FINCK: "He's Just A Strange Fellow."
GMcNally
Boswell: And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran
the autopsy, he says, "Some Army general." And so that is why--and I
never appeared.
---
A. They were getting ready to. I guess it all depended on what Pierre
did that next day or something. I don't know. All I know is that they-
-he was answering in very strange ways their questions, and, yes, they
sent me down and talked to me and tried to get me to agree that he was
very strange and that I could do a better job or something.
Q. Did you ever talk to him at all after that point?
A. Oh, yes, many times.... We were very good friends.
Q. Do you have any idea why he was answering the questions the way he
was in the Clay Shaw trial?
A. Well, you'll know when you meet him, if and when you meet him. He
is a very strange--but a sharp guy. He was a good pathologist, a hard
worker. He was devoted to the United States and to the Army despite
the fact that he was going back home. But he's a strange guy. I knew
that long before we invited him over to help us on this autopsy. He's
just a strange fellow. //end//
Jerry
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Boswell describes Finck for the ARRB:
>
> Boswell: And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran
> the autopsy, he says, "Some Army general." And so that is why--and I
> never appeared.
> ---
And this from Boswell is in direct contradiction to what you have been
asserting: that there was only one Army General and he said that he was
just in charge of the loading dock. Boswell knows that Finck said that
the Army General said that he was in charge of the autopsy. Not the
loading dock. That is the Finck allegation. Not hearing Humes tell him a
story about an incident on the loading dock.
> A. They were getting ready to. I guess it all depended on what Pierre
> did that next day or something. I don't know. All I know is that they-
> -he was answering in very strange ways their questions, and, yes, they
> sent me down and talked to me and tried to get me to agree that he was
> very strange and that I could do a better job or something.
>
> Q. Did you ever talk to him at all after that point?
>
> A. Oh, yes, many times.... We were very good friends.
>
> Q. Do you have any idea why he was answering the questions the way he
> was in the Clay Shaw trial?
>
> A. Well, you'll know when you meet him, if and when you meet him. He
> is a very strange--but a sharp guy. He was a good pathologist, a hard
> worker. He was devoted to the United States and to the Army despite
> the fact that he was going back home. But he's a strange guy. I knew
> that long before we invited him over to help us on this autopsy. He's
> just a strange fellow. //end//
>
Wow. So Finck is a strange guy. And Humes is a normal guy who thinks the
entrance wound was at the EOP?
Again, you have no facts so you seek to win your arguments by
demonizing. You keep cutting loose these WC witnesses as you find things
they said that you disagree with.
What's next? Are you going to claim that Humes was a cross-dresser or
something?
> Jerry
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
GMcNally
AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message news:<3C97C9AC...@quik.com>...
> GMcNally wrote:
> >
> > Boswell describes Finck for the ARRB:
> >
> > Boswell: And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran
> > the autopsy, he says, "Some Army general." And so that is why--and I
> > never appeared.
> > ---
>
> And this from Boswell is in direct contradiction to what you have been
> asserting: that there was only one Army General and he said that he was
> just in charge of the loading dock.
Tony, you yourself provided testimony by Boswell in which he said the
above!
Boswell is describing something that happened over 30 yrs in the past.
Don't expect his memory to be letter-perfect.
Boswell knows that Finck said that
> the Army General said that he was in charge of the autopsy. Not the
> loading dock. That is the Finck allegation. Not hearing Humes tell him a
> story about an incident on the loading dock.
Good grief! Where does Boswell say that exactly?
> > A. They were getting ready to. I guess it all depended on what Pierre
> > did that next day or something. I don't know. All I know is that they-
> > -he was answering in very strange ways their questions, and, yes, they
> > sent me down and talked to me and tried to get me to agree that he was
> > very strange and that I could do a better job or something.
> >
> > Q. Did you ever talk to him at all after that point?
> >
> > A. Oh, yes, many times.... We were very good friends.
> >
> > Q. Do you have any idea why he was answering the questions the way he
> > was in the Clay Shaw trial?
> >
> > A. Well, you'll know when you meet him, if and when you meet him. He
> > is a very strange--but a sharp guy. He was a good pathologist, a hard
> > worker. He was devoted to the United States and to the Army despite
> > the fact that he was going back home. But he's a strange guy. I knew
> > that long before we invited him over to help us on this autopsy. He's
> > just a strange fellow. //end//
> Wow. So Finck is a strange guy. And Humes is a normal guy who thinks the
> entrance wound was at the EOP?
Another bizarre Tony Marsh comment!
> Again, you have no facts so you seek to win your arguments by
> demonizing. You keep cutting loose these WC witnesses as you find things
> they said that you disagree with.
> What's next? Are you going to claim that Humes was a cross-dresser or
> something?
I wouldn't be surprised if you came up with that -- in line with your
bizarre comments in general.
I see why you conspiracy folk get nowhere: you have a one track mind:
conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy.
You guys couldn't solve a nickle robbery at a lemonade stand!
Jerry
>
> > Jerry
GMcNally
Anthony replies,
<ama...@quik.com> wrote in message news:<3C97C9AC...@quik.com>...
> GMcNally wrote:
> >
> > Boswell describes Finck for the ARRB:
> >
> > Boswell: And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran
> > the autopsy, he says, "Some Army general." And so that is why--and I
> > never appeared.
> And this from Boswell is in direct contradiction to what you have been
> asserting: that there was only one Army General and he said that he was
> just in charge of the loading dock. Boswell knows that Finck said that
> the Army General said that he was in charge of the autopsy. Not the
> loading dock. That is the Finck allegation. Not hearing Humes tell him a
> story about an incident on the loading dock.
Boswell is just recording his impression of
what Finck said in NO. He is not confirming anything. He was ready to
correct this nonsense, but, was never called after Finck testified
that their conclusions and their report were THEIR OWN.
> > A. They were getting ready to. I guess it all depended on what Pierre
> > did that next day or something. I don't know. All I know is that they-
> > -he was answering in very strange ways their questions, and, yes, they
> > sent me down and talked to me and tried to get me to agree that he was
> > very strange and that I could do a better job or something.
> >
> > Q. Did you ever talk to him at all after that point?
> >
> > A. Oh, yes, many times.... We were very good friends.
> >
> > Q. Do you have any idea why he was answering the questions the way he
> > was in the Clay Shaw trial?
> >
> > A. Well, you'll know when you meet him, if and when you meet him. He
> > is a very strange--but a sharp guy. He was a good pathologist, a hard
> > worker. He was devoted to the United States and to the Army despite
> > the fact that he was going back home. But he's a strange guy. I knew
> > that long before we invited him over to help us on this autopsy. He's
> > just a strange fellow. //end//
> Wow. So Finck is a strange guy. And Humes is a normal guy who thinks the
> entrance wound was at the EOP?
> Again, you have no facts so you seek to win your arguments by
> demonizing. You keep cutting loose these WC witnesses as you find things
> they said that you disagree with.
> What's next? Are you going to claim that Humes was a cross-dresser or
> something?
I thought somebody might be interested in what Boswell had to say
about why Finck testified in such a strange manner in New Orleans.
I guess you have your mind made up, Tony, and are not interested in
anything that challenges your notions.
Look, if you can't read testimony and can't think straight, then,
please be my guest and believe anything you like!
That demonstrates why you guys are so confused about this case!
Jerry
>
> > Jerry
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Tony,
>
> AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message news:<3C97C9AC...@quik.com>...
> > GMcNally wrote:
> > >
> > > Boswell describes Finck for the ARRB:
> > >
> > > Boswell: And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran
> > > the autopsy, he says, "Some Army general." And so that is why--and I
> > > never appeared.
> > > ---
> >
> > And this from Boswell is in direct contradiction to what you have been
> > asserting: that there was only one Army General and he said that he was
> > just in charge of the loading dock.
>
> Tony, you yourself provided testimony by Boswell in which he said the
> above!
>
Boswell describes what he knows that Finck testified to. And that
allegation has nothing to do with the loading dock.
> Boswell is describing something that happened over 30 yrs in the past.
> Don't expect his memory to be letter-perfect.
>
Great. Give me a cutoff date? Anything that anyone says after that date
will be ignored, even if it supports your wacky conspiracy theory. Why
not be a purist WC defender and only accept things said in WC testimony?
Just ignore everything else.
> Boswell knows that Finck said that
> > the Army General said that he was in charge of the autopsy. Not the
> > loading dock. That is the Finck allegation. Not hearing Humes tell him a
> > story about an incident on the loading dock.
>
> Good grief! Where does Boswell say that exactly?
>
I already posted that. Boswell is describing what he found out that
Finck testified to. And that was Finck's testimony that some mystery man
told them to not dissect the wound track. I don't think that they were
out on the loading dock dissecting anything. IMHO.
> > > A. They were getting ready to. I guess it all depended on what Pierre
> > > did that next day or something. I don't know. All I know is that they-
> > > -he was answering in very strange ways their questions, and, yes, they
> > > sent me down and talked to me and tried to get me to agree that he was
> > > very strange and that I could do a better job or something.
> > >
> > > Q. Did you ever talk to him at all after that point?
> > >
> > > A. Oh, yes, many times.... We were very good friends.
> > >
> > > Q. Do you have any idea why he was answering the questions the way he
> > > was in the Clay Shaw trial?
> > >
> > > A. Well, you'll know when you meet him, if and when you meet him. He
> > > is a very strange--but a sharp guy. He was a good pathologist, a hard
> > > worker. He was devoted to the United States and to the Army despite
> > > the fact that he was going back home. But he's a strange guy. I knew
> > > that long before we invited him over to help us on this autopsy. He's
> > > just a strange fellow. //end//
>
> > Wow. So Finck is a strange guy. And Humes is a normal guy who thinks the
> > entrance wound was at the EOP?
>
> Another bizarre Tony Marsh comment!
>
Well, demonization seems to be your only arguing tactic. So why not also
demonize Humes?
> > Again, you have no facts so you seek to win your arguments by
> > demonizing. You keep cutting loose these WC witnesses as you find things
> > they said that you disagree with.
> > What's next? Are you going to claim that Humes was a cross-dresser or
> > something?
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if you came up with that -- in line with your
> bizarre comments in general.
>
> I see why you conspiracy folk get nowhere: you have a one track mind:
> conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy.
>
Nice try. But you seem to be picking it up too. You think the autopsy
was a conspiracy.
> You guys couldn't solve a nickle robbery at a lemonade stand!
>
> Jerry
>
> >
> > > Jerry
GMcNally
> GMcNally wrote:
> >
> > Tony,
> >
> > AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message news:<3C97C9AC...@quik.com>...
> > > GMcNally wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Boswell describes Finck for the ARRB:
> > > >
> > > > Boswell: And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran
> > > > the autopsy, he says, "Some Army general." And so that is why--and I
> > > > never appeared.
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > And this from Boswell is in direct contradiction to what you have been
> > > asserting: that there was only one Army General and he said that he was
> > > just in charge of the loading dock.
> >
> > Tony, you yourself provided testimony by Boswell in which he said the
> > above!
Tony,
> Boswell describes what he knows that Finck testified to. And that
> allegation has nothing to do with the loading dock.
If you want to believe that Humes and Gen Wehle had the same
question-response both on the loading dock and again in the morgue, be
my guest.
As I asked - why can't the buffs sort things out?
> > Boswell is describing something that happened over 30 yrs in the past.
> > Don't expect his memory to be letter-perfect.
> Great. Give me a cutoff date? Anything that anyone says after that date
> will be ignored, even if it supports your wacky conspiracy theory. Why
> not be a purist WC defender and only accept things said in WC testimony?
> Just ignore everything else.
> > Boswell knows that Finck said that
> > > the Army General said that he was in charge of the autopsy. Not the
> > > loading dock. That is the Finck allegation. Not hearing Humes tell him a
> > > story about an incident on the loading dock.
> >
> > Good grief! Where does Boswell say that exactly?
> >
>
> I already posted that. Boswell is describing what he found out that
> Finck testified to. And that was Finck's testimony that some mystery man
> told them to not dissect the wound track. I don't think that they were
> out on the loading dock dissecting anything. IMHO.
If you want to believe this, then, be my guest.
You demonstrate in spades why buffs can't sort things out.
> > > > A. They were getting ready to. I guess it all depended on what Pierre
> > > > did that next day or something. I don't know. All I know is that they-
> > > > -he was answering in very strange ways their questions, and, yes, they
> > > > sent me down and talked to me and tried to get me to agree that he was
> > > > very strange and that I could do a better job or something.
> > > >
> > > > Q. Did you ever talk to him at all after that point?
> > > >
> > > > A. Oh, yes, many times.... We were very good friends.
> > > >
> > > > Q. Do you have any idea why he was answering the questions the way he
> > > > was in the Clay Shaw trial?
> > > >
> > > > A. Well, you'll know when you meet him, if and when you meet him. He
> > > > is a very strange--but a sharp guy. He was a good pathologist, a hard
> > > > worker. He was devoted to the United States and to the Army despite
> > > > the fact that he was going back home. But he's a strange guy. I knew
> > > > that long before we invited him over to help us on this autopsy. He's
> > > > just a strange fellow. //end//
>
> > > Wow. So Finck is a strange guy. And Humes is a normal guy who thinks the
> > > entrance wound was at the EOP?
> >
> > Another bizarre Tony Marsh comment!
> Well, demonization seems to be your only arguing tactic. So why not also
> demonize Humes?
I don't know what your point is. From the manner in which you're
writing I think I'll maybe "demonize" you; or else ignore your inane
"reasoning" and "weighing" of testimony.
To my way of thinking you guys are hopeless screwups who couldn't
solve a 5 cent robbery at a popsicle stand.
And you demonstrate that with every post in this thread.
Jerry
GrgPrnc
Then why do you post here? JFK has been dead 40 years, you seem to have
your notions on it and your mind will not change in spite of every CS
piece of evidence and logic that JFK was assasinated by more than one
shooter....why don't you go and live happily believing that LHO did kill
him , acting alone, in 2 hits....
Just a thought Jerry
G.
GMcNally
Usually to share something I've read, such as the statement by Boswell
about Finck that may be of use in understanding the man.
Of course, you've never commented on any of issues I've raised. You
seem not to be knowledgeable about this case and, thus, unable to.
Jerry
GrgPrnc
>anything that challenges your notions.
>
Hmmm Jerry, are you aware that you are engaging in a projective mechanism
(from a psychoanalitic positon)....You seem to cherish ad hominem
attacks...Whats that about?
GrgPrnc
>seem not to be knowledgeable about this case and, thus, unable to.
a) you do not respond to my comments, except when they fit your position
b) I am deeply hurt (not)
AnthonyMarsh
>
> AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message news:<3C98ACB5...@quik.com>...
> > GMcNally wrote:
> > >
> > > Tony,
> > >
> > > AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message news:<3C97C9AC...@quik.com>...
> > > > GMcNally wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Boswell describes Finck for the ARRB:
> > > > >
> > > > > Boswell: And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran
> > > > > the autopsy, he says, "Some Army general." And so that is why--and I
> > > > > never appeared.
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > And this from Boswell is in direct contradiction to what you have been
> > > > asserting: that there was only one Army General and he said that he was
> > > > just in charge of the loading dock.
> > >
> > > Tony, you yourself provided testimony by Boswell in which he said the
> > > above!
>
> Tony,
>
> > Boswell describes what he knows that Finck testified to. And that
> > allegation has nothing to do with the loading dock.
>
> If you want to believe that Humes and Gen Wehle had the same
> question-response both on the loading dock and again in the morgue, be
> my guest.
>
No thanks. That's not what I stated and it is not what I believe. I do not
believe that General Wehle was the mystery Army General in the morgue.
> As I asked - why can't the buffs sort things out?
>
> > > Boswell is describing something that happened over 30 yrs in the past.
> > > Don't expect his memory to be letter-perfect.
>
> > Great. Give me a cutoff date? Anything that anyone says after that date
> > will be ignored, even if it supports your wacky conspiracy theory. Why
> > not be a purist WC defender and only accept things said in WC testimony?
> > Just ignore everything else.
>
> > > Boswell knows that Finck said that
> > > > the Army General said that he was in charge of the autopsy. Not the
> > > > loading dock. That is the Finck allegation. Not hearing Humes tell him a
> > > > story about an incident on the loading dock.
> > >
> > > Good grief! Where does Boswell say that exactly?
> > >
> >
> > I already posted that. Boswell is describing what he found out that
> > Finck testified to. And that was Finck's testimony that some mystery man
> > told them to not dissect the wound track. I don't think that they were
> > out on the loading dock dissecting anything. IMHO.
>
> If you want to believe this, then, be my guest.
>
I'd rather believe that than believe that the autopsy was being
conducted out on the loading dock.
GMcNally
I'm hoping that you will present evidence for your claims that there
was a "mystery man" in the Bethesda morgue.
And while you're at it, provide some evidence that Humes asked twice,
"Who's in charge?", and was answered twice by Army Generals - ie, two
different Army generals.
I know you hold a lot of cards up your sleeve, Tony. Now's the time to
start playing them.
Jerry
<ama...@quik.com> wrote in message news:<3C9FB1CA...@quik.com>...
Gary Aguilar
[sniiiiip]
The question of military interference in JFK's autopsy is an
interesting one.
In "Trauma Room One," I wrote about it at length:
The greatest problem was that JFK's postmortem called for an
experienced, hands-on, forensic pathologist, but the military failed
to provide one. What the military did provide was Navy Commander James
H. Humes. He was then the senior operating pathologist at Bethesda
Naval Hospital and, overall, a competent general pathologist who was
entrusted with teaching resident physician pathologists. So while in
the grand scheme of things Humes was a good pathologist, he was
clearly over his head when the President was wheeled into the morgue.
His first assistant, Navy Commander J. Thornton Boswell, was in Humes'
league - certainly a competent generalist, but not up to this
particular task.
Army Colonel Pierre Finck, MD, a consultant from the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, was belatedly brought in. Though a properly
accredited forensic specialist, the colonel was out of his league and
out of his element. Describing his predicament as a lower-ranking Army
officer in a Navy morgue, Finck admitted, "They were admirals, and
when you are a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army you just follow
orders." The famed New York City coroner Milton Helpern, MD, has laid
out the problem particularly well: "Colonel Finck's position
throughout the entire proceeding was extremely uncomfortable. If it
had not been for him, the autopsy would not have been handled as well
as it was; but he was in the role of the poor bastard Army child
foisted into the Navy family reunion. He was the only one of the three
doctors with any experience with bullet wounds; but you have to
remember that his experience was limited primarily to 'reviewing'
files, pictures, and records of finished cases. There's a world of
difference between standing at the autopsy table and trying to decide
whether a hole in the body is a wound of entrance or a wound of exit,
and in reviewing another man's work at some later date in the relaxed,
academic atmosphere of a private office … ."
While Finck would certainly have been able to insure that the basics
would be covered, Humes and Boswell unwisely elected to start the exam
before Finck arrived. By the time Finck got there, 30 minutes into the
proceedings, the fatal skull wound had already been pulled apart and
JFK's brain had been removed. After he arrived, Finck offered
suggestions, took notes (that are now missing), and mostly watched
while Humes and Boswell did the actual manual work. This led to
additional, avoidable failings.
For example, even though Finck was the first to recognize that JFK had
a wound in the back, he didn't perform the customary delicate probing
and examination such a wound deserved. Instead, Humes performed that
examination, by crudely sticking his finger into the wound. Some of
the subtle forensic clues it might have yielded were probably lost, a
casualty of Humes' lack of forensics training and Finck's outsider
status.
THE QUESTION OF INTERFERENCE
JFK's postmortem wasn't helped by the fact the pathologists probably
felt under the gun to finish quickly. On the 17th floor of the
hospital sat the mortified and exhausted Kennedy family entourage.
More than once there were calls down to the morgue to inquire about
the progress of the examination and how much more time would be
required. Might the military have buckled to Kennedy family pressure?
There was at least one good reason to suppose it had. Although the Air
Force Institute of Pathology was by far the best place for a murder
autopsy, and although the Institute was recommended to the Kennedy
family, Jackie picked the less expert Naval hospital at Bethesda
instead. Her reason? Not because she could control the Navy, but
merely because Jack had been a lieutenant in the Navy. This is not to
say Bethesda was a bad hospital; it wasn't. It was an active teaching
hospital with an active autopsy service in 1963. But its cases came
overwhelmingly from deaths due to natural causes, not murder. So the
pathology staff had little experience with the types of injuries JFK
sustained, and there was no "on-campus" forensic pathologist handy
when they needed one.
Historian William Manchester, author Gus Russo, and John Lattimer,
MD, a urologist who has published articles and a book about the
Kennedy case, have all argued that Kennedy family interference goes a
long way towards explaining the failings of JFK's autopsy. However,
the weight of the evidence, including some new evidence, suggests that
the Kennedy family cannot be faulted for the most important failings
of JFK's post mortem. (Not even the discredited Warren
Commission loyalist Gerald Posner believes they can. ) It is more
likely that the military deserves that distinction.
For example, one cannot rule out the possibility that the Kennedy
family tried to prevent an examination of JFK's Addison's
disease-ravaged adrenal glands, then a dark family secret. But in 1993
in JAMA, Finck recalled that, "The Kennedy family did not want us to
examine the abdominal cavity, but the abdominal cavity was examined."
And indeed it was. Kennedy was completely disemboweled. So while
there's no indisputable proof, perhaps the family did request that
JFK's abdominal cavity, which houses the adrenals, be left alone,
especially since JFK suffered no abdominal injuries. If Finck was
right, so much for the military's cutting corners to kowtow to the
Kennedys' need for speed. The doctors were not entirely insensitive to
family wishes, however. They kept mum about JFK's atrophied adrenal
glands, even 30 years later, in JAMA. But by then Kennedy's Addison's
disease was an open secret, having been already discussed by Lattimer
in his 1980 book.
Though they might have been unsuccessful in keeping the military out
of JFK's belly, it is not unreasonable to wonder if the family might
have otherwise interfered. The simple answer is that they probably
didn't, at least not in any way that influenced the outcome. Under
oath to the ARRB, Humes admitted that JFK's personal physician,
Burkley, seemed keen to move things along, but "as far as telling me
what to do or how to do it, absolutely, irrevocably, no." By way of
explanation, Humes made the obvious point that, since Burkley was not
a pathologist, "he wouldn't presume to do such a thing." Boswell told
the ARRB that they were "not at all" in any rush or under any
compulsion to hurry. "It was always an extension of the autopsy,"
that was encouraged, "rather than further restrictions." Similarly,
after an interview with the Commanding officer of the Naval Medical
Center, the HSCA reported that, "[Admiral Calvin B.] Galloway said
that he was present throughout the autopsy," and that, "no orders were
being sent in from outside the autopsy room either by phone or by
person." (emphasis added) In a sworn affidavit executed for the HSCA
on November 28, 1978, JFK's personal physician, Admiral George
Burkley, claimed, "I directed the autopsy surgeon to do a complete
autopsy and take the time necessary for completion."
The family didn't, for example, select the sub par autopsists;
military authorities did. Realizing how over their heads they were,
JFK's pathologists told Lattimer that they (wisely) requested to have
nonmilitary forensic consultants called in. Permission was denied.
The Autopsy of the Century was thus left in the hands of backbenchers.
Given the "can do" mentality so prevalent in the military, this
shortcut isn't surprising. But it is one the family didn't take. Had
the government but asked, it is impossible to imagine that any expert
forensic pathologist in the entire country would have refused his duty
during this time of national tragedy, or that the family would have
objected.
The HSCA explored the question of the family's role in considerable
detail in 1978, concluding that, other than (reasonably) requesting
the exam be done as expeditiously as possible, the Kennedys did not
interfere in the autopsy. Moreover, in an important legal matter, RFK
left blank the space marked "restrictions" in the permit he signed for
his brother's autopsy.
While a compelling case for family interference is difficult to
sustain, a case can be made that there was at least some interference
in JFK's autopsy. The most glaring errors - the selection of
inexperienced pathologists and the exclusion of available, experienced
ones, the failure to dissect JFK's back wound, and the failure to
obtain his clothing - had nothing to do with camouflaging JFK's secret
disease, or even with significantly speeding the examination.
(Dissecting the back wound would have taken not much more than one
hour. JFK was in the morgue more than eight.) Nor is it at all likely
the Kennedys would have imposed those specific restrictions, in the
off chance they had even thought of them. Instead, these peculiar
decisions are more likely to have come from the military.
MILITARY MEDDLING IN JFK's AUTOPSY?
Why does suspicion for meddling fall to the military? Because it would
have taken someone high in the military to deny the pathologists'
sensible request for the civilian experts they so badly needed. Finck,
who was not a practicing forensic pathologist, simply wasn't the sort
of expert the situation called for. Though certified in forensic
pathology, the House Select Committee determined that Finck had not
done a hands-on forensic autopsy, or any autopsy, in two years. But
refusing Humes's call for expert assistance is not the only reason to
wonder about military meddling.
For example, it is impossible to imagine that, unless ordered to do
so, JFK's pathologists would have otherwise destroyed original autopsy
notes and signed false declarations, which, as we will see, they did.
(Would civilians have done such things?) There is also the disturbing
testimony of Pierre Finck during the controversial 1968 trial of Clay
Shaw in New Orleans. It was this testimony, and not Oliver Stone's
movie, that persuaded many that JFK's autopsy was not as unfettered as
had been reported in JAMA.
"WHO IS IN CHARGE HERE?"
Under oath in 1969 at the trial of Clay Shaw, Finck testified that
during the autopsy, Humes, the ranking pathologist, had asked, "Who is
in charge here?" Finck said that an Army General, whose name Finck
said he could not recall, answered, "I am." Finck was then asked,
"Was this Army General a qualified pathologist?" "No," said Finck.
"Was he a doctor?" Finck answered, "No, not to my knowledge." Finck's
astounding claim that a non-physician was calling the shots was
rebutted in JAMA in a manner that both typified the slovenly nature of
the journal's work and only added to suspicions.
Humes had indignantly insisted in JAMA that, "There was no
interference with our autopsy … Nobody tried to interfere."
Apparently rebutting Finck's testimony, Humes recounted an episode
that was eerily similar to the one Finck had sworn to. Humes said that
that before the autopsy he accosted an unknown man with a camera on
the loading dock outside the morgue. Humes says he asked of the group
that had assembled on the dock, "Who's in charge here?" "The answer,"
JAMA reassured, "was only 2 feet away, as a man in full military dress
(who 'was some general representing the military section of the
District of Columbia') answered, 'I am. Who wants to know?'"
The two incidents could not have been the same one. The one Humes
described occurred on the loading dock outside the morgue, before the
autopsy had started, and so before Finck had arrived. Finck testified
that Humes had asked "Who is in charge here?" during the autopsy. The
obvious discrepancies between these episodes were not appreciated by
JAMA. Nor, even, were they grasped by the HSCA's forensic consultants,
to whom Humes had treated to the same irrelevant, if not purposely
deceptive, story when its chairman, Michael Baden, gently inquired
about Humes' asking who was in charge during the autopsy. The
controversy was always who controlled the autopsy, not the loading
dock. This odd coincidence has contributed to other suspicions about
Humes' trustworthiness on the question of interference during JFK's
autopsy.
JFK'S INCOMPLETE AUTOPSY
Dated November 22, 1963, the Navy "Clinical Record Authorization for
Post Mortem Examination, U.S. Naval Hospital, Bethesda, Md." gave
Humes the following directive: "You are hereby authorized to perform a
complete post mortem examination on the remains of John F. Kennedy …
This authority shall be limited only by the conditions expressly
stated below." No restrictions were indicated on the form, which had
been signed by JFK's brother, Robert Kennedy, and the President's
personal physician, George Burkley, who, as already discussed, swore
in an affidavit there were no restrictions placed on JFK's autopsy. It
is likely that Jackie had also authorized a complete autopsy because
her name was typed at the bottom of the form. The HSCA found that,
though a complete autopsy had been authorized, JFK got an incomplete
one instead.
At least one of the reasons Humes did not perform one may have been
revealed in a memorandum from, of all places, CBS. In November 1993, a
once-confidential, internal memo written in 1967 by a CBS executive
(Bob Richter) was published by a committee chaired by Representative
John Conyers. The memo described a conversation that Humes had had in
1967 with a personal friend, another CBS executive, Jim Snyder. In the
memo Richter described Snyder's conversation with the pathologist,
saying, "Humes also said he had orders from someone he refused to
disclose - other than stating it was not Robert Kennedy - to not do a
complete autopsy." [This accords with Admiral Galloway's report that
"no orders were being sent in from outside the autopsy room either by
phone or by person."] So if not Robert Kennedy, who then, besides a
higher-ranking officer than Humes, could have stalled the surgeon's
scalpel? Though the memo was given to Rep. Conyers by an attorney,
Roger Feinman, George Lundberg may nonetheless be responsible for it's
reaching the public. For Feinman sent the memo to Conyers after he
publicly debated Lundberg about JFK in Chicago in April, 1993.
Besides Finck's report that an Army General claimed he was in charge
during Kennedy's autopsy, and Humes confidential admission that
someone outside the family limited the exam, Finck and Humes also gave
additional, persuasive reasons to suspect there was high-level
meddling.
RUDIMENTARY EXAMINATIONS LEFT UNDONE
During the Shaw trial, Finck testified that he was ordered not to
dissect JFK's back wound by a superior in the morgue whose name, like
the "in-charge" general, just wouldn't come to mind. Defending his
failure to perform this key exam, Finck testified, "Because we were
told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that [the
dissection of the neck wound] doesn't include the removal of the
organs of the neck." Finck's version was corroborated by Lattimer
who, after an interview with Humes, reported that, "[Commander Humes's
and Boswell's] request for permission to dissect out this bullet hole,
which led into the upper back and possibly into the neck, was denied."
No further information was provided to answer the obvious next
question, "By whom?" The CBS memo suggests it wasn't RFK.
And then there is the fascinating 1965 memo Finck sent to his
superior, General Joe Blumberg, the man who ordered Finck to report to
JFK's autopsy team. Conveniently absent in JAMA's glowing account, in
this memo Finck informed Blumberg that, "I was denied the opportunity
to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer who out-ranked me told
me that my request was only of academic interest." It is impossible
to imagine that any physician would have ever denied a forensic
expert's request to examine JFK's clothes on the grounds they were
"only of academic interest."
Both the dissection of Kennedy's back wound and the inspection of his
clothes would have been aspects of the most rudimentary search for
clues to the trajectory of the shots. Humes' being denied permission
for these exams, as well as being directed to do an incomplete
autopsy, suggests control of the autopsy did not rest with the
physicians. Had Humes really been in charge, it is impossible to
imagine that he, of all people, would have refused his own
consultant's access to JFK's back wound. Nor Finck's access to JFK's
clothes, especially since in JAMA, Humes lamented that, "If only we
had seen the President's clothes, tracking the second bullet would
have been a piece of cake, but we didn't have the clothes." (Though
outside the scope of this discussion, it would have been of
considerable interest if the autopsists had examined JFK's clothes,
because matching holes in JFK's shirt and coat were found well below
where they appear in autopsy photographs of JFK's back.)
Ironically, the clothes were probably already in the morgue, or at
least no further away than Air Force One. Secret Service agent William
Greer, the driver of JFK's limousine who then accompanied the
President's corpse on Air Force One, was present in the morgue during
the entire autopsy. He testified that at Parkland Hospital he took
sole possession of JFK's clothes, and he said that, "I had this, his
clothing, I kept it in my hand at all times, all the time."
Recapping, in New Orleans Finck testified an Army General said he was
in charge of the autopsy, while Humes apparently confided that he was
ordered to not do a complete autopsy by someone other than Robert
Kennedy. Finck, Boswell and Humes claimed permission to dissect JFK's
back wound was denied. And in his 1965 Blumberg memo, Finck said he
was denied JFK's clothes. Finck's statements during the Shaw trial, it
should be emphasized, carry considerable weight given that Finck's
reluctant, yet sworn, admissions were, in essence, an admission
'against the interest' of his employer, the military.
So was there interference in JFK's autopsy? You bet. But by the
military, not the Kennedys.
Gary
Gary
AnthonyMarsh
I hate to quote the entire message just to add one comment, but I want to
keep the context. I tend to agree with you nearly 100% on this topic. My
only caveat is that just because someone is obstentibly an Army General
does not mean that he is representing the military. I might remind you of
General Lansdale. He remained under the cover of being an Army General
while he was employed by the CIA. Many military have served in the CIA. I
am not saying or confirming that it was General Lansdale. That is not my
point. My point is that the mystery Army General could in fact have been
working for one of the intelligence agencies. I would also remind all that
almost all the personnel in the National Security Agency ( as my father
was ) were actually Army officers. So, just to state that someone was an
Army officer does not mean that he was acting on behalf of the military.
There is another government beyond the official one.
Gary Aguilar
Anthony,
A point well made and accepted sans quibble.
Your point should not obscure the fact that, whether acting as an
intelligence agent or not, the "Army general" was using his military
authority to hamper the Autopsy of the Century. He may also, as you
suggest, have been acting under the authority of intelligence, but he
was only successful because of his military muscle.
Thanks for the comment.
Gary
Paul Seaton
PROBING:
########
"Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: ### I did. ###
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This
was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
created a false passage. " (Finck, Shaw trial.)
"I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection with
the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search. They probed the
wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a metal probe."(Sibert HSCA
written statement)
IE the back wound was probed.
PERMISSIONS
###########
"THE ORGANS OF THE NECK WERE NOT REMOVED: THE
PRESIDENT'S FAMILY INSISTED TO HAVE ONLY THE HEAD EXAMINED Later, the
permission
was extended to the CHEST. "
(Finck, letter to Blumberg, 1965)
This is a couple of years before the Shaw trial, in a private letter to his
CO. It suggests that Finck, at the trial, was trying to put the 'blame' for
a dissection which they didn't do, which they had little reason to do,
believing the bullet had gone in the back & fallen out the back, on an
anonymous 'General' rather than publicly point the finger at Burkley, & thus
effectively at the Kennedys.
The only 'Generals' present - according to the FBI guys - seem to have been
McHugh ( Air Force, extremely upset.. ) & Wehle (only present in the morgue
towards the end of the autopsy ).
" Q Was it your understanding that the
instructions about the scope of the autopsy were,
however, coming from Dr. Burkley?
A Oh, yes." (Boswell, ARRB)
" You see, Mrs. Kennedy
and the Attorney General were upstairs in the
hospital. She had stated she wasn't going to leave
there until she could accompany the President's
body to the White House. And Admiral Burkley was
anxious that that period be shortened to as much--
you know, as much as possible. ...
George Burkley, his main concern was let's
get it over with as fast as we could, and we had
big problems, and we couldn't get it over with as
fast as he would have liked it to have been
completed. " (Humes ARRB)
THE THROAT WOUND
###################
At the autopsy the throat wound was seen as being simply a trach.
There was no compelling reason to dissect out a bullet path in the back
*which they thought went precisely nowhere*:
"Q: Colonel, you said you remember Agent Kellerman being in the autopsy
room. Do you re- member having a conversation with Agent Kellerman at the
time you were examining this wound of the President, and talking about that
particular wound you said to the Agent that there were no lanes for an
outlet of the shoulder wound? Do you remember telling him that, sir?
A: I remember stating that at the time I examined the wound of entry in the
back I didn't find an exit corresponding to this entry. I don't remember to
whom it was, it may have been Mr. Kellerman, it may have been one of the two
FBI Agents. " (Finck, Shaw trial)
"FINCK : Having a wound of entry and no wound of exit, and negative X-rays
showing
no bullets in the cadaver at that time, the time of the autopsy, I was
puzzled by the fact of having an entry and no exit. However, this cleared up
after the conversation between Dr. Humes and the surgeons at Dallas who
stated that included a small wound in the front of the neck in their
incision of tracheotomy to keep the breathing of the President up.
Q: On the night of the 22nd of November you did have occasion to see the
wound in the area of the throat?
A: On the skin?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I examined the surgical incision, but I don't recall seeing the small
wound de- scribed by the Dallas surgeons. It was part of the surgical
incision and I didn't see it.
Q: You saw the incision.
A: In the front of the neck, definitely. " (Finck Shaw trial)
IE Finck had no reason to think a bullet went right through the neck.
"Q: Did you dissect any area of the neck muscles which might have been
thought to be an exit wound of the President's neck.
THE COURT: He said he didn't dissect anything.
THE WITNESS: I made some measurement of, of course to determine the wound,
this was the wound of entry in the back of the neck and I examined both
edges of the surgeon's surgical incision in the front of the neck. I don't
remember a dissection of this area. I remember a very close gross
examination. "(Finck Shaw trial)
IE Finck had no reason to think a bullet went right through the neck.
They had no idea until SATURDAY that throat wound was anything other than a
trach.
The back wound could not be probed.
There was no bullet in the body.
They concluded:
"Dr. HUMES stated that the
pattern was clear that one bullet had entered the President's back and
had worked its way out of the body during external cardiac massage" (S & O
report)
What would be the urgent need to spend an hour dissecting out a wound that
they were convinced went nowhere? ("The first fraction of an inch")
CIVILIAN NOTE BURNING
#####################
Earl Rose was a civilian :
"Dr. ROSE. [re Humes supposed note burning] Could the record reflect that
Mr. Oswald's preliminary documents,
also at a much later time, Mr. Ruby's documents, the preliminary ones, were
similarly taken care of-
Dr. HUMES. I don't wish to apologize because I don't think that an apology
is
necessary, but I'd like for this document, for the record, to reflect
exactly what
happened, some place, as it did.
.
Dr. BOSWELL. As to the previous comment, I have frequently redrawn diagrams
that might have gotten a spot of blood on them.
Dr. HUNES. Now, I didn't redraw Jay's, and don't ask me why, because it was,
I guess it was because I didn't have another piece of paper and I didn't
want to
sit down and reproduce a drawing.
Dr. ROSE. Doctor, I apologize for doing it in the case of Mr. Oswald.
Dr. BADEN. Let the record note that the previous speaker, Dr. Rose, did
perform
the autopsies on Mr. Oswald and Mr. Ruby." (Humes & Boswell FPP interview)
Earl Rose 'did it' in the case of LHO.
I agree that Humes latterly began inventing yarns about some (supposed)
notes of his (which I don't believe ever existed).
"Basically I was the one taking notes" (Boswell ARRB - from memory)
The reason for this was to cover for 2 awkward facts: 1) They missed the
throat wound entirely 2) There had no measurements taken at the autopsy for
the location of the supposed eop skull entry wound, which was (imho) more
or less 'invented' after the fact.
Claiming to have 'burned' notes which supposedly documented these findings
solved the problem "why no measurements for these things in your notes?".
WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE? :
#######################
" ### I supervised the autopsy #### and directed the fixation and retention
of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets. "
(Burkley , HSCA affidavit)
"O'Connor told me that Burkley gave the orders in the autopsy room, and that
it was him that told them not to probe the neck wound. "Don't do that
because the family doesn't want you to do that." He said that the room was
half crazy with confusion, pandemonium. The doctors were frightened and were
paper pushers with little experience. "Humes was real freaky. They were
scared to death anyway when they got down there. And then Admiral Burkiey
started screaming at them." " (Paul O'Connor, interview Livingstone HT2)
"He said that "Admiral Burkley was a maniac. I'd never seen anybody like
that in this life. Scared the hell out of me, I'll tell you. He was yellin'
and cussin' and carrying on all night." He said that Burkley "kept saying,
'Don't do this because the Kennedy family won't want that done and don't do
this and don't do that.' It's just unbelievable.
"See, that's the reason that such, well, number one, the poor guys that did
the autopsy-Boswell and Humes . . ." "(Paul O'Connor, interview Livingstone
HT2)
"He indicated that ## DR. BURKLEY was basically supervising everything that
went
on in the autopsy room and that the commanding officer was also
responding to BURKLEY's wishes. ## He indicated that ROBERT MCNAMARA
seemed to have acted as liaison between the family and DR. BURKLEY,
and that MCNAMARA kept his head throughout. " (Boswell HSCA interview)
...................
"--stated that Burkely supervised autopsy acting as
liaison for family -
formal permission.
autopsy began without written
--Burkely was not interested in a full autopsy - they
were only looking for the bullet -"
(Boswell summary of hsca interview)
................
"Dr. BADEN. But you did at some point consult with Admiral Burkley as to
how far to go?
Dr. HUMES. Well, early on. His desire was, he's a physician, he's a family
physician, he was the family physician to the President's family, his
concerns were, I think, very understandable in light of the emotional
attitude of the
family. " (Humes & Boswell HSCA fpp)
.....................
"O'Neill also stated, that as he understood it,
"Mrs. Kennedy gave permission for a partial autopsy" and
that Dr. George Burkley reiterated her remarks. O'Neill
feels that there was "no question" that Burkley was con-
veying the wishes of the Kennedy family. "
(O'Neill HSCA interview)
..................
"There was talk about consultation with Mrs. Kennedy before going ahead with
contemplated X-Rays and incisions. I believe that there were a couple of
liaison people to Mrs. Kennedy present. I had the impression that the
doctors
were getting clearances for certain phases of the autopsy from the Kennedy
family."(Sibert HSCA written statement)
.................
"A: No further than what's stated here. I
know that the authority for these autopsy
proceedings was, evidently, coming through Burkley .
and probably from Mrs. Kennedy." (Sibert ARRB)
..............
The evidence for Burkley's 'interference' is overwhelming.
The evidence for 'The General's' interference is limited to one statement by
Finck in 67 which contradicts his 1965 letter to his CO :
"THE ORGANS OF THE NECK WERE NOT REMOVED: ## THE
PRESIDENT'S FAMILY ## INSISTED TO HAVE ONLY THE HEAD EXAMINED Later, the
permission
was extended to the CHEST. "
(Finck, letter to Blumberg, 1965)
The only possible candidates as 'The General' seem to Wehle (Army, in
charge of the casket team) & McHugh (Air Force, very emotional).
(See the FBI list of attendees).
Had Finck probed the wound, what would he have found?
What was 'The General' so afraid of?
Finck would have found a track through the neck to the tracheostomy ( shock
horror) and they would have found the real answer (rather than the 'bullet
fell out during cardiac massage' answer) 12 hours earlier than they actually
did.
So what?
Given that at that stage any (ahem) conspirators would be as unaware as HB&F
about what exactly happened to any bullet in the back, if they were trying
to 'cover up' something about the back wound WHY ALLOW WHOLE BODY X-RAYS?
As far as Conspiracy Central knew, that bullet could have ended in his right
ankle.
Given that you are 'allowing' the back wound to be probed, and the body to
be x-rayed, why draw the line at 'excision'?
What difference could it make *aside from a TIME difference* (& a
disfigurement difference for all I know) ?
What possibly conspiracy scenario would disallow excision of the back wound
and yet ALLOW examination of it & also ALLOW probing of it and also ALLOW
whole body x-rays to find the bullet?
Who was so concerned the autopsy be finished quickly?
Burkley.
Who is known to have attempted to restrict the autopsy to simple 'recovery
of the bullet' ?
Burkley.
Who said himself "I supervised the autopsy" ?
" George Burkley, his main concern was ## let's
get it over with as fast as we could, ## and we had
big problems, and we couldn't get it over with as
fast as he would have liked it to have been
completed. " (Humes ARRB)
What is the reason the brain was not available to the FPP?
The Kennedy family.
Why are the tissue sections not available?
The Kennedy family.
Why are the autopsy photos scarcely available?
The Kennedy family.
Why are the x-rays scarcely avialable?
The Kennedy family.
What was the reason for the rushed autopsy?
The Kennedy family.
And anyone who has read JAMA's interview with Finck or his Shaw trial
testimony or his ARRB testimony will know very well that Finck ... really is
a very strange fellow indeed.
--
® ާ
parkland arrb:
http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/parkland_arrb/park_arrb.htm
John Hunt
Paul Seaton <paul....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a849m3$ghk$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
.
>
> Earl Rose was a civilian :
>
> "Dr. ROSE. [re Humes supposed note burning] Could the record reflect that
> Mr. Oswald's preliminary documents,
> also at a much later time, Mr. Ruby's documents, the preliminary ones, were
> similarly taken care of-
> Dr. HUMES. I don't wish to apologize because I don't think that an apology
> is
> necessary, but I'd like for this document, for the record, to reflect
> exactly what
> happened, some place, as it did.
Paul,
FYI,
The following statement, attributed to Boswell, is a transcription error:
> Dr. BOSWELL. (sic) As to the previous comment, I have frequently redrawn diagrams
> that might have gotten a spot of blood on them.
The audio recording reveals that these words were uttered by Charles Petty.
John Hunt
Gary Aguilar
>
> PROBING:
> ########
>
> "Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
> A: ### I did. ###
> Q: With what?
> A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the
> entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This
> was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an
> instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have
> created a false passage. " (Finck, Shaw trial.)
>
> "I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection with
> the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search. They probed the
> wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a metal probe."(Sibert HSCA
> written statement)
>
> IE the back wound was probed.
No one's doubted it was. But after Humes stuck his finger into it, the
whole flavor of the thing changed for the worse.
IE it may have lost what clues it might have yielded.
>
> PERMISSIONS
> ###########
>
>
> "THE ORGANS OF THE NECK WERE NOT REMOVED: THE
> PRESIDENT'S FAMILY INSISTED TO HAVE ONLY THE HEAD EXAMINED Later, the
> permission
> was extended to the CHEST. "
> (Finck, letter to Blumberg, 1965)
>
> This is a couple of years before the Shaw trial, in a private letter to his
> CO. It suggests that Finck, at the trial, was trying to put the 'blame' for
> a dissection which they didn't do, which they had little reason to do,
Well, a nonphysician might not be able to think of a good reason. But
that's a different thing, isn't it? They might have wanted to see
where the 45 degree downsloping wound went, no? Or whether the bruise
they saw at the top of JFK's chest was from blood that had dripped
down from the back wound rather than from blood connected to the head
wound. They said they didn't know the wounds were connected
originally. So you see? There are lots of possible reasons, Paul.
> believing the bullet had gone in the back & fallen out the back, on an
> anonymous 'General' rather than publicly point the finger at Burkley, & thus
> effectively at the Kennedys.
Finck said the Kennedy family didn't want them to open up JFK's
uninjured belly, right? Not an unreasonable request since he wasn't
hit in the belly. But the autopsists did so anyway. So were they
kowtowing to Kennedy wishes then?
And though they might have been unsuccessful in keeping the military
out of JFK's belly, it is not unreasonable to wonder if the family
might have otherwise interfered. The simple answer is that they
probably didn't, through Burkley or any other way, at least not in any
way that influenced the outcome.
*Under oath to the ARRB, Humes admitted that JFK's personal physician,
Burkley, seemed keen to move things along, but "as far as telling me
what to do or how to do it, absolutely, irrevocably, no." By way of
explanation, Humes made the obvious point that, since Burkley was not
a pathologist, "he wouldn't presume to do such a thing."
*Boswell told the ARRB that they were "not at all" in any rush or
under any compulsion to hurry. "It was always an extension of the
autopsy," that was encouraged, "rather than further restrictions."
*Similarly, after an interview with the Commanding officer of the
Naval Medical Center, the HSCA reported that, "[Admiral Calvin B.]
Galloway said that he was present throughout the autopsy," and that,
"no orders were being sent in from outside the autopsy room either by
phone or by person."
*In a sworn affidavit executed for the HSCA on November 28, 1978,
JFK's personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, claimed, "I directed
the autopsy surgeon to do a complete autopsy and take the time
necessary for completion."
The family didn't, for example, select the sub par autopsists;
military authorities did. Realizing how over their heads they were,
JFK's pathologists told Lattimer that they (wisely) requested to have
nonmilitary forensic consultants called in. Permission was denied.
The Autopsy of the Century was thus left in the hands of backbenchers.
Given the 'can do' mentality so prevalent in the military, this
shortcut isn't surprising. But it is one the family didn't take. Had
the government but asked, it is impossible to imagine that any expert
forensic pathologist in the entire country would have refused his duty
during this time of national tragedy, or that the family would have
objected.
The HSCA explored the question of the family's role in considerable
detail in 1978, concluding that, other than (reasonably) requesting
the exam be done as expeditiously as possible, the Kennedys did not
interfere in the autopsy. Moreover, in an important legal matter, RFK
left blank the space marked 'restrictions' in the permit he signed for
his brother's autopsy.
> The only 'Generals' present - according to the FBI guys - seem to have been
> McHugh ( Air Force, extremely upset.. ) & Wehle (only present in the morgue
> towards the end of the autopsy ).
>
> " Q Was it your understanding that the
> instructions about the scope of the autopsy were,
> however, coming from Dr. Burkley?
> A Oh, yes." (Boswell, ARRB)
>
See above about what effect outside instructions may have had.
> " You see, Mrs. Kennedy
> and the Attorney General were upstairs in the
> hospital. She had stated she wasn't going to leave
> there until she could accompany the President's
> body to the White House. And Admiral Burkley was
> anxious that that period be shortened to as much--
> you know, as much as possible. ...
> George Burkley, his main concern was let's
> get it over with as fast as we could, and we had
> big problems, and we couldn't get it over with as
> fast as he would have liked it to have been
> completed. " (Humes ARRB)
>
>
>
> THE THROAT WOUND
> ###################
>
> At the autopsy the throat wound was seen as being simply a trach.
> There was no compelling reason to dissect out a bullet path in the back
> *which they thought went precisely nowhere*:
>
Surely Finck wouldn't have thought that, right? Was he to imagine that
a bullet would have had the velocity to travel accurately from a
remote location to its proper target and yet not had enough velocity
to more than graze the back when it got there, as if it was by then
falling by gravity?
>
> "Q: Colonel, you said you remember Agent Kellerman being in the autopsy
> room. Do you re- member having a conversation with Agent Kellerman at the
> time you were examining this wound of the President, and talking about that
> particular wound you said to the Agent that there were no lanes for an
> outlet of the shoulder wound? Do you remember telling him that, sir?
> A: I remember stating that at the time I examined the wound of entry in the
> back I didn't find an exit corresponding to this entry. I don't remember to
> whom it was, it may have been Mr. Kellerman, it may have been one of the two
> FBI Agents. " (Finck, Shaw trial)
>
> "FINCK : Having a wound of entry and no wound of exit,
Well, none that was traceable after Humes had blunted the bullet's
path by sticking his stubby finger in it. (Someone who knows him said
he wore a huge glove size, for his huge fingers. A slender metal probe
they weren't.)
and negative X-rays
> showing
> no bullets in the cadaver at that time, the time of the autopsy, I was
> puzzled by the fact of having an entry and no exit.
But yet they had a bruise at the top of the chest cage, didn't they?
And so they would have wanted to know where that blood came from, back
wound or somewhere else. And so if they'd not had their scalpels
stayed by higher authority, they'd have wanted to dissect the back
wound to see if it somehow connected to the bruise at the top of JFK's
chest, and where the thing went. Perhaps Humes might have thought that
a bullet can work its way back out of a wound, but no one with common
sense would, particularly not Finck. Baden and others have made the
point that such a supposition is ridiculous to a degree. And you keep
ignoring that they would have wanted to document the blood at the top
of the chest the only way they could - with a photo, which, despite
the whole team's recalling that they snapped such an image, it just
happens not to be in the curent inventory.
You've incessantly argued, Paul, that they didn't have a reason in the
world to have taken such a photo(s), haven't you? Well, I've just
given you a good one, although you can be forgiven as a nonphysician
for not having thought of one. Things that my accountant dreams up
never occur to me.
However, this cleared up
> after the conversation between Dr. Humes and the surgeons at Dallas who
> stated that included a small wound in the front of the neck in their
> incision of tracheotomy to keep the breathing of the President up.
> Q: On the night of the 22nd of November you did have occasion to see the
> wound in the area of the throat?
> A: On the skin?
> Q: Yes.
> A: No, I examined the surgical incision, but I don't recall seeing the small
> wound de- scribed by the Dallas surgeons. It was part of the surgical
> incision and I didn't see it.
> Q: You saw the incision.
> A: In the front of the neck, definitely. " (Finck Shaw trial)
>
> IE Finck had no reason to think a bullet went right through the neck.
>
> "Q: Did you dissect any area of the neck muscles which might have been
> thought to be an exit wound of the President's neck.
> THE COURT: He said he didn't dissect anything.
> THE WITNESS: I made some measurement of, of course to determine the wound,
> this was the wound of entry in the back of the neck and I examined both
> edges of the surgeon's surgical incision in the front of the neck. I don't
> remember a dissection of this area. I remember a very close gross
> examination. "(Finck Shaw trial)
>
> IE Finck had no reason to think a bullet went right through the neck.
>
But he did have a bruise in the chest to try to figure out, no? And
Boswell said (ARRB) that by the end of the autopsy they'd pretty well
figured that the back wound was tied somehow to the throat wound. Why
don't you ever mention that, Paul? Hell, you believe all sorts of
nonsense these guys say, but you stand with them in their claim they
knew nothing about the throat wound on the night of the murder.
What, didn't any of them listen to the radio or watch TV while waiting
for Air Force One? Didn't anyone in the morgue bother to mention the
throat wound Perry went on about before Kleig lights on that very
afternoon? Would Burkley have withheld that information? If you're
gonna accuse them of willful deception and misplacing knowledge, Paul,
you might want to start here, with their dubious claim they were the
only people in the USA, perhaps the world, who didn't know JFK had a
throat wound by the time they shaprened their scalpels on the night of
11/22.
> They had no idea until SATURDAY that throat wound was anything other than a
> trach.
> The back wound could not be probed.
Well, not after a stubby finger had obliterated its path, it couldn't.
> There was no bullet in the body.
> They concluded:
> "Dr. HUMES stated that the
> pattern was clear that one bullet had entered the President's back and
> had worked its way out of the body during external cardiac massage" (S & O
> report)
>
> What would be the urgent need to spend an hour dissecting out a wound that
> they were convinced went nowhere? ("The first fraction of an inch")
>
"First fraction" of Humes' finger is more like it, right?
But they did have a reason, didn't they? The same reason they had to
take photos of the interior of the chest. Pretty good reasons, too,
except, perhaps, to you.
Finck said he took notes, didn't he? Where are his? Hell, Finck
apparently complained to others right after the autopsy that they
disappeared, yet the record reflects that Humes got all the notes. So
either Humes ditched them, or the foul minions did, eh? Or Finck was
lying. Moreover, Humes said he took his own notes and later disembled
about them, getting finally busted by the ARRB, didn't he?
It only makes sense, incidentally, that Humes would have taken some
notes. He was, after all, the chief pathologist. Why would he have
lied about destroying notes he made if it would have been as
legitimate as you imply it was for him to have explained that he did
the work, and his second in command, Boswell, took the notes. Surely
no one would have objected to such a division of labor, would she? But
he did mislead about the notes he took and destroyed, didn't he?
> WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE? :
> #######################
>
> " ### I supervised the autopsy #### and directed the fixation and retention
> of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets. "
> (Burkley , HSCA affidavit)
>
> "O'Connor told me that Burkley gave the orders in the autopsy room, and that
> it was him that told them not to probe the neck wound. "Don't do that
> because the family doesn't want you to do that." He said that the room was
> half crazy with confusion, pandemonium. The doctors were frightened and were
> paper pushers with little experience. "Humes was real freaky. They were
> scared to death anyway when they got down there. And then Admiral Burkiey
> started screaming at them." " (Paul O'Connor, interview Livingstone HT2)
> "He said that "Admiral Burkley was a maniac. I'd never seen anybody like
> that in this life. Scared the hell out of me, I'll tell you. He was yellin'
> and cussin' and carrying on all night." He said that Burkley "kept saying,
> 'Don't do this because the Kennedy family won't want that done and don't do
> this and don't do that.' It's just unbelievable.
> "See, that's the reason that such, well, number one, the poor guys that did
> the autopsy-Boswell and Humes . . ." "(Paul O'Connor, interview Livingstone
> HT2)
>
Oh, so now O'Connor is gospel, is he? And so when Burkley told them
not to open up JFK's uninjured bowels than that explains why they did
so anyway?
And when, while under oath to the ARRB, Humes admitted that JFK's
personal physician, Burkley, seemed keen to move things along, but "as
far as telling me what to do or how to do it, absolutely, irrevocably,
no," that was purjury, was it then? And when, by way of explanation,
Humes made the obvious point that, since Burkley was not a
pathologist, "he wouldn't presume to do such a thing," nothing but
pure fabrication, too? While Humes is far from a paragon of truth, his
comment about not having a general medical doctor tell him how to do
work the generalist hasn't the foggiest about has the ring of truth. I
never tell my consultants how to do what they do. And they don't tell
me, either. Standard practice.
> "He indicated that ## DR. BURKLEY was basically supervising everything that
> went
> on in the autopsy room and that the commanding officer was also
> responding to BURKLEY's wishes. ## He indicated that ROBERT MCNAMARA
> seemed to have acted as liaison between the family and DR. BURKLEY,
> and that MCNAMARA kept his head throughout. " (Boswell HSCA interview)
> ...................
>
Whoa, a minute ago Burkley was a maniac, yelling and cussing and
carrying on all night. Now he's keeping his head. When its useful to
you it's one way, when it isn't, another. O.K. then, Paul, which one
was it?
> "--stated that Burkely supervised autopsy acting as
> liaison for family -
> formal permission.
> autopsy began without written
> --Burkely was not interested in a full autopsy - they
> were only looking for the bullet -"
> (Boswell summary of hsca interview)
> ................
> "Dr. BADEN. But you did at some point consult with Admiral Burkley as to
> how far to go?
> Dr. HUMES. Well, early on. His desire was, he's a physician, he's a family
> physician, he was the family physician to the President's family, his
> concerns were, I think, very understandable in light of the emotional
> attitude of the
> family. " (Humes & Boswell HSCA fpp)
> .....................
>
> "O'Neill also stated, that as he understood it,
> "Mrs. Kennedy gave permission for a partial autopsy" and
> that Dr. George Burkley reiterated her remarks. O'Neill
> feels that there was "no question" that Burkley was con-
> veying the wishes of the Kennedy family. "
>
> (O'Neill HSCA interview)
> ..................
Which wishes, as we've seen, were ignored, right?
> "There was talk about consultation with Mrs. Kennedy before going ahead with
> contemplated X-Rays and incisions. I believe that there were a couple of
> liaison people to Mrs. Kennedy present. I had the impression that the
> doctors
> were getting clearances for certain phases of the autopsy from the Kennedy
> family."(Sibert HSCA written statement)
> .................
> "A: No further than what's stated here. I
> know that the authority for these autopsy
> proceedings was, evidently, coming through Burkley .
> and probably from Mrs. Kennedy." (Sibert ARRB)
> ..............
>
> The evidence for Burkley's 'interference' is overwhelming.
> The evidence for 'The General's' interference is limited to one statement by
> Finck in 67 which contradicts his 1965 letter to his CO :
>
> "THE ORGANS OF THE NECK WERE NOT REMOVED: ## THE
> PRESIDENT'S FAMILY ## INSISTED TO HAVE ONLY THE HEAD EXAMINED Later, the
> permission
> was extended to the CHEST. "
> (Finck, letter to Blumberg, 1965)
>
Oh, so when a military man denies that military superiors were
responsible for improper behavior, it's gospel, right? If the military
in England had a record of behaving as badly as ours does, Paul, you'd
have never uttered such silliness.
But I've already asked, and answered, your implicit question:
Why does suspicion for meddling fall to the military? Because it would
have taken someone high in the military to deny the pathologists'
sensible request for the civilian experts they so badly needed. Finck,
who was not a practicing forensic pathologist, simply wasn't the sort
of expert the situation called for. Though certified in forensic
pathology, the House Select Committee determined that Finck had not
done a hands-on forensic autopsy, or any autopsy, in two years. But
refusing Humes's call for expert assistance is not the only reason to
wonder about military meddling.
For example, it is impossible to imagine that, unless ordered to do
so, JFK's pathologists would have otherwise destroyed original autopsy
notes and signed false declarations, which, as we will see [pick up
Crenshaw's book and see for yourself], they did. (Would civilians have
done such things?) There is also the disturbing testimony of Pierre
Finck during the controversial 1968 trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans.
It was this testimony, and not Oliver Stone's movie, that persuaded
many that JFK's autopsy was not as unfettered as had been reported in
JAMA.
Dated November 22, 1963, the Navy "Clinical Record Authorization for
> The only possible candidates as 'The General' seem to Wehle (Army, in
>From the comfort of Monday morning's armchair, these are all good
points, Paul. But they remain besides the central point that someone
in the military and outside the autopsy team told the pathologists
what they could and couldn't do. And they weren't acting on behalf of
the Kennedys, or they'd have left JFK's belly alone.
>
>
> What is the reason the brain was not available to the FPP?
> The Kennedy family.
> Why are the tissue sections not available?
> The Kennedy family.
> Why are the autopsy photos scarcely available?
> The Kennedy family.
> Why are the x-rays scarcely avialable?
> The Kennedy family.
> What was the reason for the rushed autopsy?
> The Kennedy family.
>
> And anyone who has read JAMA's interview with Finck or his Shaw trial
> testimony or his ARRB testimony will know very well that Finck ... really is
> a very strange fellow indeed.
Ah, indeed, when someone admits military skullduggery, even if he's a
military man, perhaps especially so, he has to be hit, doesn't he?
The government wants its men to remain "reliable." Boswell certainly
was. Despite lacking any particular ability in gunshop autopsies, the
govt tapped him to do Martin Luther King's autopsy.
As I wrote in Crenshaw's new book:
Both in JAMA and under oath to the ARRB, Boswell explained the rest of
the story. He said that the Justice Department was "really upset" when
Pierre Finck had testified that a general, and not chief pathologist
Humes, was in charge of JFK's autopsy. "So," Boswell testified,
"(Justice) put me on a plane that day to New Orleans." "They (the
Justice Department) … talked to me and tried to get me to agree that
(Finck) was very strange … ." Then, Boswell explained, "They showed
me the transcript of Pierre (Finck's) testimony for the past couple of
days, and I spent all night reviewing that testimony." The Justice
Department's obvious purpose, Boswell admitted, was to prepare him "to
refute Finck's testimony."
Ultimately, however, Boswell was never called to the stand.
Nevertheless it is worth asking, as ARRB's counsel Gunn astutely put
it to Boswell under oath in 1996, "What was the United States
Department of Justice doing in relationship to a case between the
district attorney of New Orleans and a resident of New Orleans?"
After all, Shaw was on trial in a state court on state, not federal,
charges. It is of significant note that the Justice Department was so
worried about Finck that it prepared to undermine the better
credentialed, Army forensics specialist by sending in a compliant Navy
generalist, someone who had already proven himself to be a willing
Justice Department front during the creation of the Clark Panel.
One wonders if the reason Boswell was never called to the stand might
have had to do with the fact that Finck, a forensics-trained expert in
"unnatural death," had been the very expert specialist the general
pathologists in the Navy had beckoned when JFK was wheeled into the
morgue. Though as a general pathologist "J" Thornton Boswell was a
qualified expert in "natural death" - heart attacks and so on - he was
no expert in unnatural deaths, such as gunshot murder. So despite
Finck's astounding sworn statements, his superior professional
standing might have made Shaw's defense team reluctant to try to
impeach him with Boswell.
In any case, Boswell's cooperative spirit won him official
recognition. When Martin Luther King was shot, Boswell testified that
he got yet another call from Carl Eardley. "J," Eardley pled, "we got
a problem down in Memphis … Would you go down there and supervise the
autopsy?" Apparently Justice was looking for qualifications other
than expertise in unnatural death when it undertook to investigate the
very unnatural death of the famed civil rights leader.
Paul, your comments reflect the experience of a man whose government
hasn't had as much dirty linen publicly aired as ours has. God bless
your good fortune, brother! May your idealism never leave you.
Gary
GMcNally
I've snipped all but the point I want to comment on:
> > "THE ORGANS OF THE NECK WERE NOT REMOVED: THE
> > PRESIDENT'S FAMILY INSISTED TO HAVE ONLY THE HEAD EXAMINED Later, the
> > permission
> > was extended to the CHEST. "
> > (Finck, letter to Blumberg, 1965)
> > believing the bullet had gone in the back & fallen out the back, on an
> > anonymous 'General' rather than publicly point the finger at Burkley, & thus
> > effectively at the Kennedys.
>
> Finck said the Kennedy family didn't want them to open up JFK's
> uninjured belly, right? Not an unreasonable request since he wasn't
> hit in the belly. But the autopsists did so anyway. So were they
> kowtowing to Kennedy wishes then?
The family didn't want JFK's abdomen opened up because they wanted to
keep the autopsists from learning of JFK's adrenal "insufficiency".
Humes insisted and a compromise was negotiated: they would examine the
organs of the abdomen but would only report their findings about the
adrenals "orally" to Burkley and to keep the findings out of their
Report.
---
You seem to have missed Paul Seaton's point that Finck explained the
situation to Blumberg: the Kennedy family wanted no dissection of the
neck. The Kennedy family limited the autopsy to - first - the head,
and, later, to the chest.
THAT's why they didn't dissect out the trachea.
Jerry
GrgPrnc
No shit? I got it now, one crazed gunman and a whole bunch of incopentent
ppl, form the >autopsists
to the SSA to the WC, to LBJ. Thanks Jerry, I *get it* now.
G.
GMcNally
If you really want to "get it", read the report that Finck filed with
his CO, Gen. Blumberg.
Jerry
> G.
GrgPrnc
>his CO, Gen. Blumberg.
I have read it Jerry.
G.
Gary Aguilar
Jerry, that's such nonsense I'm sure even you don't believe it. What? -
the Kennedys are going to block the military from dissecting a wound he
had sustained that might give clues as to the assassin, and yet yield to
dissecting a part of JFK's body that wasn't injured at all and so would
yield only his Addisonian status? Right!
And, what?, the HSCA, after a throrough investigation, conspiratorially
misled the public when it said the Kennedys did not interfere?
And, what?, Boswell was lying too, to "protect the Kennedys - still, in
1996 - when he testified to the ARRB that the scope of the autopsy was
continually expanded?
And of course you are mum, as I would be too if I'd embarrassed myself by
saying what you've said, on the CBS memo I mentioned.
To wit:
At least one of the reasons Humes did not perform one may have been
revealed in a memorandum from, of all places, CBS. In November 1993, a
once-confidential, internal memo written in 1967 by a CBS executive (Bob
Richter) was published by a committee chaired by Representative John
Conyers. The memo described a conversation that Humes had had in 1967 with
a personal friend, another CBS executive, Jim Snyder. In the memo Richter
described Snyder's conversation with the pathologist, saying, "Humes also
said he had orders from someone he refused to disclose - other than
stating it was not Robert Kennedy - to not do a complete autopsy." [This
accords with Admiral Galloway's report that "no orders were being sent in
from outside the autopsy room either by phone or by person."]
So if not Robert Kennedy, who then, besides a higher-ranking officer than
Humes, could have stalled the surgeon's scalpel? Though the memo was given
to Rep. Conyers by an attorney, Roger Feinman, George Lundberg may
nonetheless be responsible for it's reaching the public. For Feinman sent
the memo to Conyers after he publicly debated Lundberg about JFK in
Chicago in April, 1993. Besides Finck's report that an Army General
claimed he was in charge during Kennedy's autopsy, and Humes confidential
admission that someone outside the family limited the exam, Finck and
Humes also gave additional, persuasive reasons to suspect there was
high-level meddling.
So, what else? Is CBS lying too in claiming that Humes confidentally
disclosed someone outside the Kennedys was limiting things?
What a helluva conspiracy, Jerry: the HSCA, Boswell, CBS, etc., etc., etc.
Woowie!
Hey, I'd have never taken you for a conspirophile, Jerry buddy. But, you
learn something new every day.
Gary
Gary Aguilar
Better yet, read what Finck said under oath at the Shaw trial. Sworn
statements trump unsworn ones, especially since Finck would probably
never have blown a whistle on a military man to another military man.
I mean, when was the last time you heard of a successful whistleblower
in uniform? ... Yeah, Jerry, I can't think of one either.
Just remember what happened when Finck let a few cats out of the bag
in testifying at the Shaw trial: the Justice Dept, which had no legal
standing in the case whatsoever, whistled up Boswell and sent him down
there to refute Finck.
Boswell, not in the least competent in gunshot autopsies (as JFK's
attests) is the guy the Justice Dept asked to do Martin Luther King's
autopsy when he was murdered. (Boswell declined, as it happens.) So
obviously the Justice Dept was looking for something besides
competence in forensic autopsies when it picked Boswell. That
"something" else is "reliability." That's the sort of "justice"
Boswell would have delivered to the Justice Dept. And that's why he
was called to New Orleans to refute Finck.
Now Boswell wasn't called to the stand in New Orleans, and perhaps for
a good reason. The prosecutor might have thought to inquire of Boswell
who had orchestrated Boswell's appearance. And he might have asked him
why his word should be taken over Finck's when it was Boswell who
reached out to Finck for help when JFK was wheeled into the morgue -
Finck was the alleged expert, not Boswell.
I don't expect you'll ever grasp any of this, Jerry. But most everyone
else will, and that's what makes it worth repeating.
It's all in the updated Charles Crenshaw book, "Trauma Room One," with
source notes to point you in the right direction.
Gary
Gary
John McAdams
>
> jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote in message news:<a163e09.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> > grg...@cs.com (GrgPrnc) wrote in message news:<20020403232124...@mb-bh.news.cs.com>...
> > > >THAT's why they didn't dissect out the trachea.
> > >
>
> statements trump unsworn ones, especially since Finck would probably
> never have blown a whistle on a military man to another military man.
His sworn statement was that "the family" didn't want the track of the
bullet dissected.
Gary, you are doing the usual selective thing and latching onto
convenient testimony while ignoring inconvenient testimony.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
> jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote in message news:<a163e09.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> > Gary,
> >
>
> the Kennedys are going to block the military from dissecting a wound he
> had sustained that might give clues as to the assassin, and yet yield to
> dissecting a part of JFK's body that wasn't injured at all and so would
> yield only his Addisonian status? Right!
The Kennedy family probably didn't give any specific orders as to what
to do and what not to do, but the pressure they put on the people in the
autopsy room to hurry up was a key factor.
>
> And, what?, the HSCA, after a throrough investigation, conspiratorially
> misled the public when it said the Kennedys did not interfere?
>
That's not really what they said, Gary:
<Quote on>
(79) The committee also investigated the possibility that
the Kennedy family may have unduly influenced the pathologists
once the autopsy began, possibly by transmitting messages by
telephone into the autopsy room. Brig. Gen. Godfrey McHugh, then
an Air Force military aide to the President, informed the
committee that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Kenneth
O'Donnell, a presidential aide, frequently telephoned him during
the autopsy from the 17th floor suite. (102) McHugh said that on
occasions, Kennedy and O'Donnell asked only to speak with
him.(103) They inquired about the results, why the autopsy was
consuming so much time, and the need for speed and efficiency,
while still performing the required examinations. (104) McHugh
said he forwarded this information to the pathologists, never
stating or implying that the doctors should limit the autopsy in
any manner, but merely reminding them to work as efficiently and
quickly as possible.(105)
(80) While General McHugh or others may not have stated or
implied that the doctors should limit the autopsy, their remarks
no doubt caused consternation, although they may not have
substantively affected the autopsy. The following passage
explains this view:
(81) Dr. HUMES. There were no questions but we were being
urged to expedite this examination as quickly as
possible, that members of the President's family were
in the building, that they refused to leave the
premises until the President's body was ready to be
moved; and similar remarks of the vein which we made
every effort to put aside and approach the
investigation in as scientific a manner as we could.
But did it harass us and cause difficulty--of course it
did, how could it not!
Dr. BOSWELL. I don't think it interfered with the
manner in which we did the autopsy.
Dr. HUMES. I don't either. (106)
(82) Dr. Boswell further stated that there were no
constraints. (107) Dr. Ebersole, the radiologist, likewise
informed the committee that "to the best of my knowledge there
were absolutely no restrictions and it was Dr. Humes' decision as
to the extent of the autopsy."(108) Stringer, one of the medical
photographers, also could not recall anyone issuing any orders.
(109) He stated specifically that while McHugh manifested a great
deal of emotion, he did not issue any orders. (110)
(83) This evidence indicates that:
1. Commander Humes had full authority to perform a complete
autopsy, and indeed, that Admiral Galloway told him to do
so;
2. Commander Humes, not anyone else, made any decision that
resulted in a deviation from a complete forensic autopsy;
and
3. The remarks of others to expedite the autopsy were
probably the reason for the decision to perform a less than
complete autopsy.
<Quote off>
In the first place, this flatly *contradicts* your claim of a shadowy
military figure ordering a less than complete autopsy!
Why do you quote the HSCA to get the Kennedys off the hook, but ignore
the fact that they say that *nobody* ordered Humes to do an incomplete
autopsy?
In the second place, note the fact that McHugh was being telephoned
"frequently" by the folks on the 17th floor.
Gary, do you really doubt that that constitutes "pressure?"
And McHugh didn't issue any "orders" but he showed "emotion." When top
military officers show "emotion" do underlings ignore them?
> And, what?, Boswell was lying too, to "protect the Kennedys - still, in
> 1996 - when he testified to the ARRB that the scope of the autopsy was
> continually expanded?
>
But not expanded *enough.* And because the people in the autopsy
theater were under pressure from the 17th floor to finish up.
> And of course you are mum, as I would be too if I'd embarrassed myself by
> saying what you've said, on the CBS memo I mentioned.
>
> To wit:
>
> At least one of the reasons Humes did not perform one may have been
> revealed in a memorandum from, of all places, CBS. In November 1993, a
> once-confidential, internal memo written in 1967 by a CBS executive (Bob
> Richter) was published by a committee chaired by Representative John
> Conyers. The memo described a conversation that Humes had had in 1967 with
> a personal friend, another CBS executive, Jim Snyder. In the memo Richter
> described Snyder's conversation with the pathologist, saying, "Humes also
> said he had orders from someone he refused to disclose - other than
> stating it was not Robert Kennedy - to not do a complete autopsy." [This
> accords with Admiral Galloway's report that "no orders were being sent in
> from outside the autopsy room either by phone or by person."]
OK, so you think Humes was lying to the HSCA?
This hardly gets RFK off the hook, since he would hardly need to issue
any direct orders. The officers in the autopsy room would simply yield
to pressure.
>
> So, what else? Is CBS lying too in claiming that Humes confidentally
> disclosed someone outside the Kennedys was limiting things?
>
Why is Humes a fearless truth teller when you want him to be, and lying
scum when he says something inconvenient.
If the memo is accurate -- not something we can assume -- Humes
contradicted what he said to the HSCA.
So of course, between the two contradictory accounts, you'll pick the
most convenient.
> What a helluva conspiracy, Jerry: the HSCA, Boswell, CBS, etc., etc., etc.
> Woowie!
>
> Hey, I'd have never taken you for a conspirophile, Jerry buddy. But, you
> learn something new every day.
>
You are using all those sources with extreme selectivity, Gary. You
have to do get them to say what you want them to say.
GMcNally
> >If you really want to "get it", read the report that Finck filed with
> >his CO, Gen. Blumberg.
>
> I have read it Jerry.
Apparently it hasn't sunk in.
Jerry
> G.
GMcNally
> jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote in message news:<a163e09.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> > grg...@cs.com (GrgPrnc) wrote in message news:<20020403232124...@mb-bh.news.cs.com>...
> > > >THAT's why they didn't dissect out the trachea.
> > >
> > > No shit? I got it now, one crazed gunman and a whole bunch of incopentent
> > > ppl, form the >autopsists
> > >
> > > to the SSA to the WC, to LBJ. Thanks Jerry, I *get it* now.
> >
> > If you really want to "get it", read the report that Finck filed with
> > his CO, Gen. Blumberg.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> > > G.
Gary,
> Better yet, read what Finck said under oath at the Shaw trial. Sworn
> statements trump unsworn ones, especially since Finck would probably
> never have blown a whistle on a military man to another military man.
> I mean, when was the last time you heard of a successful whistleblower
> in uniform? ... Yeah, Jerry, I can't think of one either.
Finck's competence was challenged and he ineptly and confusedly tried
to defend himself and was not entirely accurate.
We have as clear a picture of what went on at Bethesda as
investigation can produce. There was no "Army General" telling Finck
anything. There was the Kennedy family influencing the autopsy
primarly through Burkley, but, with the support of the brass at
Bethesda. To hurry about and avoid mutiliation.
> Just remember what happened when Finck let a few cats out of the bag
> in testifying at the Shaw trial: the Justice Dept, which had no legal
> standing in the case whatsoever, whistled up Boswell and sent him down
> there to refute Finck.
I don't have a problem with it.
> Boswell, not in the least competent in gunshot autopsies (as JFK's
> attests) is the guy the Justice Dept asked to do Martin Luther King's
> autopsy when he was murdered. (Boswell declined, as it happens.) So
> obviously the Justice Dept was looking for something besides
> competence in forensic autopsies when it picked Boswell.
I don't believe your conclusions are supported by the facts.
That
> "something" else is "reliability." That's the sort of "justice"
> Boswell would have delivered to the Justice Dept. And that's why he
> was called to New Orleans to refute Finck.
He was neither called nor did he refute Finck.
What you need tounderstand is that Finck is a strange guy and Finck
gave some strange answers in New Orleans -- and we see the effect of
it in your "writings".
But all it is is strangeness and it doesn't add up to anything.
Jerry
GMcNally
> Gary Aguilar wrote:
> >
> > jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote in message news:<a163e09.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Gary,
John,
Gary is certain that Drs Humes et al were so independence minded that
they'd tell the Kennedy family to go to hell, but, willingly submit to
any instructions to limit the autopsy by a "mystery man/Army General"!
Gary is simply amazin'!
Jerry
GrgPrnc
>to defend himself and was not entirely accurate.
"WAS NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE"... Jerry what the hell is that? That is
perjury. The man lied under oath, and you just confirmed it. Fink was the
"expert", and he lies under oath....There is a stinking fish here
somewhere, and guess what- it has to do with cover-up.....
GMcNally
Finck had previously identified - and did so again to his CO - the
identity of those who were limiting and interfering with the autopsy:
the Kennedy family.
There were indeed crimes committed in New Orleans, the most striking
committed by Jim Garrison and the perjurers he put on the witness
stand.
You seem to want to focus on poor "strange" Pierre Finck and avoid the
the real criminals.
Why?
Jerry
Gary Aguilar
> >
> > jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote in message news:<a163e09.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Gary,
> > >
> >
> > Jerry, that's such nonsense I'm sure even you don't believe it. What? -
> > the Kennedys are going to block the military from dissecting a wound he
> > had sustained that might give clues as to the assassin, and yet yield to
> > dissecting a part of JFK's body that wasn't injured at all and so would
> > yield only his Addisonian status? Right!
>
> The Kennedy family probably didn't give any specific orders as to what
> to do and what not to do, but the pressure they put on the people in the
> autopsy room to hurry up was a key factor.
>
child, no make that three pediatricians, and they kill the kid.
Parents fault, then? I think a similar logic is at work here in
placing the blame on the Kennedys.
value then? There go what we thought we knew about the My Lai
Massacre, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, what Ollie North was accused
of. Why none of them ever lied, did they? like Humes, Boswell and
Finck didn't lie.
> Why do you quote the HSCA to get the Kennedys off the hook, but ignore
> the fact that they say that *nobody* ordered Humes to do an incomplete
> autopsy?
>
For the reason that the untruths about the military rarely come from
the men in the military directly; they come instead by looking at what
they said and did, and finding it suspicious, and then uncovering
memos like the CBS memo. For you, if it appears in the HSCA, that
makes it gospel, doesn't it. You just don't read between the lines.
> In the second place, note the fact that McHugh was being telephoned
> "frequently" by the folks on the 17th floor.
>
> Gary, do you really doubt that that constitutes "pressure?"
>
> And McHugh didn't issue any "orders" but he showed "emotion." When top
> military officers show "emotion" do underlings ignore them?
>
Oh, so we can now dispense with McNally's nonsense about it being the
Kennedy's fault then? If the military picks pathologists who ask for
experienced, local medical examiners to come in and help, and
permission is denied, and then said pathologists blow the case,
because they can't stand the concerned look on a superior officer's
face, all blame goes to the 17th floor. Right, .John!
When professionals are called to do a job, an important job, and they
blow it, doing things no pathologist would do except under orders -
destroy original autopsy notes, sign false affidavits, etc. - then
it's primarily the military who is at fault, and, perhaps also the
pathologists as well for obeying improper orders. That's what being a
doctor is all about - responsibility under pressure.
>
> > And, what?, Boswell was lying too, to "protect the Kennedys - still, in
> > 1996 - when he testified to the ARRB that the scope of the autopsy was
> > continually expanded?
> >
>
>
> But not expanded *enough.*
And who's decision was it not to expand it *enough*? Why, the
military's, that's who, not the Kennedys.
And because the people in the autopsy
> theater were under pressure from the 17th floor to finish up.
>
Poor dears. Suppose they didn't know what being a doctor is then,
right? Someone said "Don't dally." and they freaked and they wasted
time doing things they didn't need to do - like disemboweling JFK -
and then "saved" time not doing things that needed to be done, like
dissecting the back wound. Yeah, I get it now. ; ~ }
>
> > And of course you are mum, as I would be too if I'd embarrassed myself by
> > saying what you've said, on the CBS memo I mentioned.
> >
> > To wit:
> >
> > At least one of the reasons Humes did not perform one may have been
> > revealed in a memorandum from, of all places, CBS. In November 1993, a
> > once-confidential, internal memo written in 1967 by a CBS executive (Bob
> > Richter) was published by a committee chaired by Representative John
> > Conyers. The memo described a conversation that Humes had had in 1967 with
> > a personal friend, another CBS executive, Jim Snyder. In the memo Richter
> > described Snyder's conversation with the pathologist, saying, "Humes also
> > said he had orders from someone he refused to disclose - other than
> > stating it was not Robert Kennedy - to not do a complete autopsy." [This
> > accords with Admiral Galloway's report that "no orders were being sent in
> > from outside the autopsy room either by phone or by person."]
>
>
> OK, so you think Humes was lying to the HSCA?
>
> This hardly gets RFK off the hook, since he would hardly need to issue
> any direct orders. The officers in the autopsy room would simply yield
> to pressure.
>
Finck said they were asked not to open up JFK's uninjured bowels, but
they did so anyway. That's "yielding to pressure" in your book?
> >
> > So, what else? Is CBS lying too in claiming that Humes confidentally
> > disclosed someone outside the Kennedys was limiting things?
> >
>
> Why is Humes a fearless truth teller when you want him to be, and lying
> scum when he says something inconvenient.
>
You have precisely the same problem with his testimony, don't you? He
destroyed his own autopsy notes, then filled out a false affidavit
about them on 11/24/63. Then he signed a Justice Dept. affidavit
saying no autopsy photos were missing in 1966, and thereafter, like
Boswell, Finck, and Stringer, testified that photos he took were
missing - photos which he mentioned during his appearance in 1964
before the Warren Commission: images of the interior of JFK's chest
and photos showing beveling in JFK's skull bone.
> If the memo is accurate -- not something we can assume -- Humes
> contradicted what he said to the HSCA.
>
Halelulia! You now have 32 teeth, or did.
> So of course, between the two contradictory accounts, you'll pick the
> most convenient.
>
No, the one that makes the most sense.
>
> > What a helluva conspiracy, Jerry: the HSCA, Boswell, CBS, etc., etc., etc.
> > Woowie!
> >
> > Hey, I'd have never taken you for a conspirophile, Jerry buddy. But, you
> > learn something new every day.
> >
>
> You are using all those sources with extreme selectivity, Gary. You
> have to do get them to say what you want them to say.
>
> .John
Oh, phlueeze, .John, or rather .master of selectivity. The shoe fits,
ole buddy.
But you don't like to see a man admitting against his own interest, or
rather the interest of his employer. When someone does that in a
courtroom, that's given a huge probative value. And that's why Finck's
admission against the interest of his employer in the military is so
important.
At the Shaw trial:
Finck: "I will remind you that I was not in charge of this autopsy,
that I was called -
Q "You were a co-author of the report though, weren't you, Doctor?"
A "Wait. I was called as a consultant to look at these wounds; that
doesn't mean I am running the show."
Q "Was Dr. Humes running the show?"
A "Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that - he said, 'Who is in charge
here?' and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name stating,
'I am.' You must understand that in those circumstances, there were
law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you
have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions."
Q "But you were one of the three qualified pathologists standing at
that autopsy table, were you not, Doctor?"
A "Yes, I was."
Q "Was this Army General a qualified pathologist?"
A "No."
Q "Was he a doctor?"
A "No, not to my knowledge."
Q "Can you give me his name, Colonel?"
A "No, I can't. I don't remember."
Gary