Jump to content
The Education Forum

Throat Wound


Recommended Posts

Nurse Diana Bowron was the person who took a stretcher out to the presidential limosine and, with an orderly whose name she just, you know, couldn't recall, brought John F. Kennedy into the emergency room to prepare him for treatment.

Nurse Bowron had come all the way from England in early August 1963, less than four months prior to the assassination, for a fateful one-year stint in the Parkland Hospital emergency room.

Here is how she testified under oath on 24 March 1964:

  • SPECTER: How many holes did you see?
    BOWRON: I just saw one large hole [referring to hole in head].
    SPECTER: ...Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?
    BOWRON: No, sir.
    SPECTER: ...Did you ever see his [John F. Kennedy's] neck prior to the time you removed the trach tube?
    BOWRON: No, sir.

In a 1993 letter, Nurse Bowron changed her story about what she had found when she got to the limosine:

  • BOWRON: "I turned his head and seeing the size of the [head] wound realized that I could not stop the bleeding. I turned his head back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat... ."

She repeated her new version in her interview with Harrison Livingston:

  • LIVINGSTON: And, so did you see the wound in the throat before? When he was in the car?
    BOWRON: Yes.
    LIVINGSTON: And what did that look like?
    BOWRON: Well, that looked like an entry wound.

Ms. Bowron either lied under oath, or lied in her letter and interview, or she lied at all relevant times.

Why would Ms. Bowron lie about the throat wound at all?

Who is David Parkland Sanders? (Yes, that's right: middle name "Parkland," which is noted here for serious students of CIA psy-ops.)

More anon.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am quite surprised that my throat wound theory which I entered in post # 36 has not been mentioned or even attacked. I personally see no point in re posting the hundreds of repeats of the Parkland medical staff which most active members of this forum have probably memorized, in a "needless" effort to prove to most on this earth, that the Parkland medical staff were not "hitmen" or "hitwomen"

Mention was even given to the "umbrella man dart".

AGAIN !

Do any of you who seem intent on doing no more than re-hashing decades old testimony...or argue about Parkland Trauma Room assassins.....really find the theory that JFK may have been shot with a hand gun, as have been most recent political assassination attempts, to be strange or unworthy of contemplation?

Does it really seem "out of the question" ? If so, what is unreasonable or unaccomplishable about it? You seem to be wearing your fingers out responding to what a great many students of this case, are discussing. It takes one hell of a stretch to imagine an assassination attempt so complex, that "KILLER" doctors and staff from Parkland Hospital, were recruited to poke a hole in the President's throat, for reasons unknown, prior to the assassination. Do ANY of you truly believe this ?

I shouldn't need to remind any of you that most assassins throughout history thought it necessary to be "up close and personal"! Caesar was certainly not shot by a barrage of arrows. The "moderns" who seem to have the most experience in killing, "organized crime", have mostly chosen very "close" shots with small caliber handguns. Why should it seem not "natural", much less considered strange, that this would not have been incorporated in an very important murder scheme. It is apparently the most effective method or it would not be used by the most effective murderers.

You have even wasted thousands of words discussing the "possibility ?" of William Greer shooting the President.

Does a somewhat radical though quite possible theory, frighten some of you away? Possibly because it takes some new thinking as opposed to reposting decades old argumets? Are you afraid to be laughed at by your conteporaries ? When patting ourselves on the backs, we should never forget the extent in which the educational community has dropped the ball, by its failure to bring unpopular "truths" to light. I suppose being passed over for promotion, or considered foolish by your superiors, is really nothing that many can realistically do without bringing possible irreparable injury to both you and your families. I understand this and can do it neither !

Suppose this (post 36) "IS an answer" ! Can anyone definitively explain to me why it cannot be ? It in no way changes the identities or motivation of the conspirators! Have you heard the terms "military style ambush" and "triangulation of fire" so many times that this is all that resonates thru your mind. Have you ever considered that a white haired,

60 year old "grandmother" can be quite a good shot and "deadly".

I truly hope that you are not under the impression that my feelings are hurt because my post was not responded to. The real impression should be that I don't really care what you might think of "that particular theory".....but it is quite disappointing to me that you almost never introduce anything new.

Do any of you know the "success" that was achieved by both the military and corporate industry by an almost childish pracice called "brainstorming"?

When we rehash decades old ideas....all we receive in return is decades old solutions......that weren't viable decades ago, and will not be at present.

This may perhaps be taken as a forum criricism, but I meant it to be a re-evaluation of some of our practices.

Perhaps I am just not "bright enough" to be progressive enough to see the value derived from discussing Parkland Doctors who were assassins, or Presidential "drivers" who blew the Presidents head off.

These discussions are no doubt so far above my personal intellectual level, that I probably do not really qualify as a member of this forum.

I personally am bored of discussions and arguments that are considerably older than many members of this forum, and what seems to be a uniform reluctance by many to express an idea that may not be readily embraced.

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nurse Diana Bowron was the person who took a stretcher out to the presidential limosine and, with an orderly whose name she just, you know, couldn't recall, brought John F. Kennedy into the emergency room to prepare him for treatment.

Nurse Bowron had come all the way from England in early August 1963, less than four months prior to the assassination, for a fateful one-year stint in the Parkland Hospital emergency room.

Here is how she testified under oath on 24 March 1964:

  • SPECTER: How many holes did you see?
    BOWRON: I just saw one large hole [referring to hole in head].
    SPECTER: ...Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?
    BOWRON: No, sir.
    SPECTER: ...Did you ever see his [John F. Kennedy's] neck prior to the time you removed the trach tube?
    BOWRON: No, sir.

In a 1993 letter, Nurse Bowron changed her story about what she had found when she got to the limosine:

  • BOWRON: "I turned his head and seeing the size of the [head] wound realized that I could not stop the bleeding. I turned his head back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat... ."

She repeated her new version in her interview with Harrison Livingston:

  • LIVINGSTON: And, so did you see the wound in the throat before? When he was in the car?
    BOWRON: Yes.
    LIVINGSTON: And what did that look like?
    BOWRON: Well, that looked like an entry wound.

Ms. Bowron either lied under oath, or lied in her letter and interview, or she lied at all relevant times.

Why would Ms. Bowron lie about the throat wound at all?

Who is David Parkland Sanders? (Yes, that's right: middle name "Parkland," which is noted here for serious students of CIA psy-ops.)

More anon.

Ashton Gray

How very odd. If she just did not see it because of the gaping head wound would be one thing, but to later say she saw a throat wound is indeed curious. Why would she lie? And which time is she lying? Conventional wisdom holds that the more truthful memory is the one closer in time to the event.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission very thoroughly omitted any careful timeline or chain of custody of the President of the United States from the time the limosine arrived at Parkland Hospital until Dr. Carrico arrived in Trauma Room 1 where Kennedy had been taken.

Nurse Henchliffe testified that Dr. Carrico did not arrive in Trauma Room 1 until some indeterminate, if brief, amount of time after she helped roll the stretcher into Trauma Room 1.

Nurse Henchliffe left Trauma Room 1 to go to the blood bank in the hospital for blood.

Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission very thoroughly omitted any testimony concerning who removed John F. Kennedy's tie and opened his shirt, and when.

The omissions of Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission concerning these crucial moments make the Grand Canyon look like a gopher hole.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite surprised that my throat wound theory which I entered in post # 36 has not been mentioned or even attacked. I personally see no point in re posting the hundreds of repeats of the Parkland medical staff which most active members of this forum have probably memorized, in a "needless" effort to prove to most on this earth, that the Parkland medical staff were not "hitmen" or "hitwomen"

Mention was even given to the "umbrella man dart".

AGAIN !

Do any of you who seem intent on doing no more than re-hashing decades old testimony...or argue about Parkland Trauma Room assassins.....really find the theory that JFK may have been shot with a hand gun, as have been most recent political assassination attempts, to be strange or unworthy of contemplation?

Does it really seem "out of the question" ? If so, what is unreasonable or unaccomplishable about it? You seem to be wearing your fingers out responding to what a great many students of this case, are discussing. It takes one hell of a stretch to imagine an assassination attempt so complex, that "KILLER" doctors and staff from Parkland Hospital, were recruited to poke a hole in the President's throat, for reasons unknown, prior to the assassination. Do ANY of you truly believe this ?

I shouldn't need to remind any of you that most assassins throughout history thought it necessary to be "up close and personal"! Caesar was certainly not shot by a barrage of arrows. The "moderns" who seem to have the most experience in killing, "organized crime", have mostly chosen very "close" shots with small caliber handguns. Why should it seem not "natural", much less considered strange, that this would not have been incorporated in an very important murder scheme. It is apparently the most effective method or it would not be used by the most effective murderers.

You have even wasted thousands of words discussing the "possibility ?" of William Greer shooting the President.

Does a somewhat radical though quite possible theory, frighten some of you away? Possibly because it takes some new thinking as opposed to reposting decades old argumets? Are you afraid to be laughed at by your conteporaries ? When patting ourselves on the backs, we should never forget the extent in which the educational community has dropped the ball, by its failure to bring unpopular "truths" to light. I suppose being passed over for promotion, or considered foolish by your superiors, is really nothing that many can realistically do without bringing possible irreparable injury to both you and your families. I understand this and can do it neither !

Suppose this (post 36) "IS an answer" ! Can anyone definitively explain to me why it cannot be ? It in no way changes the identities or motivation of the conspirators! Have you heard the terms "military style ambush" and "triangulation of fire" so many times that this is all that resonates thru your mind. Have you ever considered that a white haired,

60 year old "grandmother" can be quite a good shot and "deadly".

I truly hope that you are not under the impression that my feelings are hurt because my post was not responded to. The real impression should be that I don't really care what you might think of "that particular theory".....but it is quite disappointing to me that you almost never introduce anything new.

Do any of you know the "success" that was achieved by both the military and corporate industry by an almost childish pracice called "brainstorming"?

When we rehash decades old ideas....all we receive in return is decades old solutions......that weren't viable decades ago, and will not be at present.

This may perhaps be taken as a forum criricism, but I meant it to be a re-evaluation of some of our practices.

Perhaps I am just not "bright enough" to be progressive enough to see the value derived from discussing Parkland Doctors who were assassins, or Presidential "drivers" who blew the Presidents head off.

These discussions are no doubt so far above my personal intellectual level, that I probably do not really qualify as a member of this forum.

I personally am bored of discussions and arguments that are considerably older than many members of this forum, and what seems to be a uniform reluctance by many to express an idea that may not be readily embraced.

Charlie Black

Charlie:

I meant to respond to your post yesterday. I first heard this poison -dart from- the- Umbrella Man theory espoused in 1975 by Robert Cutler. Col F. Prouty also endorsed this view, but Prouty believed it was a "rocket flechette", inducing paralysis. Assassination expert Richard Sprague was also onboard here. So you are in some very good company with this view.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite surprised that my throat wound theory which I entered in post # 36 has not been mentioned or even attacked. I personally see no point in re posting the hundreds of repeats of the Parkland medical staff which most active members of this forum have probably memorized, in a "needless" effort to prove to most on this earth, that the Parkland medical staff were not "hitmen" or "hitwomen"

Mention was even given to the "umbrella man dart".

AGAIN !

Do any of you who seem intent on doing no more than re-hashing decades old testimony...or argue about Parkland Trauma Room assassins.....really find the theory that JFK may have been shot with a hand gun, as have been most recent political assassination attempts, to be strange or unworthy of contemplation?

Does it really seem "out of the question" ? If so, what is unreasonable or unaccomplishable about it? You seem to be wearing your fingers out responding to what a great many students of this case, are discussing. It takes one hell of a stretch to imagine an assassination attempt so complex, that "KILLER" doctors and staff from Parkland Hospital, were recruited to poke a hole in the President's throat, for reasons unknown, prior to the assassination. Do ANY of you truly believe this ?

I shouldn't need to remind any of you that most assassins throughout history thought it necessary to be "up close and personal"! Caesar was certainly not shot by a barrage of arrows. The "moderns" who seem to have the most experience in killing, "organized crime", have mostly chosen very "close" shots with small caliber handguns. Why should it seem not "natural", much less considered strange, that this would not have been incorporated in an very important murder scheme. It is apparently the most effective method or it would not be used by the most effective murderers.

You have even wasted thousands of words discussing the "possibility ?" of William Greer shooting the President.

Does a somewhat radical though quite possible theory, frighten some of you away? Possibly because it takes some new thinking as opposed to reposting decades old argumets? Are you afraid to be laughed at by your conteporaries ? When patting ourselves on the backs, we should never forget the extent in which the educational community has dropped the ball, by its failure to bring unpopular "truths" to light. I suppose being passed over for promotion, or considered foolish by your superiors, is really nothing that many can realistically do without bringing possible irreparable injury to both you and your families. I understand this and can do it neither !

Suppose this (post 36) "IS an answer" ! Can anyone definitively explain to me why it cannot be ? It in no way changes the identities or motivation of the conspirators! Have you heard the terms "military style ambush" and "triangulation of fire" so many times that this is all that resonates thru your mind. Have you ever considered that a white haired,

60 year old "grandmother" can be quite a good shot and "deadly".

I truly hope that you are not under the impression that my feelings are hurt because my post was not responded to. The real impression should be that I don't really care what you might think of "that particular theory".....but it is quite disappointing to me that you almost never introduce anything new.

Do any of you know the "success" that was achieved by both the military and corporate industry by an almost childish pracice called "brainstorming"?

When we rehash decades old ideas....all we receive in return is decades old solutions......that weren't viable decades ago, and will not be at present.

This may perhaps be taken as a forum criricism, but I meant it to be a re-evaluation of some of our practices.

Perhaps I am just not "bright enough" to be progressive enough to see the value derived from discussing Parkland Doctors who were assassins, or Presidential "drivers" who blew the Presidents head off.

These discussions are no doubt so far above my personal intellectual level, that I probably do not really qualify as a member of this forum.

I personally am bored of discussions and arguments that are considerably older than many members of this forum, and what seems to be a uniform reluctance by many to express an idea that may not be readily embraced.

Charlie Black

Charlie:

I meant to respond to your post yesterday. I first heard this poison -dart from- the- Umbrella Man theory espoused in 1975 by Robert Cutler. Col F. Prouty also endorsed this view, but Prouty believed it was a "rocket flechette", inducing paralysis. Assassination expert Richard Sprague was also onboard here. So you are in some very good company with this view.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE STRANGE CASE OF THE MISSING ORDERLY

Arlen Specter delicately questions Nurse Bowron on 24 March 1964 at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas:

  • SPECTER: Did you have occasion to render assistance to President Kennedy back on November 22, 1963?
    BOWRON: I did; yes, sir.
    SPECTER: Will you relate briefly the circumstances surrounding your being called in to assist in that case?
    BOWRON: I was assigned to work in the minor medicine and surgery area and I was passing through major surgery and I heard over the intercom that they needed carts out at the emergency room entrance, so the orderly from the triage desk, which was passing through and he and I took one cart from major surgery and ran down the hall and by the cashier's desk, there were some men I assume were Secret Service men.
    SPECTER: Did you know at that time whom you were going to aid?
    BOWRON: No, sir.
    SPECTER: You later assumed they were Secret Service men?
    BOWRON: Yes, sir; and they encouraged us to run down to the door.
    SPECTER: And did you have a stretcher with you at that time?
    BOWRON: Yes, sir.
    SPECTER: ...And were you wheeling one stretcher by yourself, or was someone helping?
    BOWRON: No; the orderly from the triage desk was helping us.
    SPECTER: Was helping you?
    BOWRON: Yes.
    SPECTER: Who was that?
    BOWRON: Joe---I've forgotten what his last name is, I'm sorry. I know his first name is Joe and he's on duty today.

No orderly named "Joe" is in the record other than this claim by Nurse Bowron under oath. Bowron said that this "Joe" was on duty that very day of testimony, 24 March 1964, in the same location where Arlen Specter was taking her testimony—at Parkland Hospital. Yet Arlen Specter did not interview any orderly named "Joe" that day or ever.

There are only two Parkland Hospital orderlies in the record:

One is R.J. Jimison, who attended John Connally and says he did not see President John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1963. Nor does the "J." in R.J. stand for "Joe" or anything else: they are "initial names" and nothing more.

The other orderly in evidence is David Parkland Sanders (yes, middle name "Parkland") who is reported to have been in Trauma Room 1, but is referenced as being there only after John F. Kennedy had been pronounced dead to clean up. Was he there earlier? The record is silent.

Who is the orderly "from the triage desk" named "Joe" who purportedly helped Nurse Bowron roll John F. Kennedy from the limo to Trauma Room 1?

If "Joe" was on duty in the hospital the day Arlen Specter interviewed Nurse Bowron at the hospital, why did Arlen Specter not interview "Joe"?

Why did Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission omit any and all evidence concerning the mystery orderly named "Joe" who helped Nurse Bowron wheel John F. Kennedy from the limosine to Trauma Room 1?

What became of the missing orderly?

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else here from the "Old School" in which one was expected to gain "First Person" information and knowledge for their research to carry any validity?

I wore a tie once.

Ashton

I wore a tie once.

Well, with that vast background and experience, one would think that you would have at least taken the time and effort to speak with the FBI Laboratory Technician who actually and physically examined the tie (& other clothing of JFK).

Personally, I completely dislike "hearsay" evidence such as that of FBI Agent Frazier, and again, prefer "First Person" discussions.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. Any projectile could have caused the nick. In this connection there was no metallic residue found on the tie,

And, according to "First Person", the above is not true, just as there are considerable other problems with the "Hearsay" testimony of FBI Agent Frazier.

P.S. Lastly, according to "First Person"/Frazier, he does not recall exactly where he gained the information for his "hearsay" testimony regarding the examination of JFK's clothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else here from the "Old School" in which one was expected to gain "First Person" information and knowledge for their research to carry any validity?

Old School?

I'm all about the Old School.

Sylvia Meagher, ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, pg 150

(quote on)

Is it true that the doctors present during the treatment of the President at

Parkland Hospital did not form an opinion about the nature of this wound?

According to their written reports of the same day, it is not true. Dr.

Charles Carrico described a "small penetrating wound" of anterior neck

in lower third. (CE 392) Dr. Ronald C. Jones referred to "a small hole in

anterior midline of neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound...air was

bubbling through the neck wound" (Jones, Ronald, Exhibit 1)

Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Dr. Charles Baxter, and Dr. William Kemp Clark did

not suggest in their written reports whether the wound was produced by the

entrance or the exit of a bullet.

(quote off)

In addition to the two contemporaneous written reports, we have the following

witness statements.

Nurse Margaret Henchliffe WC testimony:

(quote on)

[A] little hole in the middle of his neck...About as big as the end of my little

finger...An entrance bullet hole -- it looked to me like...I have never seen an

exit bullet hole -- I don't remember seeing one like that;...it was just a small

wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen.

(quote off)

Nurse Diana Bowron to author Harrison Livingstone, KILLING THE TRUTH, pg 188:

(quote on)

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.

(quote off)

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE, pg 79:

(quote on)

I also identified a small opening about the diameter of a pencil at the

midline of his throat to be an entry bullet hole. There was no doubt in

my mind about that wound.

(quote off)

Dr. Gene Akin's WC testimony:

(quote on)

Mr. SPECTER - What was the dimension of the punctate wound, without regards to

the tracheotomy which was being started?

Dr. AKIN - It looked--it was as you said, it was a puncture wound. It was roughly

circular, about, I would judge, 1.5 cm. in diameter.

(quote off)

Dr. Charles Baxter's WC testimony:

(quote on)

Mr. Specter - Were the characteristics of the wound on the neck sufficient to enable

you to form an opinion with reasonable medical certainty as to what was the cause

of the hole?

Dr. Baxter - Well, the wound was, I think, compatible with a gunshot wound. It did

not appear to be a jagged wound such as one would expect with a very high velocity

rifle bullet. We could not determine, or did not determine at that time whether this

represented an entry or an exit wound. Judging from the caliber of the rifle that we

later found or become acquainted with, this would more resemble a wound of entry.

(quote off)

Dr. Malcolm Perry's 11/22/63 televised press conference:

(quote on)

There was an entrance wound in the neck…It appeared to be coming at him…The

wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is

correct.

(quote off)

Nurse Margaret Henchliffe WC testimony:

(quote on)

[A] little hole in the middle of his neck...About as big as the end of my little

finger...An entrance bullet hole -- it looked to me like...I have never seen an

exit bullet hole -- I don't remember seeing one like that;...it was just a small

wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen.

214-590-3241-------------------Last Time that I spoke with her (years ago)

Parkland Hospital Nurse's Association (Coline Hines in 1993) was the most simple way to locate and speak with those nurse personnel present at JFK's death. (214-590-8419).

*Note: Some are divorced & re-married, thus their last names have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else here from the "Old School" in which one was expected to gain "First Person" information and knowledge for their research to carry any validity?

Old School?

I'm all about the Old School.

Sylvia Meagher, ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, pg 150

(quote on)

Is it true that the doctors present during the treatment of the President at

Parkland Hospital did not form an opinion about the nature of this wound?

According to their written reports of the same day, it is not true. Dr.

Charles Carrico described a "small penetrating wound" of anterior neck

in lower third. (CE 392) Dr. Ronald C. Jones referred to "a small hole in

anterior midline of neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound...air was

bubbling through the neck wound" (Jones, Ronald, Exhibit 1)

Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Dr. Charles Baxter, and Dr. William Kemp Clark did

not suggest in their written reports whether the wound was produced by the

entrance or the exit of a bullet.

(quote off)

In addition to the two contemporaneous written reports, we have the following

witness statements.

Nurse Margaret Henchliffe WC testimony:

(quote on)

[A] little hole in the middle of his neck...About as big as the end of my little

finger...An entrance bullet hole -- it looked to me like...I have never seen an

exit bullet hole -- I don't remember seeing one like that;...it was just a small

wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen.

(quote off)

Nurse Diana Bowron to author Harrison Livingstone, KILLING THE TRUTH, pg 188:

(quote on)

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.

(quote off)

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE, pg 79:

(quote on)

I also identified a small opening about the diameter of a pencil at the

midline of his throat to be an entry bullet hole. There was no doubt in

my mind about that wound.

(quote off)

Dr. Gene Akin's WC testimony:

(quote on)

Mr. SPECTER - What was the dimension of the punctate wound, without regards to

the tracheotomy which was being started?

Dr. AKIN - It looked--it was as you said, it was a puncture wound. It was roughly

circular, about, I would judge, 1.5 cm. in diameter.

(quote off)

Dr. Charles Baxter's WC testimony:

(quote on)

Mr. Specter - Were the characteristics of the wound on the neck sufficient to enable

you to form an opinion with reasonable medical certainty as to what was the cause

of the hole?

Dr. Baxter - Well, the wound was, I think, compatible with a gunshot wound. It did

not appear to be a jagged wound such as one would expect with a very high velocity

rifle bullet. We could not determine, or did not determine at that time whether this

represented an entry or an exit wound. Judging from the caliber of the rifle that we

later found or become acquainted with, this would more resemble a wound of entry.

(quote off)

Dr. Malcolm Perry's 11/22/63 televised press conference:

(quote on)

There was an entrance wound in the neck…It appeared to be coming at him…The

wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is

correct.

(quote off)

Nurse Margaret Henchliffe WC testimony:

(quote on)

[A] little hole in the middle of his neck...About as big as the end of my little

finger...An entrance bullet hole -- it looked to me like...I have never seen an

exit bullet hole -- I don't remember seeing one like that;...it was just a small

wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen.

214-590-3241-------------------Last Time that I spoke with her (years ago)

Parkland Hospital Nurse's Association (Coline Hines in 1993) was the most simple way to locate and speak with those nurse personnel present at JFK's death. (214-590-8419).

*Note: Some are divorced & re-married, thus their last names have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again Dawn

Appreciate your response. But am I truly more paranoid than I think ? Are you the only person on this forum willing to "go out on a limb?" and express a view on this topic? Perhaps I am in error, but I feel that this is a quite important topic. Much more so than than the current discussions of the "Parkland assassins". But then again, I am just a poor old Southern country boy, who probably does not know hot to separate the truly significant, from the BS.

The discussion of the importance of both trauma room and Presidential driver assassins, is up there in that elevation of intelligencia, in which I would probably require oxygen !

I feel that there are those forum participants who are so "combative", that they would rather participate in an attack and feeding frenzy, than to pursue what I long conceived to be the purpose of this forum. This is becoming the Roman Gladiatorial Colliseum rather than "The Forum".

Current Score : LIONS "35" / RESEARCHERS "0"

SPARTACUS BLACK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission very thoroughly omitted any careful timeline or chain of custody of the President of the United States from the time the limosine arrived at Parkland Hospital until Dr. Carrico arrived in Trauma Room 1 where Kennedy had been taken.

Arlen Specter and the WC were given with the job of covering up an obvious

conspiracy, so this ought not surprise.

It shouldn't be that difficult to establish such a time-line, since we're only looking

at a few minutes.

Nurse Henchliffe testified that Dr. Carrico did not arrive in Trauma Room 1 until some indeterminate, if brief, amount of time after she helped roll the stretcher into Trauma Room 1.
There's nothing "indeterminate" here...

From Henchliffe's WC testimony:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Mr. SPECTER. And who else was present at the time you first saw [JFK] when

he had just come into the emergency area?

Miss HENCHLIFFE. Let me see, I think Dr. Carrico was there--he was there very

shortly after--afterwards.

Mr. SPECTER. He was there when you arrived? Or arrived shortly after you did?

Miss HENCHLIFFE. Well, actually I went in ahead of the cart with him and I was

the first one in with him, and just in a minute, or seconds, Dr. Carrico came in.

(quote off)

"In a minute, or seconds..."

Nurse Henchliffe left Trauma Room 1 to go to the blood bank in the hospital for blood.

Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission very thoroughly omitted any testimony

concerning who removed John F. Kennedy's tie and opened his shirt, and when.

From the WC testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Mr. SPECTER - Would you continue to describe your observations of the President?

Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen,

bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no

voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed

a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard

a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and detected no large or sucking

chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head.

(quote off)

From the WC testimony of Nurse Diana Bowron:

(quote on, emphasis added)

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

Miss BOWRON - Dr. Carrico.

Mr. SPECTER - Where did Dr. Carrico join you?

Miss BOWRON - At the---I couldn't really tell you exactly, but it was inside major

surgery. Miss Henchliffe, the other nurse who is assigned to major surgery, was

in the trauma room already setting the I.V.'s---the intravenous bottles up.

Mr. SPECTER - And were there any other nurses present at that time when the

President arrived in the trauma area?

Miss BOWRON - I don't think so, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Were there any doctors present besides Dr. Carrico?

Miss BOWRON - I didn't notice anybody---there may have been.

Mr. SPECTER - What action did you observe Dr. Carrico take, if any?

Miss BOWRON - We tried to start an I.V. cutdown and I don't know whether it

was his left or his right leg, and Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing

and then after that everybody just arrived at once and it was more or less

everybody sort of helping everybody else. We opened the chest tube trays and

the venesectron trays.

(quote off)

The omissions of Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission concerning these

crucial moments make the Grand Canyon look like a gopher hole.

Ashton Gray

Which is nothing compared to the holes in your theory, Ashton.

At what point did Jackie Kennedy, Will Greer, and Roy Kellerman leave

the body unattended so "Joe" and Di could diddle with the dead Prez?

Charles Carrico, WC:

(quote on)

Mr. SPECTER - Who was the first doctor to reach President Kennedy on his arrival

at Parkland Hospital?

Dr. CARRICO - I was.

Mr. SPECTER - And who else was with President Kennedy on his arrival, as best

you can recollect it?

Dr. CARRICO - Mrs. Kennedy was there, and there were some men in the room,

who I assumed were Secret Service men; I don't know.

(quote off)

And what did the Secret Service report?

From his original written report, Roy Kellerman:

(quote on)

When we got to the hospital I called to the agents to get two stretchers. The special

agents of the follow-up car with the police ran into the hospital, obtained two stretchers

on wheels. We placed the Governor on the first one at which time I noticed he was

conscious and I spoke to him saying, "Governor, everything is going to be all right."

His eyes were wide open and he nodded his head in agreement. Just before we

removed the President, SA Hill took off his coat, placed it over the President's head

and chest and we placed him on the stretcher. Both were taken into separate

emergency rooms. The hospital staff appeared quickly and went immediately to

work. I accompanied the President to the emergency room.

(quote off)

From Will Greer's original Secret Service report:

(quote on, emphasis added)

I drove as fast as I could to the hospital and helped to get the President

into the emergency room. I guarded the emergency room door until the

doctors and nurses had completed their duty.

(quote off)

Let's return to Ms. Bowron's unduly maligned WC testimony, where she

describes what she did at the limo:

(quote on, emphasis added)

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.

(quote off)

It would appear that Jackie, Kellerman, and Greer were with the body from the time

the limo arrived to when the Parkland staff took over in the ER.

Does this indict Jackie?

Did she pull out a pillbox hat pin and shiv the guy in the throat on the drive to Parkland?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How very odd. If she just did not see it because of the gaping head wound would be one thing, but to later say she saw a throat wound is indeed curious. Why would she lie? And which time is she lying? Conventional wisdom holds that the more truthful memory is the one closer in time to the event.

Dawn

Hi Dawn,

While Diana Bowron certainly mis-spoke in her WC testimony, I think

when put into context it is apparent she mis-understood Specter's

question.

First, let's keep in mind she was all of 22 years old, in-country only four

months.

From Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg. 184, Bowron wrote:

(quote on)

When I arrived in Minor Medicine [after prepping the body for the casket], I found

the patients had been removed elsewhere, and the department had been taken

over by the Vice President and his staff. They were getting ready to leave when

I got there, as they passed me. I heard the Vice President say to his wife,

"Make a note of what everyone says and does."

(quote off)

Did LBJ actually assign his wife to make a note of what everyone said and did?

Obviously not.

Why would Lyndon Baines Johnson say such a thing right in front of one of the

most important witnesses in the case?

For intimidating effect, I'd speculate.

Did this obvious intimidation tactic work with Ms. Bowron?

KTT, pg 197:

(quote on)

With regard to Arlen Specter's questioning of her, which seems to give

an erroneous impression as to how many wounds she saw, she says:

"My answer, 'I just saw one large hole,' was in response to a series of

questions about what I saw and did in the car and the condition of his

head. As I understand it at the time Specter was taking things

sequentially and one large hole in the back of the head was what I

first saw in the back of the car. He never asked me about any other

wounds, and by the time we got to the end of the interview, I was

probably so nervous I put the back wound out of my mind."

(quote off)

Let's put the above into the context of her WC testimony:

(quote on)

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.

(quote off)

I think it's clear from her later disclaimer that Bowron did not see any

other wound when she was standing on the other side of the car.

It appears she was under the impression Specter was asking her if she saw

any other wound at that exact moment -- and the answer was, "No, sir."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's clear from her later disclaimer that Bowron did not see any

other wound when she was standing on the other side of the car.

It appears she was under the impression Specter was asking her if she saw

any other wound at that exact moment -- and the answer was, "No, sir."

Here is how she testified under oath on 24 March 1964:

SPECTER: How many holes did you see?

BOWRON: I just saw one large hole [referring to hole in head].

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

BOWRON: No, sir.

SPECTER: ...Did you ever see his [John F. Kennedy's] neck prior to the time you removed the trach tube?

BOWRON: No, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's clear from her later disclaimer that Bowron did not see any

other wound when she was standing on the other side of the car.

It appears she was under the impression Specter was asking her if she saw

any other wound at that exact moment -- and the answer was, "No, sir."

Here is how she testified under oath on 24 March 1964:

SPECTER: How many holes did you see?

BOWRON: I just saw one large hole [referring to hole in head].

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

BOWRON: No, sir.

SPECTER: ...Did you ever see his [John F. Kennedy's] neck prior to the time you removed the trach tube?

BOWRON: No, sir.

Good point, Michael. She mis-spoke, clearly.

Here's what Henchliffe had to say about the visibility of the throat wound, from

her WC testimony:

(quote on)

Mr. SPECTER. Was the wound on the front of the neck surrounded by any blood?

Miss HENCHLIFFE. No, sir.

Mr. Specter. Was there any blood at all in that area?

Miss HENCHLIFFE. No, sir.

(quote off)

I find it hard to believe that Bowron did not see the throat wound.

I find it easier to buy the notion that she mis-stated out of nervousness,

since on every other point her testimony seems corroborated.

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...