Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory

[Bill Chapman]

Think Different*


Brennan estimated age at a distance and angle
Oswald thinning hair, sullen demeanour adds years


Brennan estimated weight at a distance and angle
Thick neck, bulky shirt a factor

Bright sunshine contrasted with deep shadow
visually lightens objects. Including clothing.
Colour is subjective.

An altogether fair assessment

-------
Bonus
-------
CTers are now 'knowledge-advanced' for having read this


*apologies to Apple

[Jerry Freeman]

Howard Brennan was an important eyewitness, on the same day not only did he give a fairly accurate identification of Oswald

Again...consult a dictionary or go back to school and learn how to use one. Identification means that he ascertained it was Oswald. Did he know Oswald? A given description that could have been 50,000 other guys in downtown Dallas.

[John Iacoletti]

Think Different*

Brennan estimated age at a distance and angle
Oswald thinning hair, sullen demeanour adds years

Brennan estimated weight at a distance and angle
Thick neck, bulky shirt a factor

'Different clothing'
Bright sunshine contrasted with deep shadow visually lightens objects
Colour is subjective

An altogether fair assessment

-------
Bonus
-------
CTers are now 'knowledge-advanced' for having read this


*apologies to Apple

Circular arguments are so compelling.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The camera-right hole has a thread that goes up pass the collar seam. Is all.

You either have a vision problem or an honesty problem. We both know what the picture shows.

Even the FBI lab said the slits were made by a fragment, not by a whole bullet, because they found no copper around the slits and because of the slits' "irregular" nature.

McKnight's claim: "As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was "the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature."

Dr. Carrico: As I said after I had opened his shirt and coat, I proceeded
     with the examination and the nurses removed his clothing as is the
     usual procedure.

Wow, you will try to bend and twist anything, won't you? First off, I noticed you snipped and ignored the point that one of the Parkland nurses confirmed that a nurse made the slits and nicked the tie knot. I notice you just snipped and ignored that. I guess perhaps you didn't want to have to resort to calling her a liar or to saying she was "mistaken."

Of course the "usual procedure" was to remove the clothing. He did not address *how* they did so here.

Spector: And was no examination of clothing made, Dr. Carrico?
Dr. Carrico: Again, this was a matter of time. The clothes were removed; the
     nurses, as is the usual practice. And the full attention was devoted to trying
     to resuscitate the President.

Well, first of all, it's "Specter" not "Spector." You again show that your knowledge of the case is poor.

Dr. Carrico appears to be describing as "usual practice" the removal of clothing in general, but NOT the use of scalpels.

You know this is misleading. You are comparing apples to oranges. He was not talking about *how* they removed the clothes but just saying that the standard practice was to remove the clothes.

I repeat the point that one of the nurses later stated that a nurse made the slits and nicked the tie. Was shey lying or "mistaken"?

McKnight's claim: "Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked
     Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck.
     The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above
     the collar line"

Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir; just where the tie...
Dulles: A little bit to the left.
Dr. Carrico: To the right.

It's somewhat ambiguous, but the first time Carrico says "about where your tie would be" and the second time he says "just where the tie...". To me, it seems about where the tie knot was. I would say it's more unclear as to what Dulles refers to with "you put your hand right above where your tie is" because that would as well apply to Carrico with his hand over the surface of the tie, not above the level of it.

LOL! "Ambiguous"! It is only "ambiguous" in your mind because you don't want to read plain English.

Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir; just where the tie...
Dulles: A little bit to the left.
Dr. Carrico: To the right.

What don't you understand about "You put your hand right above your tie?" and "Yes, sir"? Gosh, this is just silly. If Carrico had meant to put his hand ON his tie, he would have easily done so.

And did you notice that Carrico said it was "the entrance"?

When Carrico spoke with Weisberg, he said the wound was above the collar, just barely above the collar. 

Todd Vaughn, whom McKnight acknowledges in his essay, discovered a 1997 interview of Carrico by Bob Porter, of the Sixth Floor Museum ( Link YouTube ).

Porter: You don’t know exactly where it was or not?
Dr. Carrico: ...whether it was through the collar or not but it was certainly
     at the collar line. It was just about right there, just to the right of the
     trachea and just a, certainly where his collar should have been.

In the same interview, Carrico describes scissors being used:

Dr. Carrico: Yeah the - what, uh - I - you know I was doing other stuff.
     I was looking at his head and stuff, and Diane was doing that.
     But what you normally do is you take scissors, right there, or
     right there...

You are once again twisting words. If you read Carrico's answer with any care, you quickly see that he was indicating that in this case the nurse (Diana Bowron) did *not* use scissors. Notice the "BUT": "But what you normally do is take scissors," clearly implying that what Bowron did was not what they would normally do. He implied that the way Bowron was removing the clothing was not "what you normally do," hence the "But." He contrasting how Bowron removed the clothes with how they "normally" removed them.

Dr. Carrico said the wound "was fairly round" and "an even round wound", and "5- to 8-mm. in size". Dr. Perry said the wound was "approximately 5 mm. in diameter"; Dr Perry said "roughly 5 mm. in size or so"; Dr. Jones said "probably no larger than a quarter of an inch in diameter."

Jones was out to lunch. Some Parkland witnesses said the throat wound was as small as 3 mm in diameter, and they noted that it was a "puncture" wound. Go read the 11/22/63 Parkland treatment reports. Go read Humes's notes on his phone call with Perry: Humes wrote that Perry told him the throat wound was "3-5 mm" in diameter. 3 mm would be 0.11 inches, or barely 1/10th of an inch. 5 mm would be 0.19 inches, or less than 1/4 of an inch. 8 mm would be 0.31 inches, or less than 1/3 of an inch.

No one, including those with him when he first saw the President, confirmed Ebersole's recollection.

Oh? Really? Robinson said the throat wound he saw was very neat and small, nothing like the big gash seen in the autopsy photos.

While most probably offer honest recollections, lawyers are taught that witness testimony can be unreliable. The witness believes it to be true.

But Ebersole's recollection about the location of the large head wound is corroborated by dozens of other witnesses in three different locations, by the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB, and by autopsy photo F8. His recollection of a late-arriving occipital-bone fragment was inadvertently confirmed by Boswell, in addition to being confirmed by the above-named sources.

[Tim Nickerson]

Wow, you will try to bend and twist anything, won't you? First off, I noticed you snipped and ignored the point that one of the Parkland nurses confirmed that a nurse made the slits and nicked the tie knot. I notice you just snipped and ignored that. I guess perhaps you didn't want to have to resort to calling her a liar or to saying she was "mistaken."

What was the name of the nurse, and where can we read her statement on the matter?

[Bill Chapman]

Circular arguments are so compelling.

Different age, different weight, different clothing
That's it? Full stop? Those are estimations. We all know that.
Where's your 'knowledge-advancement' there, Professor?
Continue to circle those wagons, Tex.

'Circular argument'
I don't seek a desired result
I truck in feasibility

Brennan estimated weight at a distance and angle
Thick neck, bulky shirt a factor

[Tim Nickerson]

I believe it's Diana Bowron. She merited a whole chapter named after her in Livingstone's 1993 book "Killing the Truth".

Todd Vaughan wrote:

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

     In both the interview and the statement, Diana Bowron claims that she saw
     President Kennedy’s throat wound while Kennedy was still in the limousine
     in the Parkland Hospital ambulance bay. In her written statement for
     Livingstone she says:

     "I turned his head, and seeing the entry wound in the front of the throat, I could
     feel no pulse at the jugular."

     Bowron gives no more details in the interview with Livingstone, simply stating
     that she saw the throat wound while the President was still in the car.

     Seeing the wound while the President was still in the car certainly implies that
     the throat wound may have been at least visible above the collar line, and
     possibly actually located above the collar line, assuming that Bowron didn’t
     manipulate the collar at all while feeling for the pulse.

     But incredibly, Livingstone never elicits any more information about this from
     Bowron. He never asks her how she was able to see the wound or whether
     or not it was above the collar line.

     And Bowron never explains, and Livingstone never asks, how she cut off the
     President's clothes.

McKnight writes:

    "Nurse Diane Bowron told Specter “...Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing.”
     (6H 136) The instrument used was a scalpel, Carrico told Weisberg. The
     record of this conversation can be found in the Weisberg Subject Index File
     under “Dr. Carrico,” items 02 and 03."

Apparently, Bowron is a "source" for the use of scalpels only because she help cut off the President's clothing. How do we know scalpels were used? Dr. Carrico "told" Weisberg.

There is a December 1971 note made by Weisberg concerning Dr. Carrico:

     "Clothes cut off by nurses while he did his own emergency work, which precluded
     watching them. Folded back. Usual to cut off and unbutton collar and top shirt.
     Speed essential. Usual to cut tie a single thickness and pull out, not to cut through
     knot. Thinks likely when I described nick in knot and slits in shirt front that slit made
     when cutting tie."

We have no transcript; only Weisberg's interpretation. Carrico may have ventured the tie knot nick was made during removal of clothes, but doesn't say it was a scalpel used. Weisberg thinks a scalpel was used to remove the clothing, therefore Dr. Carrico "confirms" it.

Carrico told the Commission he didn't examine the clothing.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you have any occasion or opportunity to examine the
     President's clothing?
Dr. CARRICO - We did not do that.
Mr. SPECTER - And was no examination of clothing made, Dr. Carrico?
Dr. CARRICO - Again, this was a matter of time. The clothes were removed 
     the nurses, as is the usual practice, and the full attention was devoted to
     trying to resuscitate the President.

Dr. Ronald C. Jones in 2003 points to neck wound location. (from Vaughan)

Thanks Jerry.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And what action did you take at that time, if any?
Miss BOWRON - I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran on with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us.

[John Mytton]

LOL! "Ambiguous"! It is only "ambiguous" in your mind because you don't want to read plain English.

Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir; just where the tie...
Dulles: A little bit to the left.
Dr. Carrico: To the right.

What don't you understand about "You put your hand right above your tie?" and "Yes, sir"? Gosh, this is just silly. If Carrico had meant to put his hand ON his tie, he would have easily done so.

And did you notice that Carrico said it was "the entrance"?

Wow, talk about a complete misunderstanding and inability to interpret the evidence, for a start Carrico was not anatomically identical to Kennedy and wasn't wearing the same fitted shirt or tie, so when Carrico was pointing to the location of the wound on his own body, his Adams apple, the tie and collar is immaterial and using different clothing on someone else's body to locate the wound position is utterly pointless.

Carrico describes in pure anatomical terminology where the wound was on JFK

Mr. SPECTER Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the neck wounds
which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to S-mm. in size, located in the
lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.

As we can see on the actual John F Kennedy is that his Adams apple is in the lower third of his neck, a relatively low position.



And when we overlay JFK at Love Field with the wound location as seen in the autopsy photo, the corresponding position correlates to where we see Kennedy's Adams apple to be, and by coincidence is where the slits are on Kennedy's shirt, how about that!



Btw claiming that the two slits which are not linked to the shirts extremities were cut by a scalpel through a closely buttoned up shirt, right over Kennedy's throat to help in the removal of Kennedy's clothing is absurd, how do you people come up with these bizarre ideas, is anything ever logically thought through?

JohnM