Jump to content
The Education Forum

Diana Bowron and JFK's Back Wound


Recommended Posts

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 :D

Ok, as one of the crazies here, may I ask this one question: If Nurse Henchcliff did not see the back wound, and said so in an interview long before Bowron spoke to Livingston, would that mean anything to you? Would it at least give pause for thought? Respectfully, crazy Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 :D

Ok, as one of the crazies here, may I ask this one question: If Nurse Henchcliff did not see the back wound, and said so in an interview long before Bowron spoke to Livingston, would that mean anything to you? Would it at least give pause for thought? Respectfully, crazy Daniel

Well... not really. The body was continually lying prone while it was at Parkland. And I'm pretty sure that they were more concerned with trying to save Kennedy than in counting the wounds. When all efforts failed, there was no need for them to continue to search for more wounds. This was not an autopsy and their work was over after they pronounced him dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :D

Ok, as one of the crazies here, may I ask this one question: If Nurse Henchcliff did not see the back wound, and said so in an interview long before Bowron spoke to Livingston, would that mean anything to you? Would it at least give pause for thought? Respectfully, crazy Daniel

Well... not really. The body was continually lying prone while it was at Parkland. And I'm pretty sure that they were more concerned with trying to save Kennedy than in counting the wounds. When all efforts failed, there was no need for them to continue to search for more wounds. This was not an autopsy and their work was over after they pronounced him dead.

Ok, but I was thinking of the body washing, not the time of life-saving measures. During that time, presumably, Henchcliff, Bowron, and Sanders (the orderly) wrapped the head and washed the body. Henchcliff told Wallace Milam she saw no back wound; there may be a reasonable explanation for this, as in, she didn't wash his back but Bowron did; or there may be something important in this, as in, she helped Bowron wash the back and saw no wound because it wasn't there at the time. I find it unreasonable to suppose that Bowron would see a back wound and not report its existence to Henchcliff and Sanders in the course of washing the body. I don't know and would love to find out more about the Milam interview with Henchcliff. Does that seem to you like a reasonable, healthy interest? Or am I still crazy? Respectfully, dAniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but I was thinking of the body washing, not the time of life-saving measures. During that time, presumably, Henchcliff, Bowron, and Sanders (the orderly) wrapped the head and washed the body. Henchcliff told Wallace Milam she saw no back wound; there may be a reasonable explanation for this, as in, she didn't wash his back but Bowron did; or there may be something important in this, as in, she helped Bowron wash the back and saw no wound because it wasn't there at the time. I find it unreasonable to suppose that Bowron would see a back wound and not report its existence to Henchcliff and Sanders in the course of washing the body. I don't know and would love to find out more about the Milam interview with Henchcliff. Does that seem to you like a reasonable, healthy interest? Or am I still crazy? Respectfully, dAniel

This would only be significant if the nurses were searching for wounds. And there had to have been a great deal of emotional impact for them at the time. Its really not surprising that they didn't recall a lot of detail.

And if someone poked a hole in the back, he didn't do a very good job because he only made it a couple inches deep and the hole was almost twice as tall as it was wide, obviously because the bullet was tumbling, which also explains why it appeared to have entered at such a steep, downward angle. That also explains why admiral Osborne discovered the bullet which had to have been the one that fell out from the back wound.

That's just not the way someone would do it if he wanted to give the false appearance of a wound.

As I have argued for many years, the earliest shots were fired from a suppressed weapon that was out of alignment, which caused at least one and probably two shots to miss the limo entirely and a third to misfire, striking well below the head and enter, tumbling at a very low velocity.

That is also why only one of the early shots was noticed by most witnesses, and why we see no startle reactions by the limo passengers prior to the end of the attack.

And yes, any of us who are still studying this thing, have to be crazy. If we weren't when we started out, it was just a matter of time before we got that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would only be significant if the nurses were searching for wounds. And there had to have been a great deal of emotional impact for them at the time. Its really not surprising that they didn't recall a lot of detail.

Quite a CONTRADICTION HERE.

One the one hand the wound was so small Bowron et al could not see it, and yet...

if someone poked a hole in the back, he didn't do a very good job because he only made it a couple inches deep

and the hole was almost twice as tall as it was wide, obviously because the bullet was tumbling,

By this account the wound was so big no one could possibly MISS IT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would only be significant if the nurses were searching for wounds. And there had to have been a great deal of emotional impact for them at the time. Its really not surprising that they didn't recall a lot of detail.

Quite a CONTRADICTION HERE.

One the one hand the wound was so small Bowron et al could not see it, and yet...

if someone poked a hole in the back, he didn't do a very good job because he only made it a couple inches deep

and the hole was almost twice as tall as it was wide, obviously because the bullet was tumbling,

By this account the wound was so big no one could possibly MISS IT!

Maybe another contradiction, Raymond-- the purpose of the cleaning was to clean; a wound in the back would be a target of the cleaners because presumably blood, fluids etc. would be draining from the wound. So how could they miss it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nurses undressed the President after he was pronounced dead. Upon removing the clothes off the victim, they should have noticed and mentioned the obvious (bullet) holes in the clothes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/henchlif.htm

I do not recall them discussing the back wound, only the small round neck wound, below the Adam's apple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nurses undressed the President after he was pronounced dead. Upon removing the clothes off the victim, they should have noticed and mentioned the obvious (bullet) holes in the clothes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/henchlif.htm

I do not recall them discussing the back wound, only the small round neck wound, below the Adam's apple.

They weren't performing the autopsy. I'm sure if they thought that the body was going to be hijacked by the Secret Service and for the next 50 years people would have been arguing the toss over whether the wound on the back was there or whether it wasn't then maybe they would have taken much more notice and documented it somehow.

But I'm sure they believed that the trained professionals involved would have followed the procedures and United States/Texas laws once they had finished washing the body.

The expectations that certain members have of these two nurses is quite simply astonishing. It's very easy to sit here at our computers and say this should have been seen and this should have been mentioned, when we have never and will never be in that situation.

But Lee, that's precisely the point, Bowron does claim she saw the wound, albeit in the 1990s, to Livingston Harrison, when up to then

not a peep about it, and Henchcliff telling Wallace Milam she didn't see it. The expectation by most readers would be that if the wound was there, it would be seen, since, as has been mentioned before, the area around the wound would have to be cleaned, and more: they wrapped the head to keep blood and fluids confined as much as possible; if the nurses and orderly were in any way cooperating in the washing, it is hard to imagine otherwise than that someone saw the need to put some bandage over it for the same reason they wrapped the head. Certainly I agree with you: they may not have felt at the time the need to write down their recollections and trusted that the US Government would handle the case properly. That too is a reasonable expectation; and there is no way they could have imagined all the controversy that would follow. But controversy has followed, and the US Government has handled the case most improperly. So now, like it or not, their recollections are important, and that we have them accurately. So it is most proper to scrutinize Bowron's late claims, and make a judgment on their credibility. After all, this is one small piece of the puzzle, and, it seems to me, quite an important one. Regards, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's understandable to me that none of the Doctors at Parkland saw it because why bother looking when a large portion of the President's head is missing?

Er, is that so?

The doctors at the Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22nd held a Press Conference after they pronounced the President dead, and at that Press Conference, which was widely televised and broadcast by radio throughout America, the doctors made these comments…Dr. Clark said: “I examined the President’s back”, but thereafter when it was pointed out that there was a wound in the back, he said: “Well, I didn’t turn him over”, but on November 22nd he said: “I examined the President’s back, from the small of his back to the top of his neck, and I felt his whole back and I did not feel any wounds.

Mark Lane, “The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination: Text of Mark Lane’s Extemporaneous Lecture at University College, London, 10 December 1964 ( The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 [Pamphlet, 32pp]).

This is what this forum and this case is like. It doesn't matter what you put forward someone will be waiting to club you around the head before the sentence has fallen from your lips.

Yup, particularly when you're so obviously wrong. But I have enjoyed both the amateur psychologizing and your repeated insistence that you have no interest in the medical evidence. The more frequently you repeat it, the more I believe it. Honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nurses undressed the President after he was pronounced dead. Upon removing the clothes off the victim, they should have noticed and mentioned the obvious (bullet) holes in the clothes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/henchlif.htm

I do not recall them discussing the back wound, only the small round neck wound, below the Adam's apple.

They weren't performing the autopsy. I'm sure if they thought that the body was going to be hijacked by the Secret Service and for the next 50 years people would have been arguing the toss over whether the wound on the back was there or whether it wasn't then maybe they would have taken much more notice and documented it somehow.

But I'm sure they believed that the trained professionals involved would have followed the procedures and United States/Texas laws once they had finished washing the body.

The expectations that certain members have of these two nurses is quite simply astonishing. It's very easy to sit here at our computers and say this should have been seen and this should have been mentioned, when we have never and will never be in that situation.

But Lee, that's precisely the point, Bowron does claim she saw the wound, albeit in the 1990s, to Livingston Harrison, when up to then

not a peep about it, and Henchcliff telling Wallace Milam she didn't see it. The expectation by most readers would be that if the wound was there, it would be seen, since, as has been mentioned before, the area around the wound would have to be cleaned, and more: they wrapped the head to keep blood and fluids confined as much as possible; if the nurses and orderly were in any way cooperating in the washing, it is hard to imagine otherwise than that someone saw the need to put some bandage over it for the same reason they wrapped the head. Certainly I agree with you: they may not have felt at the time the need to write down their recollections and trusted that the US Government would handle the case properly. That too is a reasonable expectation; and there is no way they could have imagined all the controversy that would follow. But controversy has followed, and the US Government has handled the case most improperly. So now, like it or not, their recollections are important, and that we have them accurately. So it is most proper to scrutinize Bowron's late claims, and make a judgment on their credibility. After all, this is one small piece of the puzzle, and, it seems to me, quite an important one. Regards, Daniel

Again, Daniel, we seem to be transferring our own commitment to the case onto other people. Sure, there were individuals whose lives were consumed by the assassination long after the events had passed (Roger Craig being the perfect example) but there were also many who put a lid on it and then let it slip by. Diana Bowron, in my mind, is one of those people.

The piece of text from her testimony that seems to do the rounds each and every time she is discussed, about witnessing the wounds on the President, is within the context of when she first saw him as he was transferred from the limousine and onto the stretcher. That's quite evident to me. Not so much for other people.

The issue we have is that Henchcliff says she didn't see it. And then Bowron later claimed that she did. It's understandable to me that none of the Doctors at Parkland saw it because why bother looking when a large portion of the President's head is missing?

Clint Hill also says he saw it but you seem to take exception to his description of the wound during his Warren Commission testimony so he is also discounted as an eyewitness to the wound.

I understand your eagerness to get the Henchcliff interview and your belief that there may be some further details held within it. Rest assured, that if you ever did get a copy, and decided to put it out there, it wouldn't be 5 seconds before someone attacked it and spun it and twisted it out of recognition much like every other piece of medical evidence and testimony that we have.

I recently put forth a theory that it was possible for the DPD to get hold of the Oswald bus transfer a different way than the one the official version puts forth. The Dallas Police had Cecil McWatters in their custody for more than six hours after they pulled him off his bus. On his person was his transfer punch. On the bus they pulled him off was his books of transfers. I said it was possible that the DPD could easily have produced the Oswald tranfer from these elements very simply. It's obvious to any open minded person that this is possible. Not so for David Lifton. Preposterous he claimed. Out of touch with reality I was. Not thinking logically. Building conspiracy theories he shouted. Why? Well no one knows. He hasn't got around to telling me yet...

...he simply wants me to take his word for it, they got the pristine transfer out of Lee Harvey Oswald's pocket because Oswald told his interrogators that he had taken a bus.

This is what this forum and this case is like. It doesn't matter what you put forward someone will be waiting to club you around the head before the sentence has fallen from your lips.

Well thank you that you didn't club me over the head on this Bowron issue. Regards. DAniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nurses undressed the President after he was pronounced dead. Upon removing the clothes off the victim, they should have noticed and mentioned the obvious (bullet) holes in the clothes.

http://mcadams.posc....ny/henchlif.htm

I do not recall them discussing the back wound, only the small round neck wound, below the Adam's apple.

They weren't performing the autopsy. I'm sure if they thought that the body was going to be hijacked by the Secret Service and for the next 50 years people would have been arguing the toss over whether the wound on the back was there or whether it wasn't then maybe they would have taken much more notice and documented it somehow.

But I'm sure they believed that the trained professionals involved would have followed the procedures and United States/Texas laws once they had finished washing the body.

The expectations that certain members have of these two nurses is quite simply astonishing. It's very easy to sit here at our computers and say this should have been seen and this should have been mentioned, when we have never and will never be in that situation.

But Lee, that's precisely the point, Bowron does claim she saw the wound, albeit in the 1990s, to Livingston Harrison, when up to then

not a peep about it, and Henchcliff telling Wallace Milam she didn't see it. The expectation by most readers would be that if the wound was there, it would be seen, since, as has been mentioned before, the area around the wound would have to be cleaned, and more: they wrapped the head to keep blood and fluids confined as much as possible; if the nurses and orderly were in any way cooperating in the washing, it is hard to imagine otherwise than that someone saw the need to put some bandage over it for the same reason they wrapped the head. Certainly I agree with you: they may not have felt at the time the need to write down their recollections and trusted that the US Government would handle the case properly. That too is a reasonable expectation; and there is no way they could have imagined all the controversy that would follow. But controversy has followed, and the US Government has handled the case most improperly. So now, like it or not, their recollections are important, and that we have them accurately. So it is most proper to scrutinize Bowron's late claims, and make a judgment on their credibility. After all, this is one small piece of the puzzle, and, it seems to me, quite an important one. Regards, Daniel

Again, Daniel, we seem to be transferring our own commitment to the case onto other people. Sure, there were individuals whose lives were consumed by the assassination long after the events had passed (Roger Craig being the perfect example) but there were also many who put a lid on it and then let it slip by. Diana Bowron, in my mind, is one of those people.

The piece of text from her testimony that seems to do the rounds each and every time she is discussed, about witnessing the wounds on the President, is within the context of when she first saw him as he was transferred from the limousine and onto the stretcher. That's quite evident to me. Not so much for other people.

The issue we have is that Henchcliff says she didn't see it. And then Bowron later claimed that she did. It's understandable to me that none of the Doctors at Parkland saw it because why bother looking when a large portion of the President's head is missing?

Clint Hill also says he saw it but you seem to take exception to his description of the wound during his Warren Commission testimony so he is also discounted as an eyewitness to the wound.

I understand your eagerness to get the Henchcliff interview and your belief that there may be some further details held within it. Rest assured, that if you ever did get a copy, and decided to put it out there, it wouldn't be 5 seconds before someone attacked it and spun it and twisted it out of recognition much like every other piece of medical evidence and testimony that we have.

I recently put forth a theory that it was possible for the DPD to get hold of the Oswald bus transfer a different way than the one the official version puts forth. The Dallas Police had Cecil McWatters in their custody for more than six hours after they pulled him off his bus. On his person was his transfer punch. On the bus they pulled him off was his books of transfers. I said it was possible that the DPD could easily have produced the Oswald tranfer from these elements very simply. It's obvious to any open minded person that this is possible. Not so for David Lifton. Preposterous he claimed. Out of touch with reality I was. Not thinking logically. Building conspiracy theories he shouted. Why? Well no one knows. He hasn't got around to telling me yet...

...he simply wants me to take his word for it, they got the pristine transfer out of Lee Harvey Oswald's pocket because Oswald told his interrogators that he had taken a bus.

This is what this forum and this case is like. It doesn't matter what you put forward someone will be waiting to club you around the head before the sentence has fallen from your lips.

Well thank you that you didn't club me over the head on this Bowron issue. Regards. DAniel

Your sarcasm suggesting otherwise, aside - he didn't. As far as I know Lee doesn't club baby seals either. Though it would be just as easy. Regards, Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nurses undressed the President after he was pronounced dead. Upon removing the clothes off the victim, they should have noticed and mentioned the obvious (bullet) holes in the clothes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/henchlif.htm

I do not recall them discussing the back wound, only the small round neck wound, below the Adam's apple.

They weren't performing the autopsy. I'm sure if they thought that the body was going to be hijacked by the Secret Service and for the next 50 years people would have been arguing the toss over whether the wound on the back was there or whether it wasn't then maybe they would have taken much more notice and documented it somehow.

But I'm sure they believed that the trained professionals involved would have followed the procedures and United States/Texas laws once they had finished washing the body.

The expectations that certain members have of these two nurses is quite simply astonishing. It's very easy to sit here at our computers and say this should have been seen and this should have been mentioned, when we have never and will never be in that situation.

But Lee, that's precisely the point, Bowron does claim she saw the wound, albeit in the 1990s, to Livingston Harrison, when up to then

not a peep about it, and Henchcliff telling Wallace Milam she didn't see it. The expectation by most readers would be that if the wound was there, it would be seen, since, as has been mentioned before, the area around the wound would have to be cleaned, and more: they wrapped the head to keep blood and fluids confined as much as possible; if the nurses and orderly were in any way cooperating in the washing, it is hard to imagine otherwise than that someone saw the need to put some bandage over it for the same reason they wrapped the head. Certainly I agree with you: they may not have felt at the time the need to write down their recollections and trusted that the US Government would handle the case properly. That too is a reasonable expectation; and there is no way they could have imagined all the controversy that would follow. But controversy has followed, and the US Government has handled the case most improperly. So now, like it or not, their recollections are important, and that we have them accurately. So it is most proper to scrutinize Bowron's late claims, and make a judgment on their credibility. After all, this is one small piece of the puzzle, and, it seems to me, quite an important one. Regards, Daniel

Daniel,

QUOTE

and more: they wrapped the head to keep blood and fluids confined as much as possible; if the nurses and orderly were in any way cooperating in the washing, it is hard to imagine otherwise than that someone saw the need to put some bandage over it for the same reason they wrapped the head.

QUOTE

That's an excellent point.

Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Daniel, we seem to be transferring our own commitment to the case onto other people. Sure, there were individuals whose lives were consumed by the assassination long after the events had passed (Roger Craig being the perfect example) but there were also many who put a lid on it and then let it slip by. Diana Bowron, in my mind, is one of those people.

The piece of text from her testimony that seems to do the rounds each and every time she is discussed, about witnessing the wounds on the President, is within the context of when she first saw him as he was transferred from the limousine and onto the stretcher. That's quite evident to me. Not so much for other people.

The issue we have is that Henchcliff says she didn't see it. And then Bowron later claimed that she did. It's understandable to me that none of the Doctors at Parkland saw it because why bother looking when a large portion of the President's head is missing?

Clint Hill also says he saw it but you seem to take exception to his description of the wound during his Warren Commission testimony so he is also discounted as an eyewitness to the wound.

I understand your eagerness to get the Henchcliff interview and your belief that there may be some further details held within it. Rest assured, that if you ever did get a copy, and decided to put it out there, it wouldn't be 5 seconds before someone attacked it and spun it and twisted it out of recognition much like every other piece of medical evidence and testimony that we have.

I recently put forth a theory that it was possible for the DPD to get hold of the Oswald bus transfer a different way than the one the official version puts forth. The Dallas Police had Cecil McWatters in their custody for more than six hours after they pulled him off his bus. On his person was his transfer punch. On the bus they pulled him off was his books of transfers. I said it was possible that the DPD could easily have produced the Oswald tranfer from these elements very simply. It's obvious to any open minded person that this is possible. Not so for David Lifton. Preposterous he claimed. Out of touch with reality I was. Not thinking logically. Building conspiracy theories he shouted. Why? Well no one knows. He hasn't got around to telling me yet...

...he simply wants me to take his word for it, they got the pristine transfer out of Lee Harvey Oswald's pocket because Oswald told his interrogators that he had taken a bus.

This is what this forum and this case is like. It doesn't matter what you put forward someone will be waiting to club you around the head before the sentence has fallen from your lips.

Well thank you that you didn't club me over the head on this Bowron issue. Regards. DAniel

Your sarcasm suggesting otherwise, aside - he didn't. As far as I know Lee doesn't club baby seals either. Though it would be just as easy. Regards, Greg

What is it with this forum??? I make a kind remark to Lee Farley-- a genuinely deferential remark-- and out of nowhere, kaboom! No good deed goes unpunished, or so it seems. So Greg, this is to you: I wasn't being sarcastic. That's not my nature. It may be common faire on this forum, but it is not my style, and I'll have none of it. Best, daniel

Edited by Daniel Gallup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Lane, “The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination: Text of Mark Lane’s Extemporaneous Lecture at University College, London, 10 December 1964 ( The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 [Pamphlet, 32pp]).

This is what we use as source material now?

An extemporaneous lecture?

Beats the hell out of the absurd official transcript of the press conference, for sure.

From defending the fake film to defending the fraudulent transcript - what a fearless opponent of the cover-up you are!

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...