Diana Bowron and JFK's Back Wound

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

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.

Greetings Todd, I don't think we have met before. GOOD CATCH on finding Bowron's CONTEMPORANEOUS news interviews. THese news reports corroborate her testimony, IMO. IF I was nurse Bowron, and if I had seen a back wound, I wold be telling every reporter who asked me what I saw, and SO WOULD ANYONE in that situation. THe press was PANTING for deatils of JFK's wounds. THere is no CONTEMPORANEOUS headline saying: JFK ALSO SHOT IN THE BACK, English nurse saw the wound!

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.

From the experimental literature in social and cognitive psychology, I believe it would be UNSCIENTIFIC to expect Bowron's memory to be accurate some 30-odd years after the event. See, e.g. Daniel Schacter, THE SEVEN SINS OF MEMORY.

Remember the literature on Solomon Asch's experiments on CONFORMITY in human belief-systems. Throughout those 30 years nurse Bowron, if she is like the rest of us, was exposed to constant media claims that JFK was shot in the back, or back of the neck. I don't know whether she read the Warren Report, but even if she only read extracts in the newspaper, she would almost certainly become convinced -- as nearly everyone else is convinced -- that there must have been a back wound.

Nurse Bowron's later memories cannot be trusted not because she is not completely honest, but because her memory, like everyone else's, is terribly fallible to begin with, and subject to outside influence

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.

Since I know the bold Harry and his modus operandi, this does not surprise me.

Her Warren Commission testimony is all she should have been allowed to read, to refresh her recollection. Harry has no clue how to properly examine a witness.

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

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Now Pat is trying to persuade us that the Q&A should read something like this:

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME? AND DON"T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER YOU SAW A BACK WOUND LATER!

Miss BOWRON - NO SIR, NOT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME

Edited May 14, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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.

So Bowron's 30-year-old memories are completely unreliable, or else she withheld testimony under oath, which she had no reason to do.

Todd: I am a lazy man, I admit, and you are more on top of this subject than I am. Could you please post and tell us about whatever the other two nurses said at the time in reference to washing the body, and whether or not they saw a back wound, or whether their proximity to the (naked?) body was such that they SHOULD have seen a back wound, if one existed at the time?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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.

Pat: I think it is hindsight to say the question was asked only in the context of when she first saw Kennedy. That is a cognitive illusion, IMO. It is only because the very next question is specifically limited to THAT TIME that we think that very open-ended question: Did you see any other wound? relates ONLY to the first sighting. If Specter's next question had jumped to another topic, that illusion would not appear in the transcript, and if you cut off the transcript at Bowron's "No Sir," the illusion does not appear.

Bowron had no way of knowing that Spector's NEXT question would be specifically confined to what she saw AT THAT TIME.

Edited May 14, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Robert Harris]

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 think you are picking nits here, Todd.

By this reasoning she was also lying because she didn't mention the tracheotomy to the WC.

Her job was to wash the body, so undoubtedly, she did see the back wound and the throat wound but perhaps because the BOH damage was so much more massive, she just failed at that instant to think about the other wounds. People make mistakes, particularly when they in a stressful situation like she was in.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

. People make mistakes, particularly when they in a stressful situation like she was in.

So Bowron made a mistake, sez Harris, based on his own experience as a QUALIFIED EXPERT in NOTHING WHATSOEVER!

[Daniel Gallup]

I agree Lee.

AN expert in absolutely nothing?

Unlike RC who is an expert at what, Irish music?

Well, Jim. That would be another subject matter where I know more than Ray Carroll.

This whole Diana Bowron thing is nuts. She said what she saw. Everyone can see through the way the WC questions were structured to eliminate this being brought up during her testimony. Carroll once accused me of backing her simply because she was English, if you can actually believe that.

Bowron proved her honesty the day of the assassination by handing over JFK's wrist watch that she had removed. If she wanted to display dishonesty she could have made herself a nice wedge by hanging onto that, the way the guy who took off with JFK's bible probably earned himself a packet, or a macabre memento.

The logic behind all this is just bizarre. We have the likes of Lifton/Carroll stating that nobody prior to Bethesda saw the back wound. Therefore if no one saw it, it wasn't there. If it wasn't there it was then made later. So, somebody points out that there is a witness to the back wound. Diana Bowron. "Ahhhh", they say. "That was 30 years later. She didn't really see anything or she would have said so in her Commission testimony." "But she wasn't directly asked", we say. "Ahhhh. But if she was honest she would have come out with it as was her duty." "But we know that witnesses were prepped and they were more that likely prepped, especially when it came to Specter, to not answer anything unless directly asked to do so." "No", they say. "She was just seeking her 15 minutes of fame", they say. "She washed the body and if she washed it well enough she would have seen the wound." "She said nothing until 30 years later" they say, taking us back to the beginning.

Then we bring up Clint Hill. He saw the back wound. "He was in on it", they say. Nothing will ever work in even getting the slightest of crow-bars under this concrete belief they have. No one saw it, so it wasn't there, and if it wasn't there, it was made. But what about Diana Bowron...

"Ahhhhhh..." they say...

FWIW - I completely believe Diana Bowron saw the back wound.

Why is it, Mr. Farley, that when people on this forum find a position with which they disagree, they consider their opponents "nutty," or at least nutty in their reasoning? To your credit, you have read at least some of the arguments which you then designate as coming from "bizzare logic." You failed to mention others. Todd Vaughan brought up her British interviews, a most reasonble thing to do. Why would she go mum with the British press? I brought up the issue of Henchcliffe and Wallace Milam's interview of her, wherein she denied seeing any back wound. Is this nutty, bizarre thinking? I specifically asked if anyone who knew of the interview could provide more details about what Milam asked Henchcliffe and how she responded. Was this silly? The wound itself is strange in its nature, and was discribed by HIll as an "opening in the back." Why such a strange wound with a strange description? Your post is so arrogantly dismissive, but I find these questions most troubling, and would not have the confidence you have until they are satisfactorily answered. "Nothing will ever work in even getting the slightest of crow-bars under this concrete belief they have." Mr. Farley, I would never characterize my opponents in such a condescending manner. Please help answer these questions, the most important of which would be Milam's interview of Nurse Henchcliffe. Thanks in advance, Daniel

[Daniel Gallup]

I agree Lee.

AN expert in absolutely nothing?

Unlike RC who is an expert at what, Irish music?

Well, Jim. That would be another subject matter where I know more than Ray Carroll.

This whole Diana Bowron thing is nuts. She said what she saw. Everyone can see through the way the WC questions were structured to eliminate this being brought up during her testimony. Carroll once accused me of backing her simply because she was English, if you can actually believe that.

Bowron proved her honesty the day of the assassination by handing over JFK's wrist watch that she had removed. If she wanted to display dishonesty she could have made herself a nice wedge by hanging onto that, the way the guy who took off with JFK's bible probably earned himself a packet, or a macabre memento.

The logic behind all this is just bizarre. We have the likes of Lifton/Carroll stating that nobody prior to Bethesda saw the back wound. Therefore if no one saw it, it wasn't there. If it wasn't there it was then made later. So, somebody points out that there is a witness to the back wound. Diana Bowron. "Ahhhh", they say. "That was 30 years later. She didn't really see anything or she would have said so in her Commission testimony." "But she wasn't directly asked", we say. "Ahhhh. But if she was honest she would have come out with it as was her duty." "But we know that witnesses were prepped and they were more that likely prepped, especially when it came to Specter, to not answer anything unless directly asked to do so." "No", they say. "She was just seeking her 15 minutes of fame", they say. "She washed the body and if she washed it well enough she would have seen the wound." "She said nothing until 30 years later" they say, taking us back to the beginning.

Then we bring up Clint Hill. He saw the back wound. "He was in on it", they say. Nothing will ever work in even getting the slightest of crow-bars under this concrete belief they have. No one saw it, so it wasn't there, and if it wasn't there, it was made. But what about Diana Bowron...

"Ahhhhhh..." they say...

FWIW - I completely believe Diana Bowron saw the back wound.

Why is it, Mr. Farley, that when people on this forum find a position with which they disagree, they consider their opponents "nutty," or at least nutty in their reasoning? To your credit, you have read at least some of the arguments which you then designate as coming from "bizzare logic." You failed to mention others. Todd Vaughan brought up her British interviews, a most reasonble thing to do. Why would she go mum with the British press? I brought up the issue of Henchcliffe and Wallace Milam's interview of her, wherein she denied seeing any back wound. Is this nutty, bizarre thinking? I specifically asked if anyone who knew of the interview could provide more details about what Milam asked Henchcliffe and how she responded. Was this silly? The wound itself is strange in its nature, and was discribed by HIll as an "opening in the back." Why such a strange wound with a strange description? Your post is so arrogantly dismissive, but I find these questions most troubling, and would not have the confidence you have until they are satisfactorily answered. "Nothing will ever work in even getting the slightest of crow-bars under this concrete belief they have." Mr. Farley, I would never characterize my opponents in such a condescending manner. Please help answer these questions, the most important of which would be Milam's interview of Nurse Henchcliffe. Thanks in advance, Daniel

I said the "Diana Bowron thing is nuts." Where have I said the people who I consider my opponents "are nutty?" You can qualify making this statement by adding a cursory "...or at least" at the end, but it simply doesn't wash, pal.

The bizarre logic stems from claiming that no-one saw the back wound to then mean that it wasn't there. Even if no-one saw it, it doesn't mean it wasn't there. But we have witnesses who did see it. Will you ever get to the bottom of why Diana Bowron said this or that one minute or was a deaf mute the next? No, you won't. It comes down to making a simple choice. You can argue this until you're blue in the face. You simply create more and more conundrums. And I don't subscribe that Hill's description of the back wound is "strange." You mean it is strange to you? Why? Because you wouldn't have described it like that? So what? You're not him...

The answers you want you will never get.

Lee, if the nurses really didn't see the back wound, and if they got a good look at the back, then a reasonable person would suppose at Parkland it wasn't there. That's why I want to know more about Wallace Milam's interview with Henchcliffe. This is not to create conundrums. It is to pursue the truth. Now how is it possbile that the "answers you want you will never get?" Really? You are in a position to know this? Then you are far above me. Consider: What if Henchliffe said to Milam, neither of us saw the back, or , both of us did, or Bowron did and I didn't, or I did and she didn't... would that cast light on the matter for you? It would for me. I don't believe for a second you fear opening this can of worms just to see what's inside. Who knows, Bowron might be vindicated in the end. But until then the forementioned troubling questions, even if they don't trouble you, trouble me deeply. Best to you, Daniel

[Daniel Gallup]

If there's a can of worms to be opened then I'll lend you a can-opener. The fact is this can of worms was opened 48 years ago to the point that once you get into it the worms start burrowing inside your brain. The medical evidence is a complete and unholy mess. I don't like getting into it, because as you can see from the Fetzer v Speer argument that is currently occuring; because Speer isn't a qualified doctor he has his opinions thrown back in his face, regardless of whether he is right or wrong on the topics he has researched.

The evidence is there, Daniel. I don't think there is much more on its way. As it stands a choice has to be made. JFK was shot in the back or he wasn't shot in the back. Nurse Bowron saw the back wound or she didn't see the back wound. The SBT is possible or impossible. Choices.

I've made mine and nothing in this thread or any other concerning Best Evidence and its theory has made me change my mind. I'm not an MD so won't give anyone the pleasure of telling me so by entering into the mess that is the medical and ballistic evidence...

Best to you to

Then Lee I leave you in peace. AS for me, when I can find the time I'd like to track down Wallace Milam. Best, dAniel

[J. Raymond Carroll]

AS for me, when I can find the time I'd like to track down Wallace Milam. Best, dAniel

Greetings Daniel:

Wallace used to live in Memphis, though it is possible he retired & moved away.

He used to be in the Memphis phone book.

Hope that helps.

I have not spoken to Wallace in many years. He is a great guy and was very helpful to me.

(if you do not succeed, please email me, and I may be able to further the inquiry).

Edited May 17, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Daniel Gallup]

AS for me, when I can find the time I'd like to track down Wallace Milam. Best, dAniel

Greetings Daniel:

Wallace used to live in Memphis, though it is possible he retired & moved away.

He used to be in the Memphis phone book.

Hope that helps.

I have not spoken to Wallace in many years. He is a great guy and was very helpful to me.

(if you do not succeed, please email me, and I may be able to further the inquiry).

It would be great if anyone out there has a transcript of Milam's interview with Nurse Henchcliff (if such a transcript was even made). I have emailed him (an old email) and await a reply. Thanks for the information, J. R. C. Much appreciated. Daniel

[Robert Harris]

. People make mistakes, particularly when they in a stressful situation like she was in.

So Bowron made a mistake, sez Harris, based on his own experience as a QUALIFIED EXPERT in NOTHING WHATSOEVER!

Well, I am a decent guitar player

But I really do think I'm missing something here. Are we trying to connect Bowron to some sinister plot, or just accusing her of being a xxxx?

If the latter, then why didn't she just lie and claim that she did see the back wound?

For that matter, why would she have lied at all? What she reported about the BOH was what most of the other Parkland people reported. Why would she have made up a false story?

[Terry Adams]

I do believe that the president would definitely have been turned over in Parkland, therefore exposing the back wound. I'm sure everyone here has seen the pictures of his bloody shirt. I cannot imagine that the nurses did not see all of that blood down the back of the shirt. This alone would have caused any logical person to realize that his back would be covered with blood as well. Since the purpose of wrapping the head was to keep blood and fluid from getting on the interior of the coffin, then a thorough cleaning of, at least, the upper body would have had to be done. And, anyone doing this would have seen the bullet hole in his back.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Since the purpose of wrapping the head was to keep blood and fluid from getting on the interior of the coffin, then a thorough cleaning of, at least, the upper body would have had to be done. And, anyone doing this would have seen the bullet hole in his back.

Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place.

Since no one here can produce CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a back wound at Parkland,

even though there should be such evidence, as you point out,

then I can only conclude that no back wound existed at parkland,

as David Lifton asserts in BEST EVIDENCE.

[Robert Harris]

Since the purpose of wrapping the head was to keep blood and fluid from getting on the interior of the coffin, then a thorough cleaning of, at least, the upper body would have had to be done. And, anyone doing this would have seen the bullet hole in his back.

Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place.

Since no one here can produce CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a back wound at Parkland,

even though there should be such evidence, as you point out,

then I can only conclude that no back wound existed at parkland,

as David Lifton asserts in BEST EVIDENCE.

Agreed, Terry, ASSUMING a back wound existed in the first place.

Sigh... I don't know which is worse, the craziest nutters in Duncan's forum or the craziest conspiracy people over here

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Sigh... I don't know which is worse, the craziest nutters in Duncan's forum or the craziest conspiracy people over here

I have never paid much attention to Robert Harris since I learned he is a fan of OSWALD TALKED,

a ridiculous book by Ray & Mary La Fontaine.

But as of now, I am putting Mr. Harris on IGNORE