

No, it doesn't.

As for 24 hour old memories, see thread on Shots from Inside the Limo - posts 208 & 209.

I think a persons age is a deciding factor when a memory is created and we mustn't forget the environmental factors shaping it. And lets not bypass bias, discrimination, predilection, favoritism, pre-supposition and narrow-mindedness, none of which I would ascribe to Diana Bowron.

BS. I have sharp memories from when I was 2 years old. Age is not a factor

The witnesses to 11-22-63 events formed indelible memories. It was not an everyday event.

It was a once-in-a-lifetime event. I would have remembered every moment in horrific detail.

Had I seen the head wound, it would be etched in my memory forever.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for 30 -year old memories, see thread on Homer McMahon.
I have spent a lot of time over the years on Parkland. They know what they saw ... and

recorded it for the medico-legal record that very afternoon.

Barb: Does the medico-legal record at Parkland include ANY RECORD of a BACK WOUND?

No, it doesn't.

As for 24 hour old memories, see thread on Shots from Inside the Limo - posts 208 & 209.

I think a persons age is a deciding factor when a memory is created and we mustn't forget the environmental factors shaping it. And lets not bypass bias, discrimination, predilection, favoritism, pre-supposition and narrow-mindedness, none of which I would ascribe to Diana Bowron.

BS. I have sharp memories from when I was 2 years old. Age is not a factor

The witnesses to 11-22-63 events formed indelible memories. It was not an everyday event.

It was a once-in-a-lifetime event. I would have remembered every moment in horrific detail.

Had I seen the head wound, it would be etched in my memory forever.

Jack

You miss my point Jack.

And...

If you had left the BS off the start it would have been a sharper and punchier post.

Lee

The BS was for the comment that a person's AGE is a factor in sharpness of memory. Perhaps

if they suffer from Alzheimers or dementia...but not as a sweeping generality. My oldest

memories are 81 years old, and I challenge you to prove that age is a factor in memories.

IT VARIES ON A PERSON BY PERSON BASIS.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BS was for the comment that a person's AGE is a factor in sharpness of memory. Perhaps

if they suffer from Alzheimers or dementia...but not as a sweeping generality. My oldest

memories are 81 years old, and I challenge you to prove that age is a factor in memories.

IT VARIES ON A PERSON BY PERSON BASIS.

Jack

Its quite clear you have a memory problem as it regards the Moorman image used in MIDP....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...