On the reliability of witness recollections...

[David Von Pein]

12 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Or, at Parkdale, the hole was kissing the gurney.

Is "Parkdale" anything like the fictional nation "Qumar" in the NBC-TV series The West Wing ?

( 😉 )

 

Edited January 18 by David Von Pein

[Michael Crane]

16 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I didn’t particularly want to post this since it’s pretty graphic, but it’s kinda hard to articulate what I think I’m looking at in a text description. Forgive the crappy markup I did it on an IPhone. 

The location of the “hole” seems to correlate fairly well with the back wound photo Greg posted, but the “scalp flaps” in that photo appear to be folded over and covering some of the damage toward the back of the head. 

The alleged “instrument” is just something I saw that looked out of place, but it’s not nearly as noticeable in the other TOH photos so it could be an anomaly of some sort. Or I could just be hallucinating. 

Is my interpretation of this photo reasonable? Not reasonable? Totally insane? 

There was two autopsy witnesses that said that this head rest was not on the autopsy tables at Bethesda,but there was a chalk block instead,that hair looks way too long,and why is it so damn dark in this photo?

Can anybody guess?

Edited January 18 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

With only the exceptions of Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck, no-one in
the world got a better look at the back of President Kennedy's head,
and his wounds, than nurse, Diana Bowron at Parkland hospital.

As she explained in this interview, Bowron actually washed the
President's hair after his death, and assisted in cutting away his
clothing when he was first brought in.

Yet, when she tried to talk about the condition of the President's
head, in her WC testimony, Arlen Specter promptly guided her to a
different subject.

But Harold Livingstone was no Specter and was eager to let
nurse Bowron go into great detail about what she saw that day. This is
her complete interview as it appeared in Livingstone's book, *Killing
the Truth*.

Livingstone's interview of Diana Bowron

HL = Harold Livingstone
DB = Diana Bowron

"...HL: Do you remember when the body was wrapped up to go into the coffin,
was a towel put around the head before the sheets were wrapped around it?

DB: A towel?

HL: Yes.

DE: No.

HL: No towel?

DB: No towel, because I washed his hair. This is what I was going to write
to you about all these autopsy photographs with all the blood clots and
everything on the back....

HL: Is there anything peculiar about those pictures?

DB: Very peculiar, very peculiar. (Very long pause as she awaits a
question.)

HL: Well, I think they're fake as hell.

DB: Definitely. Definitely. On those pages that you told me, there's three
together, top of the F 6 and F 7, and something that-all are fake
completely because I washed all the clots out of his hair before I wrapped
it up.

HL: Yeah.

DB: And also somebody, which I don't know whether you know any- thing
about-I haven't seen it written anywhere-we wrapped him up, and Margaret
had gone, and somebody came in and flashed a badge or this thing at me and
just gave me a plastic bag, and said I was to collect all the bits of
brain and any bits of skull that was floating about. So I had to unwrap
everything again, and collect all these bits and give them to him.

HL: And you don't know who he was?

DB: No. You know the situation, you sort of-I was new to the States, and
you're sort of only a lowly nurse and these guys come flashing things at
you, you're never quite sure, you can't stand up and say, "Yeah, who are
you, who's authority?"

HL: Do you think he was connected to the hospital or to the Secret
Service?

DB: I don't think he was connected to the hospital, no.

HL: Would you say that Kennedy was alive when you first saw him?

DB: No, he was dead. Sure he was.

HL: And that was in the car?

DB: In the car, yes.

HL: So you saw him in the car?

DB: I had to - I got into the back of the car because we couldn't get him
out, because we had to get the Governor out first. So then I was with him
in the back, sort of trying to do first aid. And I couldn't get a pulse at
all, from anywhere, and I mean the damage that was done to his head, when
you've worked in things like that your first impulse is, "Oh God," you
know, "Forget it," but of course, being the President, you can't.

HL: So, in order to do the last rites, you think they sort of faked it a
little bit?

DB: Yes.

HL: And what was the status of his head? Did you see any other wounds
besides the head wound?

DB: There was the wound in the back.

HL: You saw that?

DB: In the, lower down on his back, the entry wound for the bullet.

HL: How far down was it?

DB: Oh, no, wait a minute, I'll send back your photograph, and mark with
an arrow where I think it was. But, I mean, it's lower than the top one.

HL: Did you turn over the body?

DB: Yes.

HL: Did anybody tell you to wash the body? I mean, tell the nurses to
clean up the body?

DB: No. I think it was just sort of a general consensus that-I think it
was Doris, actually, who said clean him up and get him ready. But, I mean,
we would have done it anyway, sort of as a courtesy. I mean, you don't
sort of leave the President, you know, to go to his-

HL: But you definitely saw-did it look like an entry or an exit wound in
his back?

DB: Entry wound.

HL: Okay. What size was it?

DB: Oh, it was small.

HL: Were the edges turned in?

DB: Yes.

HL: You remember that?

DB: Yes. The thing is, when you work in emergency rooms and you get to
know what looks like an entry wound and what looks like an exit, you know.

HL: Sure, yeah. There's like an abrasive collar or whatever.

DB: Mmm, yeah.

HL: Could you tell how far that hole went in to his back-or did you probe
it or..

DB: No, no.

HL: And, so did you see the wound in the throat before? When he was in the
car?

DB: Yes.

HL: Okay. And what did that look like?

DB: Well, that looked like an entry wound. It was larger than the one in
the back, and from what I can remember, I mean, I didn't see them in a
close space of time so I could actually say it was twice as big, but I got
the impression it was bigger? than the one that was in the back.

HL: Just by a bit? Or a whole lot?

DB: Quite a bit. Yeah, a whole lot, I'd say.

HL: But you still think it was an entry wound?

DB: Yes.

HL: Okay. Now, on the head wound, did you see anything that looked like
holes or perforations in the skull and the temple areas, or the forehead?

DB: No.

HL: No?

DB: No.

HL: You haven't read my second book, have you? High Treason 2?

DB: No.

HL: Okay. I'm going to send it to you, if you like. The reason is that if
you had read it, it might influence what you're telling me now ...

DB: Uh-huh.

HL: Because I have, I have reports from the morticians in Washington. So,
since you haven't read it-that's good. Because, what you're telling me is
not influenced by what I wrote already. But do you remember any
perforations in the head or did you see any holes or anything like a
bullet hole anywhere on his skull or in the back of the skull?

DB: At the back of the skull, an enormous hole.

HL: And would you-is that in the general area where that drawing- those
drawings-I'm sure you've seen them-where they've got a big piece of skull
missing in the very back of the head?

DB: Yes.

HL: Would you say that the hole's extended as far around as to be just
behind the right ear?

DB: Yes. It was more towards the right ear, definitely, then the left. But
it was, it was big. I mean, I could-and for when I did the thing, I had to
pack, you know, linens into there.

HL: And did you mean when you prepared the body for the coffin?

DB: Well, before that.

HL: Oh, to stanch the flow?

DB: Yes, to stanch the flow.

HL: Do you remember anything about the cerebellum?

DB: There wasn't much there.

HL: Not much brain?

DB: No.

HL: On the back of the head, did it extend around as far as the top of the
head? How much of the top of the head was missing? Was top of, was bone
missing as far as the sagittal suture-is that the one that goes across the
head?

DB: Hang on, you're getting terribly technical. I haven't nursed for
years. I'll have to go back to the textbooks.

HL: How much skull was missing on the top of the head, would you say, that
extended into that back of the head region?

DB: Oh, a reasonable amount.

HL: So part of the top of the head was missing in the back?

DB: Just trying to think how to put it to you. The hole was basically
almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was
quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well.

HL: Was the occiput missing itself?

DB: I would say-

HL: I mean the protuberance.

DB: Part of it, yes.

HL: Okay. And how about the face, his face, how did that look?

DB: Well, it was-it looked like a face, let's put it that way. When he
left us, his eyes were closed, which they weren't in these photographs.

HL: His eyes were closed, not open?

DB: Yes.

HL: Would they, would they normally open after death after they'd already
been closed?

DB: Not usually, no.

HL: Or could they have opened on the emergency table?

DB: Well, no. When we put him in the coffin, you know, before we wrapped
him up and everything and then they were closed and when we wrapped his
head up in the sheets, they were closed then. So, with the pressure of the
material on them ...

HL: You think they would have stayed closed?

DB: I would think so. I mean, I'm not a mortician.

HL: Okay. But when you saw him in the car, were his eyes open or closed?

DB: Open, sort of half open.

HL: And how about in the-on the ER table, do you remember?

DB: They were open.

HL: Okay. If you can try to remember anybody taking pictures in there,
photographs, it's very important because there's a reason to think that
some of these autopsy pictures-I published a lot more of them in my last
book-that they're not taken at Bethesda, you know. Now, do you think that
any part of his face-like the right eye and the right forehead above it -
did that sag in or was there any bone missing in that area? Did his face
look so perfectly normal? Did you feel his face?

HL: You washed his face?

DB: I can't remember whether I washed it or Margaret washed it. I know I
washed his hair.

HL: Well, you would have noticed if a large piece of bone-see, the X-rays,
if you look at the X-rays in my book, they show the whole right front of
the face is gone from the eye area. And the lateral view X-ray is not the
same as the AP view. There's a lot more bone missing in the lateral view.
But most of the-most of them have the whole right eye area, from the top
of the orbit, at least, plus the forehead and the temporal bone is gone.

DB: No, no. I mean, I would have noticed something like that. You know, to
say his face looked like a dead body's face. You know, there was no injury
to the face.

HL: Yeah.

DB: It was just to his-the back of his head. And the one in his, in his
throat. But and by then it was the tracheostomy opening. But his face
itself, no.

HL: Okay. One more question about that. Do you remember any laceration
across the scalp from front to back where it comes on to the forehead,
where the scalp would have been lacerated and it goes straight back from
that area? Picture the right eyebrow. A laceration about a half an inch
into his forehead, and then going straight back, where the scalp was torn.
Do you remember anything like that?

DB: No.

HL: You would have because you washed the hair, right?

DB: Yes. When I say washed it, I just took cotton swabs and washed all the
clotting blood off. I mean, I didn't shampoo it or anything.

HL: So, in this massive hole, was there a flap of scalp there, or was
scalp actually gone?

DB: It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big, gaping hole.

HL: We're talking about scalp first, and then bone, right?

DB: Yeah. There might have been little lumps of scalp, but most of the
bone over the hole, there was no bone there.

HL: Was there any part of a flap of scalp over that big defect in the bone
missing?

DB: What I'm saying is that the hole where the bone had gone, perhaps the
skin was a little bit smaller, if you know what I mean, but only
fractionally, just over the edge .

HL: So the scalp was blown out, too?

DB: Yes.

HL: I don't know if I should ask you this question-but did you have enough
experience either before or after to think that that was either an exit or
an entry hole?

DB: Well, to me it was an exit hole.

HL: Yeah.

DB: I mean, I've never seen one as big as that, but-

HL: Okay. Listen, you're going to draw me a picture, aren't you, to show
just where that hole is?

DB: Yeah...."

(unquote)
 

https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/QbgORExR/nurse-diana-bowron

A couple of points about Bowron. 

1. She claimed the head wound was low on the back of the head, but claimed the whole right rear of the brain was missing. Well, how could she have seen that? Did she put her fingers down in the hole and measure how much brain was left? At least one of these claims is not credible. 

2. And how could far more brain have been missing than skull? Is that how bullets work? They enter a skull and stir up all the brains, and the brains then explode through a hole less than half the size of the missing brain? Nope. Not how it works. 

3. She placed the wound exactly where it is shown in the McClelland drawing, when speaking to a man who misrepresented the statements of numerous witnesses while claiming they all said the drawing was an accurate depiction of the wound. Is this a coincidence? It's doubtful.  

4. While some like to cite her as support for their theory the back of the head was blown out, few recognize or acknowledge she also said she saw NO other wounds. None on the face. None by the temples. Well, this is toxic to their theory a bullet entered the forehead or the temple and blew out the back of the head. So, back of the head proponents have a choice: they can claim she's unreliable, and leave it at that. Or they can ignore what she said about there being no entrance on the front of the head. They choose the latter because, well, they're desperate. 

Edited January 18 by Pat Speer

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Is "Parkdale" anything like the fictional nation "Qumar" in the NBC-TV series The West Wing ?

( 😉 )

 

Parkdale is a sleepy little bayside suburb of Melbourne near my (old) billiards club. Have changed to Parkland.

The Parkdale main street had the first 40 kmph speed limit in that part of Melbourne (ie 25 mph)(in about 1990)(on a trial basis)(otherwise the standard urban speed limit everywhere was 60 kmph). Today most main streets in towns etc in Australia are 40 kmph, & every school frontage street is 40 kmph, & most residential streets are 50 kmph.

But i dont get the Qumar ref? 

Edited January 18 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Has anyone else ever rejected the top of head photo as an accurate depiction of JFK’s wound? Is there any other evidence to suggest that the photo is misleading?

 

Oh...my...gosh. I can't believe you asked that question, Tom.

Of course there is evidence that the top-of-head, scrambled-up, shreds of scalp is misleading! Not a single witness in Dallas saw that mess! And there were, many, many, witnesses there.

And it's a rather obvious thing to miss, don't you think?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

In her interview, Nurse Bowron confirmed what I've long expected, and that is the hole of missing bone was a fair amount larger than the hole of the missing scalp.

Additionally, I think that clotted blood around the edge of the hole in the scalp had the effect of making the scalp hole smaller.

These factors, I think, explain why some witnesses saw different sized holes. Those who could tell that the hole in the bone was larger than the hole in the scalp might have used the larger size to describe the wound. Those would be the "large wound witnesses." At the other extreme would be those who could see only the scalp hole, and who counted the clotting blood as being part of the scalp. These would be the "smaller wound witnesses."

Bowron's description of the size of the wound is the largest I've heard. Likely because she washed the hair, and so saw the scalp without clots, and more importantly saw the full size of the bone hole. She said it was the size of a saucer! From her drawing, I'd say she was thinking of a teacup saucer.

 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh...my...gosh. I can't believe you asked that question, Tom.

Of course there is evidence that the top-of-head, scrambled-up, shreds of scalp is misleading! Not a single witness in Dallas saw that mess! And there were, many, many, witnesses there.

And it's a rather obvious thing to miss, don't you think?

 

I just mean the photo itself. Other than Robinson, is there anyone who specifically discussed and rejected the top-of-head autopsy photos? I’m guessing there probably is, but I’m looking for specific examples and in-depth discussions, like from ARRB/HSCA interviews, etc. 

I know there are plenty of witnesses who suggested a lower wound, but I’m curious how those witnesses might have reacted when shown a photo depicting a large hole in the back of JFK’s head above and behind the ear.

We have examples of witnesses rejecting the BOH photos, but the TOH photos seem to be much less frequently discussed in comparison and I’m curious why that is. For example, if I recall, the group in What the Doctors Saw was only shown the BOH photo, or at least that’s what made it into the final version of the film. 

Edited January 18 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I just mean the photo itself. Other than Robinson, is there anyone who specifically discussed and rejected the top-of-head autopsy photos?

 

Oh, okay. My apologies.

 

41 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I know there are plenty of witnesses who suggested a lower wound, ...

 

Yeah, like nearly every single witness in Dallas... if by "lower" you mean lower than the top of the head. (Not counting those who changed their minds when they discovered they were contradicting the official WC narrative.)

 

41 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

... but I’m curious how those witnesses might have reacted when shown a photo depicting a large hole in the back of JFK’s head above and behind the ear.

 

Who is advocating for that location? What photo shows that location for the gaping wound? That sounds like the cowlick area to me.

 

41 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

We have examples of witnesses rejecting the BOH photos, but the TOH photos seem to be much less frequently discussed in comparison and I’m curious why that is. For example, if I recall, the group in What the Doctors Saw was only shown the BOH photo, or at least that’s what made it into the final version of the film. 

 

The top-of-head photo is problematic in that it was an intact area in Dallas but a scrambled mess in Bethesda. So it is, and should be, generally treated as a different and separate phenomenon.