Jump to content
The Education Forum

Diana Bowron and JFK's Back Wound


Recommended Posts

In the 1990’s conspiracy author Harrison Livingstone (High Treason, Killing the Truth) located, corresponded with, and interviewed Former Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron. I happen to have a cassette tape copy of a telephone interview Livingstone did with her. Livingstone published a transcript of that interview in his 1993 book, "Killing the Truth", and he also included a statement that Diana Bowron wrote for him.

In both the interview and the statement, Diana Bowron claims that she saw President Kennedy’s back wound at Parkland Hospital when she helped prepare the President’s body for the casket. If true, this would be very significant, as no one else is on record as having seen the back wound at Parkland Hospital.

The issue might rest right there. However, as with so many other things in this case, there’s a problem. While Diana Bowron told Livingstone these things in the early 1990's, nearly 30 years after the assassination, and certainly after having been exposed to the controversy, she told a very different story to the Warren Commission in 1964, while she was under oath.

Specifically, Diana told the Warren Commission outright that she saw no wounds other than the large wound in President Kennedy’s 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.

Additionally, Diana Bowron, who was originally from England, was interviewed via telephone after the assassination by a British newspaper and told reporters her story. As a result, three articles were published in England detailing her story. In two of the articles Bowron does not identify or describe any wounds to the President. In the third article she mentions the head wound, but mentions no other wounds. In all three articles she mentions the tracheotomy, but remarkably says nothing about the existence of a throat wound. These three articles were published by the Warren Commission in Volume 14 pages 167-170 as Bowron Exhibits 1-4.

So, I believe that sometime between 1964 and the early 1990's Diana Bowron apparently decided to change her story - I have no idea why she would do such a thing, and I'm not obligated to explain her actions.

But she did change her story.

Perhaps the reason why Diana Bowron changed her story lies in the way in which Harry Livingstone handled his witness interviews. He often led his witnesses horribly during questioning. He did this during the Bowron telephone interview a number of times, and we know this was not the first time he spoke with her. He also tainted his witnesses’ memories by exposing them to the literature and controversies surrounding Kennedy's murder. In Bowron's case, Livingstone actually sent her the James K. Fox copies of the autopsy photographs before she wrote her statement for him and did the telephone interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In the 1990’s conspiracy author Harrison Livingstone (High Treason, Killing the Truth) located, corresponded with, and interviewed Former Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron. I happen to have a cassette tape copy of a telephone interview Livingstone did with her. Livingstone published a transcript of that interview in his 1993 book, "Killing the Truth", and he also included a statement that Diana Bowron wrote for him.

In both the interview and the statement, Diana Bowron claims that she saw President Kennedy’s back wound at Parkland Hospital when she helped prepare the President’s body for the casket. If true, this would be very significant, as no one else is on record as having seen the back wound at Parkland Hospital.

The issue might rest right there. However, as with so many other things in this case, there’s a problem. While Diana Bowron told Livingstone these things in the early 1990's, nearly 30 years after the assassination, and certainly after having been exposed to the controversy, she told a very different story to the Warren Commission in 1964, while she was under oath.

Specifically, Diana told the Warren Commission outright that she saw no wounds other than the large wound in President Kennedy’s 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.

Additionally, Diana Bowron, who was originally from England, was interviewed via telephone after the assassination by a British newspaper and told reporters her story. As a result, three articles were published in England detailing her story. In two of the articles Bowron does not identify or describe any wounds to the President. In the third article she mentions the head wound, but mentions no other wounds. In all three articles she mentions the tracheotomy, but remarkably says nothing about the existence of a throat wound. These three articles were published by the Warren Commission in Volume 14 pages 167-170 as Bowron Exhibits 1-4.

So, I believe that sometime between 1964 and the early 1990's Diana Bowron apparently decided to change her story - I have no idea why she would do such a thing, and I'm not obligated to explain her actions.

But she did change her story.

Perhaps the reason why Diana Bowron changed her story lies in the way in which Harry Livingstone handled his witness interviews. He often led his witnesses horribly during questioning. He did this during the Bowron telephone interview a number of times, and we know this was not the first time he spoke with her. He also tainted his witnesses’ memories by exposing them to the literature and controversies surrounding Kennedy's murder. In Bowron's case, Livingstone actually sent her the James K. Fox copies of the autopsy photographs before she wrote her statement for him and did the telephone interview.

I am very appreciative for your offering this perspective, Todd. If Bowron's 1990 perspective had been shared by Nurse Henchcliffe and orderly Sanders, I might believe her, but Wallace Milam (hope I have the name right) interviewed Henchcliffe some time ago and she denied seeing any wound in the back. It would seem odd that Bowron would see it and not report this information, so important as it is, to either Henchcliffe or Sanders.

I also wonder what Dr. Carrico might have thought about that 1980 letter of Jenkins to Time, indicating he felt the back wound, when Carrico did not. I don't have any of my notes with me, but Jenkins has been guilty, if I am not mistaken, of changing his story on the wounds, as the years have past, or am I confusing him with BAxter? Anyway, appreciate the post. Best, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 1990’s conspiracy author Harrison Livingstone (High Treason, Killing the Truth) located, corresponded with, and interviewed Former Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron. I happen to have a cassette tape copy of a telephone interview Livingstone did with her. Livingstone published a transcript of that interview in his 1993 book, "Killing the Truth", and he also included a statement that Diana Bowron wrote for him.

In both the interview and the statement, Diana Bowron claims that she saw President Kennedy’s back wound at Parkland Hospital when she helped prepare the President’s body for the casket. If true, this would be very significant, as no one else is on record as having seen the back wound at Parkland Hospital.

The issue might rest right there. However, as with so many other things in this case, there’s a problem. While Diana Bowron told Livingstone these things in the early 1990's, nearly 30 years after the assassination, and certainly after having been exposed to the controversy, she told a very different story to the Warren Commission in 1964, while she was under oath.

Specifically, Diana told the Warren Commission outright that she saw no wounds other than the large wound in President Kennedy’s 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.

Additionally, Diana Bowron, who was originally from England, was interviewed via telephone after the assassination by a British newspaper and told reporters her story. As a result, three articles were published in England detailing her story. In two of the articles Bowron does not identify or describe any wounds to the President. In the third article she mentions the head wound, but mentions no other wounds. In all three articles she mentions the tracheotomy, but remarkably says nothing about the existence of a throat wound. These three articles were published by the Warren Commission in Volume 14 pages 167-170 as Bowron Exhibits 1-4.

So, I believe that sometime between 1964 and the early 1990's Diana Bowron apparently decided to change her story - I have no idea why she would do such a thing, and I'm not obligated to explain her actions.

But she did change her story.

Perhaps the reason why Diana Bowron changed her story lies in the way in which Harry Livingstone handled his witness interviews. He often led his witnesses horribly during questioning. He did this during the Bowron telephone interview a number of times, and we know this was not the first time he spoke with her. He also tainted his witnesses’ memories by exposing them to the literature and controversies surrounding Kennedy's murder. In Bowron's case, Livingstone actually sent her the James K. Fox copies of the autopsy photographs before she wrote her statement for him and did the telephone interview.

While I suspect you are correct, Todd, I also think it's possible that when Bowron testified that she saw no other wounds, she meant she saw no other wounds AT THAT TIME--that is, at the moment she first saw Kennedy in the drive-way. Here is a more complete snippet of her testimony, so you can see what I mean.

Mr. SPECTER - And, where did you take your stretcher?

Miss BOWRON - To the left-hand side of the car as you are facing it, and we had to move Governor Connally out first because he was in the front. We couldn't get to the back seat. While all the Secret Service men were moving Governor Connally I went around to the other side of the car to try to help with the President and then we got him onto the second cart and then took him straight over to trauma room 1.

Mr. SPECTER - Trauma room No. 1?

Miss BOWRON - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And describe in a general way Governor Connally's condition when you first saw him?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was leaning forward and onto Mrs. Connally but apparently---I didn't notice very much---I was more concerned with the person in the back of the car---the President.

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.

Mr. SPECTER - And what action did you take at that time, if any?

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.

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

Miss BOWRON - Dr. Carrico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 1990s conspiracy author Harrison Livingstone (High Treason, Killing the Truth) located, corresponded with, and interviewed Former Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron. I happen to have a cassette tape copy of a telephone interview Livingstone did with her. Livingstone published a transcript of that interview in his 1993 book, "Killing the Truth", and he also included a statement that Diana Bowron wrote for him.

In both the interview and the statement, Diana Bowron claims that she saw President Kennedys back wound at Parkland Hospital when she helped prepare the Presidents body for the casket. If true, this would be very significant, as no one else is on record as having seen the back wound at Parkland Hospital.

The issue might rest right there. However, as with so many other things in this case, theres a problem. While Diana Bowron told Livingstone these things in the early 1990's, nearly 30 years after the assassination, and certainly after having been exposed to the controversy, she told a very different story to the Warren Commission in 1964, while she was under oath.

Specifically, Diana told the Warren Commission outright that she saw no wounds other than the large wound in President Kennedys 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.

Additionally, Diana Bowron, who was originally from England, was interviewed via telephone after the assassination by a British newspaper and told reporters her story. As a result, three articles were published in England detailing her story. In two of the articles Bowron does not identify or describe any wounds to the President. In the third article she mentions the head wound, but mentions no other wounds. In all three articles she mentions the tracheotomy, but remarkably says nothing about the existence of a throat wound. These three articles were published by the Warren Commission in Volume 14 pages 167-170 as Bowron Exhibits 1-4.

So, I believe that sometime between 1964 and the early 1990's Diana Bowron apparently decided to change her story - I have no idea why she would do such a thing, and I'm not obligated to explain her actions.

But she did change her story.

Perhaps the reason why Diana Bowron changed her story lies in the way in which Harry Livingstone handled his witness interviews. He often led his witnesses horribly during questioning. He did this during the Bowron telephone interview a number of times, and we know this was not the first time he spoke with her. He also tainted his witnesses memories by exposing them to the literature and controversies surrounding Kennedy's murder. In Bowron's case, Livingstone actually sent her the James K. Fox copies of the autopsy photographs before she wrote her statement for him and did the telephone interview.

While I suspect you are correct, Todd, I also think it's possible that when Bowron testified that she saw no other wounds, she meant she saw no other wounds AT THAT TIME--that is, at the moment she first saw Kennedy in the drive-way. Here is a more complete snippet of her testimony, so you can see what I mean.

Mr. SPECTER - And, where did you take your stretcher?

Miss BOWRON - To the left-hand side of the car as you are facing it, and we had to move Governor Connally out first because he was in the front. We couldn't get to the back seat. While all the Secret Service men were moving Governor Connally I went around to the other side of the car to try to help with the President and then we got him onto the second cart and then took him straight over to trauma room 1.

Mr. SPECTER - Trauma room No. 1?

Miss BOWRON - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And describe in a general way Governor Connally's condition when you first saw him?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was leaning forward and onto Mrs. Connally but apparently---I didn't notice very much---I was more concerned with the person in the back of the car---the President.

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.

Mr. SPECTER - And what action did you take at that time, if any?

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.

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

Miss BOWRON - Dr. Carrico.

Well then, Pat, that's a problem as well. Why? Because she also told Livingstone that she saw the throat wound while she was at the limousine.

Edited by Todd W. Vaughan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think it's possible that when Bowron testified that she saw no other wounds, she meant she saw no other wounds AT THAT TIME

Greetings, Pat, and my personal thanks to you and Don Jeffries, the moderators who defended my FIRST AMENDMENT rights over on the thread about the illogical Loonies (& there are quite a few) who are giving JFK research a bad name.

But I am a bit shocked by your posting here. It seems to me that it is not up to your usual high standard. I give you enormous credit for your consistent attempts to bend over backwards to take opposing interpretations into account, but --on the subject of a Parkland back wound -- I say there comes a point when ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

There is no CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a wound in JFK's back at Parkland Hospital [EDIT: and there SHOULD be, as David Lifton has outlined in detail on the Loonie thread].

I respectfully submit that that is ONE of the INDISPUTABLE facts in this case, for better or worse, which nobody should deny [or even QUIBBLE ABOUT.]

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings, Pat, and my personal thanks to you and Don Jeffries, the moderators who defended my FIRST AMENDMENT rights over on the thread about the illogical Loonies (& there are quite a few) who are giving JFK research a bad name.

My thanks to Pat and Don as well. Carroll should have the right to look as UGLY and as SLOW and as PETTY as he wants.

Moderator Jeffries is well aware of Carroll's nasty style and baffled by Carroll's lack of common sense.

Ray Carroll's performance on this thread has been stunning, even for him. He has told Lee Farley not to let the door hit him in the ass on the way out, and called Richard Russell a slave owner. He continues to label Jim Garrison an "Oswald accuser," when in fact he was probably the most high profile person to ever publicly espouse Oswald's innocence. Have you forgotten, Ray, Garrison's quote to the effect that Oswald was no assassin and, in fact, was a real American hero?

.....Please enlighten us on how Marina's testimony destroyed Garrison's case. I don't expect you to do that, but then again, like most here I am baffled by your take on the assassination. You swallow much of the official story, defend the likes of Gary Mack wholeheartedly, and demean many believers in conspiracy as "Oswald accusers." And you do it all with perhaps the nastiest posting style on the forum.

Like Tom Purvis, you are in a league of your own.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

In the 1990’s conspiracy author Harrison Livingstone (High Treason, Killing the Truth) located, corresponded with, and interviewed Former Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron. I happen to have a cassette tape copy of a telephone interview Livingstone did with her. Livingstone published a transcript of that interview in his 1993 book, "Killing the Truth", and he also included a statement that Diana Bowron wrote for him.

In both the interview and the statement, Diana Bowron claims that she saw President Kennedy’s back wound at Parkland Hospital when she helped prepare the President’s body for the casket. If true, this would be very significant, as no one else is on record as having seen the back wound at Parkland Hospital.

The issue might rest right there. However, as with so many other things in this case, there’s a problem. While Diana Bowron told Livingstone these things in the early 1990's, nearly 30 years after the assassination, and certainly after having been exposed to the controversy, she told a very different story to the Warren Commission in 1964, while she was under oath.

Specifically, Diana told the Warren Commission outright that she saw no wounds other than the large wound in President Kennedy’s 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.

Additionally, Diana Bowron, who was originally from England, was interviewed via telephone after the assassination by a British newspaper and told reporters her story. As a result, three articles were published in England detailing her story. In two of the articles Bowron does not identify or describe any wounds to the President. In the third article she mentions the head wound, but mentions no other wounds. In all three articles she mentions the tracheotomy, but remarkably says nothing about the existence of a throat wound. These three articles were published by the Warren Commission in Volume 14 pages 167-170 as Bowron Exhibits 1-4.

So, I believe that sometime between 1964 and the early 1990's Diana Bowron apparently decided to change her story - I have no idea why she would do such a thing, and I'm not obligated to explain her actions.

But she did change her story.

Perhaps the reason why Diana Bowron changed her story lies in the way in which Harry Livingstone handled his witness interviews. He often led his witnesses horribly during questioning. He did this during the Bowron telephone interview a number of times, and we know this was not the first time he spoke with her. He also tainted his witnesses’ memories by exposing them to the literature and controversies surrounding Kennedy's murder. In Bowron's case, Livingstone actually sent her the James K. Fox copies of the autopsy photographs before she wrote her statement for him and did the telephone interview.

While I suspect you are correct, Todd, I also think it's possible that when Bowron testified that she saw no other wounds, she meant she saw no other wounds AT THAT TIME--that is, at the moment she first saw Kennedy in the drive-way. Here is a more complete snippet of her testimony, so you can see what I mean.

Mr. SPECTER - And, where did you take your stretcher?

Miss BOWRON - To the left-hand side of the car as you are facing it, and we had to move Governor Connally out first because he was in the front. We couldn't get to the back seat. While all the Secret Service men were moving Governor Connally I went around to the other side of the car to try to help with the President and then we got him onto the second cart and then took him straight over to trauma room 1.

Mr. SPECTER - Trauma room No. 1?

Miss BOWRON - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - And describe in a general way Governor Connally's condition when you first saw him?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was leaning forward and onto Mrs. Connally but apparently---I didn't notice very much---I was more concerned with the person in the back of the car---the President.

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.

Mr. SPECTER - And what action did you take at that time, if any?

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.

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

Miss BOWRON - Dr. Carrico.

Harrison Livingstone coaching witnesses, guiding them to what he wanted them to say? Perhaps he did.

How about Arlen Specter and the rest of the Warren Commission coaching witnesses, all but directing them in what to say? That is why one simply can not take at face value practically any of the testimony taken and interviews presented by the Warren Commission or the FBI. Those guys were covering up for the murderers of John Kennedy. Just one example - look at Arlen Specter's bully treatment of Jean Hill, pretty much telling her he could have her thrown into a mental institution if she did not change her testimony of hearing 4-6 shots and using her affair with the cop as leverage over her.

http://arlen-specter.tripod.com/

Then there was the FBI getting Kenny O'Donnell to perjure himself by saying he heard a shot from behind when really, as he told Tip O'Neil years later, he heard a shot on the Grassy Knoll.

Not to mention Specter's ridiculously leading questions of the Parkland doctors: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/042909a.html

You can probably multiply those anecdotes by 100 fold when it comes to the Warren Commission or Hoover's FBI warping witness testimony, if not outright fabricating it (by changing the interviews later to conform to lone nutter disinfo).

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think it's possible that when Bowron testified that she saw no other wounds, she meant she saw no other wounds AT THAT TIME

Greetings, Pat, and my personal thanks to you and Don Jeffries, the moderators who defended my FIRST AMENDMENT rights over on the thread about the illogical Loonies (& there are quite a few) who are giving JFK research a bad name.

But I am a bit shocked by your posting here. It seems to me that it is not up to your usual high standard. I give you enormous credit for your consistent attempts to bend over backwards to take opposing interpretations into account, but --on the subject of a Parkland back wound -- I say there comes a point when ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

There is no CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a wound in JFK's back at Parkland Hospital [EDIT: and there SHOULD be, as David Lifton has outlined in detail on the Loonie thread].

I respectfully submit that that is ONE of the INDISPUTABLE facts in this case, for better or worse, which nobody should deny [or even QUIBBLE ABOUT.]

Ray, if you read her testimony in context, you'll see that Bowron was testifying as to what wounds she saw when first observing Kennedy. She later claimed she saw the back wound while cleaning Kennedy's corpse at a later time. Her statements are therefore not contradictory.

Now, do I believe she actually noticed the wound? Not necessarily. It is my opinion that much of the eyewitness statements--including those in which witnesses claimed they saw a wound on the back of Kennedy's head--were made while under the influence of either those asking the questions, what they heard from their peers, or what they read or saw in some book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray, if you read her testimony in context, you'll see that Bowron was testifying as to what wounds she saw when first observing Kennedy.

Pat, I am tired after a hard day, and I admit I am too lazy to find the quote, but David Lifton quoted a big chunk of Bowron's testimony and it seemed VERY CLEAR that she was asked directly, a simple question:

"Did YOU see any other wound besides the head wound?"

Even if she thought the question was limited to a particular viewing of the body at a particular point in time, she would have been LESS THAN HONEST if she did not add that she she later saw a back wound.

Nurse Diana Bowron swore an oath to tell the WHOLE truth, now you are suggesting that she dishonored her oath by witholding vital evidence.

As I said, I think your analysis here does not measure up to your own standards, and I again say that we should be able to reach a consensus on THIS at least:

There is no CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a wound in JFK's back at Parkland Hospital, and there SHOULD be..
Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a wound in JFK's back at Parkland Hospital [EDIT: and there SHOULD be, as David Lifton has outlined in detail on the Loonie thread].

The above is complete and utter Carroll Crapola.

We should all be overjoyed the mods keep this disinfo artist around.

Well then Jim, we'll all be expecting you to support your claim to the contrary and post the CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a wound in JFK's back at Parkland Hospital right here for eveyone to read.

Otherwise you're just spreading disinformation.

Edited by Todd W. Vaughan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a wound in JFK's back at Parkland Hospital [EDIT: and there SHOULD be, as David Lifton has outlined in detail on the Loonie thread].

The above is complete and utter Carroll Crapola.

We should all be overjoyed the mods keep this disinfo artist around.

"Disinfo artist"? Really? Ray thinks Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, and that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. You share these beliefs. And yet you consider him a "disinfo artist" because he 1) thinks Jim Garrison was a fraud, and 2) isn't convinced Lee Harvey Oswald was a government agent. Am I right?

If the Black Ops Hawaii conference happens, and you get a large number of historians and writers to appear, do you really think the majority of them will leave thinking Jim Garrison a hero, and Oswald an agent? Would you get in the face of those who did not? I'd bet not. So it's not Ray's ideas you object to, it's his behavior. Correct?

Ray, quit making Jim mad, will ya? In the name of world peace...

P.S. Lifton is wrong, Ray, about the back wound's not being observed at Parkland. Not that it wasn't observed, it probably wasn't. But that there should be some evidence for it. The president's head, neck, and back were covered with blood. He had a huge hole in his head. None of the doctors did a full inspection of the body. In such case it only makes sense that smaller wounds could be missed. And were.

If anyone were to notice the back wound, it would have been the nurses who cleaned up the body. Which is why Bowron's later recollection seems perfectly reasonable. As far as your suggestion she'd violated her oath by not volunteering that she'd noticed the back wound after Kennedy had been pronounced dead, I think that's unfair.

Witnesses--particularly medical witnesses--are taught to answer the questions as clearly and concisely as possible, and NOT volunteer information. She may have thought Specter would ask her about cleaning up Kennedy, and have been surprised when he did not. In any event, she had no reason at that time to think her noticing a small wound on the President's shoulder would be of any importance to anyone.

IF she'd actually seen it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a wound in JFK's back at Parkland Hospital [EDIT: and there SHOULD be, as David Lifton has outlined in detail on the Loonie thread].

The above is complete and utter Carroll Crapola.

We should all be overjoyed the mods keep this disinfo artist around.

...

P.S. Lifton is wrong, Ray, about the back wound's not being observed at Parkland. Not that it wasn't observed, it probably wasn't. But that there should be some evidence for it. The president's head, neck, and back were covered with blood. He had a huge hole in his head. None of the doctors did a full inspection of the body. In such case it only makes sense that smaller wounds could be missed. And were.

If anyone were to notice the back wound, it would have been the nurses who cleaned up the body. Which is why Bowron's later recollection seems perfectly reasonable. As far as your suggestion she'd violated her oath by not volunteering that she'd noticed the back wound after Kennedy had been pronounced dead, I think that's unfair.

Witnesses--particularly medical witnesses--are taught to answer the questions as clearly and concisely as possible, and NOT volunteer information. She may have thought Specter would ask her about cleaning up Kennedy, and have been surprised when he did not. In any event, she had no reason at that time to think her noticing a small wound on the President's shoulder would be of any importance to anyone.

IF she'd actually seen it...

Pat, there is enough deliberate equivocating in your post to make me wonder if you trust Bowron. I am confused by your statement I put in bold. LIfton is wrong on the one hand about the back wound not being observed at Parkland, but on the other hand, "it probably wasn't." If so then Lifton is right. I'm missing something. Now I agree that the back wound could have been missed by the doctors, and agree with you that in washing the body Bowron, Henchcliffe and Sanders should have seen the back wound, were it there. What I would very much like to have is Wallace Milam's transcript of his interview of Henchcliffe, where she denies seeing the wound. Did Wallace ask her is she got a good look at Kennedy's back? If he did, and if she did, that would be significant. If anyone out there can bring light to this matter, I would be grateful. Meanwhile, Pat, I find it strange that Bowron did not mention the back wound to the British Newspapers when they inteviewed her by phone. She may have been surprised that Specter didn't ask about the back wound, but what of the British newspeople? Why play so coy with the British press? All this is troubling .... bEst, daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above is complete and utter Carroll Crapola.

We should all be overjoyed the mods keep this disinfo artist around.

"Disinfo artist"? Really? Ray thinks Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, and that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. You share these beliefs. And yet you consider him a "disinfo artist" because he 1) thinks Jim Garrison was a fraud, and 2) isn't convinced Lee Harvey Oswald was a government agent. Am I right?

Thank you Pat for defending me. I will be delighted to do the same for you, if your character is ever impugned as Di Eugenio has been impugning mine.

If Di Eugenio's comments here were just another case of an angry outburst posted in the heat of argument, I could either ignore it or respond in kind, and it wouldn't bother me. But Di Eugenio's comment here is part of a long-term pattern. Almost since he joined the forum, he has been DEFAMING MY CHARACTER and my reputation for being -- like yourself -- a truthful person. He has consistently pretended that I am not who I say I am, and that I am "a disinfo artist" and part of some conspiracy involving Mark Zaid, who is a total stranger to me. I don't know Mark Zaid from a hole in the wall, and have repeatedly told that to Di Eugenio without effect.

Normally I will give back as good as I get, as everyone here knows, but I cannot respond in kind to Di Eugenio's attacks on my character, because I do not doubt that Di Eugenio is exactly who he says he is, and I do not doubt that his views are exactly what he says they are.

LIBEL is a nice word, though not a nice thing to do to someone. But LIBEL is the best word to characterize what Di Eugenio has been writing about me for quite some time, as he seeks to damage my reputation for honesty and integrity among members of the JFK research community, a reputation I value as a longtime member of this community.

I first established my bona fides as a researcher at the THIRD DECADE conference in Fredonia, organized by Professor Jerry Rose, in the Summer of 1991. Over the years I came to know and discuss the case with many leading authors and researchers, including Josiah Thompson, Harold Weisberg, George Michael Evica and David Lifton. Not one of these outstanding researchers has ever questioned my integrity.

But Di Eugenio does, and does so repeatedly, on this forum. This is not some angry outburst on his part, but a cold-blooded and consistent attempt at CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

I ask you, Pat, and your fellow moderators, to Issue A PUBLIC WARNING to Di Eugenio, demanding that he CEASE & DESIST from his practice of attempting to defame my character, and his attempts to damage my reputation for honesty and integrity.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a wound in JFK's back at Parkland Hospital [EDIT: and there SHOULD be, as David Lifton has outlined in detail on the Loonie thread].

The above is complete and utter Carroll Crapola.

We should all be overjoyed the mods keep this disinfo artist around.

...

P.S. Lifton is wrong, Ray, about the back wound's not being observed at Parkland. Not that it wasn't observed, it probably wasn't. But that there should be some evidence for it. The president's head, neck, and back were covered with blood. He had a huge hole in his head. None of the doctors did a full inspection of the body. In such case it only makes sense that smaller wounds could be missed. And were.

If anyone were to notice the back wound, it would have been the nurses who cleaned up the body. Which is why Bowron's later recollection seems perfectly reasonable. As far as your suggestion she'd violated her oath by not volunteering that she'd noticed the back wound after Kennedy had been pronounced dead, I think that's unfair.

Witnesses--particularly medical witnesses--are taught to answer the questions as clearly and concisely as possible, and NOT volunteer information. She may have thought Specter would ask her about cleaning up Kennedy, and have been surprised when he did not. In any event, she had no reason at that time to think her noticing a small wound on the President's shoulder would be of any importance to anyone.

IF she'd actually seen it...

Pat, there is enough deliberate equivocating in your post to make me wonder if you trust Bowron. I am confused by your statement I put in bold. LIfton is wrong on the one hand about the back wound not being observed at Parkland, but on the other hand, "it probably wasn't." If so then Lifton is right. I'm missing something. Now I agree that the back wound could have been missed by the doctors, and agree with you that in washing the body Bowron, Henchcliffe and Sanders should have seen the back wound, were it there. What I would very much like to have is Wallace Milam's transcript of his interview of Henchcliffe, where she denies seeing the wound. Did Wallace ask her is she got a good look at Kennedy's back? If he did, and if she did, that would be significant. If anyone out there can bring light to this matter, I would be grateful. Meanwhile, Pat, I find it strange that Bowron did not mention the back wound to the British Newspapers when they inteviewed her by phone. She may have been surprised that Specter didn't ask about the back wound, but what of the British newspeople? Why play so coy with the British press? All this is troubling .... bEst, daniel

Let me see if I can make this clear. I suspect Lifton is right, and that Bowron did not notice the wound. I also think, however, that her Warren Commission testimony does not prove this, because she was asked whether she saw other wounds in the context of when she first saw Kennedy and not if she'd noticed any later, during the clean-up.

I also think it's wrong to assume the wound should have been noticed. So...I think the fact that no one noticed the back wound at Parkland is SUPPORTIVE of Lifton's theory the wound didn't exist at that time, but nowhere near conclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a wound in JFK's back at Parkland Hospital [EDIT: and there SHOULD be, as David Lifton has outlined in detail on the Loonie thread].

The above is complete and utter Carroll Crapola.

We should all be overjoyed the mods keep this disinfo artist around.

...

P.S. Lifton is wrong, Ray, about the back wound's not being observed at Parkland. Not that it wasn't observed, it probably wasn't. But that there should be some evidence for it. The president's head, neck, and back were covered with blood. He had a huge hole in his head. None of the doctors did a full inspection of the body. In such case it only makes sense that smaller wounds could be missed. And were.

If anyone were to notice the back wound, it would have been the nurses who cleaned up the body. Which is why Bowron's later recollection seems perfectly reasonable. As far as your suggestion she'd violated her oath by not volunteering that she'd noticed the back wound after Kennedy had been pronounced dead, I think that's unfair.

Witnesses--particularly medical witnesses--are taught to answer the questions as clearly and concisely as possible, and NOT volunteer information. She may have thought Specter would ask her about cleaning up Kennedy, and have been surprised when he did not. In any event, she had no reason at that time to think her noticing a small wound on the President's shoulder would be of any importance to anyone.

IF she'd actually seen it...

Pat, there is enough deliberate equivocating in your post to make me wonder if you trust Bowron. I am confused by your statement I put in bold. LIfton is wrong on the one hand about the back wound not being observed at Parkland, but on the other hand, "it probably wasn't." If so then Lifton is right. I'm missing something. Now I agree that the back wound could have been missed by the doctors, and agree with you that in washing the body Bowron, Henchcliffe and Sanders should have seen the back wound, were it there. What I would very much like to have is Wallace Milam's transcript of his interview of Henchcliffe, where she denies seeing the wound. Did Wallace ask her is she got a good look at Kennedy's back? If he did, and if she did, that would be significant. If anyone out there can bring light to this matter, I would be grateful. Meanwhile, Pat, I find it strange that Bowron did not mention the back wound to the British Newspapers when they inteviewed her by phone. She may have been surprised that Specter didn't ask about the back wound, but what of the British newspeople? Why play so coy with the British press? All this is troubling .... bEst, daniel

Let me see if I can make this clear. I suspect Lifton is right, and that Bowron did not notice the wound. I also think, however, that her Warren Commission testimony does not prove this, because she was asked whether she saw other wounds in the context of when she first saw Kennedy and not if she'd noticed any later, during the clean-up.

I also think it's wrong to assume the wound should have been noticed. So...I think the fact that no one noticed the back wound at Parkland is SUPPORTIVE of Lifton's theory the wound didn't exist at that time, but nowhere near conclusive.

Pat, it's early in the morning here in California and I am quite sleepy. So if my question makes no sense do forgive. But the bold I have made in your comment: I don't know what to make of it. Do you think the washing of the body may not have included a visual inspection of the back, and thus the wound may have been missed at that time? If the wound were genuine, then I would naturally suppose the back would be a target of the cleaners' hands. That is, after wrapping the head up, they would have still seen drainage from the back wound and had to take care of that. If so, that would be something none of them would be likely to forget. I am trying to think of the possibilities, and getting nowhere. Thanks for any clarification. Best, Daniel

Edited by Daniel Gallup
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...