Pierre Finck Learned his Lesson

[Ron Bulman]

Thank you Jim and Gene.  He has to be the New York coroner I'd read about before somewhere.  Googling him, in that position for 20 years from the mid 50's forward.  20,000 autopsies.   I guess an appropriate medical analogy regarding the Bethesda team might regard a proctologist doing open heart surgery.

[Gene Kelly]

Marshall Houts was interesting in his own right. He was an FBI agent, OSS operative, lawyer, judge, professor and author of 44 books, including "Where Death Delights," on which the "Quincy, M.E." television series was based. He created Trauma magazine in 1959, a medical journal for emergency room physicians, which he edited until his death. Houts became an undercover FBI agent in Brazil and Cuba, then quit the FBI to join the OSS in the middle of World War II because "things were getting pretty quiet."  During his OSS service, he parachuted into the Japanese-held island of Macao (near Hong Kong) because he could speak Portuguese, and worked behind enemy lines in Burma. Houts served five years as a Municipal Court judge, then moved to Los Angeles, where he was general counsel to author Erle Stanley Gardner's Court of Last Resort from 1951 to 1961. He investigated 600 murder cases and won freedom for 41 wrongly convicted people. He was an "official observer" at Jack Ruby's trial for the murder of Lee Oswald and had a painting of Ruby in the courtroom hanging in his office. He was quoted as saying; "There was no conspiracy … Ruby's being in that place at that time was pure accident."  He authored a study of Dwight D. Eisenhower in collaboration with Harold Stassen, former Minnesota governor and Eisenhower confidante. He also published a book on the legal aspects of the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, which many churches regard as heretical ... although he grew up traveling with his father, who was a minister and devoted Methodist circuit rider in the mountain towns of eastern Tennessee and West Virginia.  Quite a life.

[Paul Jolliffe]

On 1/16/2019 at 4:31 PM, Ron Bulman said:

This touches on an aspect of the autopsy that has reeked the most to me for years.  The selection of the autopsy Doctors.  None of them were current practicing Forensic Pathologists.  As I understand it, if I remember right, Finck was a Forensic Pathologist but he had not practiced in quite some time.  He reviewed the paperwork of others.  Humes and Boswell were general Pathologists.  Granted, they were all experienced and familiar with anatomy given the training required in their fields.  But, if your setting up the autopsy of the recently murdered President of the United States wouldn't you want the best available Forensic Pathologists?

I don't think Humes thought or said, I'm the head of this medical school, I'll take this one myself and selected Boswell to join him.  He was ordered  to do this.  Adding Army Doctor Finck was an afterthought to supposedly bring legitimacy to the proceedings given his official title. 

I forget which author in which book I read years ago pointed out that at least a couple of the leading, most respected, experienced Forensic Pathologists in the country were within about an hour of Bethesda by car or helicopter.  New York City comes to mind.

I realize the powers that be did not want the best available public or military.  They wanted someone who would suffice medically that would take orders unquestionably.  Per the AF1 transcripts they planned to take him to Walter Reed Army hospital, about a mile from Bethesda.  I imagine they had a pre approved team ready and waiting there.  But I've read somewhere back there that Jackie was insistent that if an autopsy had to be done at a military facility it should be Bethesda since JFK had been in the Navy.

So JFK's personal physician, Admiral Burkley directed the autopsy from the gallery.

Sorry Jim, wasn't trying to hijack you thread topic, I thought this kind of relates to the bigger picture regarding Finck.

Ron, 

If William Manchester can be trusted ( a big “if”), then Jackie was urged to select Bethesda. Also,  Finck’s New Orleans testimony would seem to indicate that the Surgeon General of the Navy, Admiral Edward C. Kenney, was in charge of the autopsy. It was Kenney who issued the written directive to the autopsy doctors ordering them not to talk, under penalty of court martial.

(The movie “JFK” so depicts him.)

Personally, I doubt Admiral George Burkley,  JFK’s personal physician, was a conspirator, simply because he was NOT called as a witness before Warren Commission, despite being the only man in the world who was:

1. Riding in the motorcade in Dallas

2. Present in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital

3. Flew aboard Air Force One with the body and the rest of the president’s party

4. Present throughout the entire autopsy at Bethesda.

5. Completed the Dallas death certificate establishing that Kennedy was struck in the back (NOT THE NECK) at the level of the third thoracic vertebra

6.Wrote “verified” and signed his name to Boswell’s autopsy sketch sheet, completed at the table (it had JFK’s blood on it), that depicted the president’s wound IN THE BACK, not the neck!

Of course, the Warren Commission did not dare publish Boswell’s original sketch sheet. They published an altered copy, one that erased both Burkley’s Signature and his word “verified”! It was not until 1966 that the National Archives released the original, which apparently had been in the possession of the Secret Service.

That was intellectual deceit at the grossest level, and no one, no one can possibly claim it was an “honest mistake.”

As a personal aside, in 1992, I was on the phone with the late Harold Weisberg, discussing the autopsy. As soon as Weisberg mentioned Kenney’s name, our connection was interrupted by an audible, loud blare/whine noise for about two seconds. Startled, Weisberg confirmed that I heard it too. He said he believed his phone was tapped, and that certain names or words triggered a taping system. 

He may well have been right. If so, then my voice and name are on some Deep State file somewhere. 

I hope so.

Screw those bastards.

They can rot in hell forever.

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Ron, 

If William Manchester can be trusted ( a big “if”), then Jackie was urged to select Bethesda. Also,  Finck’s New Orleans testimony would seem to indicate that the Surgeon General of the Navy, Admiral Edward C. Kenney, was in charge of the autopsy. It was Kenney who issued the written directive to the autopsy doctors ordering them not to talk, under penalty of court martial.

(The movie “JFK” so depicts him.)

Personally, I doubt Admiral George Burkley,  JFK’s personal physician, was a conspirator, simply because he was NOT called as a witness before Warren Commission, despite being the only man in the world who was:

1. Riding in the motorcade in Dallas

2. Present in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital

3. Flew aboard Air Force One with the body and the rest of the president’s party

4. Present throughout the entire autopsy at Bethesda.

5. Completed the Dallas death certificate establishing that Kennedy was struck in the back (NOT THE NECK) at the level of the third thoracic vertebra

6.Wrote “verified” and signed his name to Boswell’s autopsy sketch sheet, completed at the table (it had JFK’s blood on it), that depicted the president’s wound IN THE BACK, not the neck!

Of course, the Warren Commission did not dare publish Boswell’s original sketch sheet. They published an altered copy, one that erased both Burkley’s Signature and his word “verified”! It was not until 1966 that the National Archives released the original, which apparently had been in the possession of the Secret Service.

That was intellectual deceit at the grossest level, and no one, no one can possibly claim it was an “honest mistake.”

As a personal aside, in 1992, I was on the phone with the late Harold Weisberg, discussing the autopsy. As soon as Weisberg mentioned Kenney’s name, our connection was interrupted by an audible, loud blare/whine noise for about two seconds. Startled, Weisberg confirmed that I heard it too. He said he believed his phone was tapped, and that certain names or words triggered a taping system. 

He may well have been right. If so, then my voice and name are on some Deep State file somewhere. 

I hope so.

Screw those bastards.

They can rot in hell forever.

Hi Paul.  Welcome.  The part about Burkley comes from James Jenkins At the Cold Shoulder of History, pg. 16.  He says "During the examination of the temple wound, Dr., Humes was called to the gallery to talk to one of the people that had come into the morgue with him and who seemed to be directing the autopsy.  I later was told this was Dr. George C. Burkley (Admiral), the President's personal physician.  Dr. Humes returned to the table and immediately directed Dr. Finck away from the small wound in the temple...".

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 9:27 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Hi Paul.  Welcome.  The part about Burkley comes from James Jenkins At the Cold Shoulder of History, pg. 16.  He says "During the examination of the temple wound, Dr., Humes was called to the gallery to talk to one of the people that had come into the morgue with him and who seemed to be directing the autopsy.  I later was told this was Dr. George C. Burkley (Admiral), the President's personal physician.  Dr. Humes returned to the table and immediately directed Dr. Finck away from the small wound in the temple...".

This was not the only time Burkley interfered according to Jenkins.  When the doctor's began looking at the throat wound closely he called out from the gallery words to the effect "That's just a tracheotomy from Dallas, move on.". 

[Chuck Schwartz]

  the testimony of Dr Pierre Finck in the Clay Shaw trial was interesting:
A:I will remind you that I was not in charge of the 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 officers, 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 the autopsy table, weren’t you Doctor?
A:Yes
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 cant, I dont remember

1. So, we have one of the co-authors of the report, one of the three qualified pathologists, stating, under oath, that he did not know who was running the autopsy.
2. Reply

• 1. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/895514cdcb8bc218019bd641fc876078?s=64&d=mm&r=g' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/895514cdcb8bc218019bd641fc876078?s=128&d=mm&r=g 2x' class='avatar avatar-64 photo' height='64' width='64' />George Simmons says:
  October 19, 2013 at 4:20 pm

  Another interesting point of Dr Finck’s testimony was when he was asked why he did not dissect the track of the bullet wound in the neck. He seemed to be very reluctant to answer this question, and had to be directed by the Judge to answer:
  Q:I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
  A:As I recall I was told not to. But I don’t remember by whom.
  Q:You were told not to, but you don’t remember by whom?
  A:Right
  Q:Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
  A:I don’t recall.

  So, we also have one of the co authors of the report, one of the three qualified pathologists stating he did not do this dissection because he was told not to, but he cannot recall who told him not to do it.

  Reply

• 1. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/655a7ee5c1bb2b165e7efdca7cd27ef9?s=64&d=mm&r=g' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/655a7ee5c1bb2b165e7efdca7cd27ef9?s=128&d=mm&r=g 2x' class='avatar avatar-64 photo' height='64' width='64' />Ray Mitcham says:
  2. October 20, 2013 at 11:20 am
  3. Paul O’Connor said General le May was present at the autopsy

[David Andrews]

Is Finck reliable when he cites an "Army general"?  I understand that Finck had been an Army pathologist, but since it was Bethesda, could it have been a Navy admiral in khaki asserting authority?  Finck may not have gotten a good look at the hat insignia and shoulder boards.

Edited March 21, 2020 by David Andrews

[James DiEugenio]

Yes that is reliable.

There were over forty people in the gallery that night.  They just poured in.

Although the common number given is 33, Sibert and O'Neill said that not everyone signed the list.

IMO, you would not forget something like that.

 

[Joseph McBride]

It's hard to believe Finck would confuse an Army man with

a Navy man or not recognize someone's rank.

[Micah Mileto]

On 1/16/2019 at 8:01 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Please note this exchange:

 

Q: Let me quote from two paragraphs of the affidavit and then I will ask you if that helps refresh your recollection to any events.
Paragraph X states:
"I clearly heard Dr. Finck, who was speaking sufficiently loudly for his words easily to be overheard, complain that he had been unable to locate the handwritten notes that he had taken during the autopsy on President Kennedy. Dr.Finck elaborated to his companions with considerable irritation that immediately after washing up following the autopsy, he looked for his notes and could not find them anywhere. He further recounted that others who were present at the autopsy also had helped him search for his notes to no avail.............Dr. Finck concluded his story by angrily stating that he had to reconstruct his notes from memory shortly after the autopsy."
The question, Dr. Finck, is do these two paragraphs help refresh your recollection first on the question of whether you took notes during the autopsy?
A: I don't know."

 

"Q: Dr. Finck, would it have been your regular practice during the course of an autopsy in which you participated to take notes and measurements?
A: Yes.
Q: Would that be a standard practice and procedure that most prosectors would engage in during the course of an autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: Dr. Finck, did you keep any kind of diary or written record of events that you were involved in?
A: I don't know.
Q: Dr. Finck, you have no idea at all whether you kept something like a diary in ?
A: I don't remember.

 

He does not remember if he kept a diary?  

Is it possible these "notes" meant his report to General Blumberg?

[Micah Mileto]

On 1/31/2019 at 5:02 PM, Paul Jolliffe said:

6.Wrote “verified” and signed his name to Boswell’s autopsy sketch sheet, completed at the table (it had JFK’s blood on it), that depicted the president’s wound IN THE BACK, not the neck!

Of course, the Warren Commission did not dare publish Boswell’s original sketch sheet. They published an altered copy, one that erased both Burkley’s Signature and his word “verified”! It was not until 1966 that the National Archives released the original, which apparently had been in the possession of the Secret Service.

That was intellectual deceit at the grossest level, and no one, no one can possibly claim it was an “honest mistake.”

 

I tried looking into this issue for my torso wounds megapost, but didn't include it. I think it's very likely the "verified" notation was made on 11/24-26 after the paper was photocopied for the Secret Service.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

On 2/2/2019 at 7:13 PM, Ron Bulman said:

This was not the only time Burkley interfered according to Jenkins.  When the doctor's began looking at the throat wound closely he called out from the gallery words to the effect "That's just a tracheotomy from Dallas, move on.". 

Paul O'Connor said that, about the throat wound. Jenkins said something a little different - that organs were removed which were not reported.

 

On 4/6/1991, Jenkins said the thyroid was removed.

Dr. Phillip Williams: Did they take his adrenal glands, do you know?

Jenkins: Took the adrenals, the testes, the pituitary, the thyroid.

Paul O'Connor: Right.

Williams: Alright, then, so if they took the thyroid, then they- they explored this [gesturing towards throat], but at no time did they say that this was a wound?

Jenkins: Dr. Boswell- the- the manner that we did the post was that we would do- we would open up the cavity, we would tie off the subclavian serenals and so forth. And then, we would extract, en masse, by severing the trach at the highest point that we could actually reach. And then, we take it all out, separate the organs- you know, examine the organs by- according to the technique that that particular doctor, whether he would saw such a heart or whether he would actually open up the heart through the vessels.

([Video, 5:34])

On 6/16/1991, Jenkins also said the spinal cord was removed. This is relevant to the shooting because a bullet was supposed to have passed near the spine. Jenkin's claim was denied by Dr. Boswell, as well as Dr. Robert Karnei, another autopsy witness. Dr. Humes refused to comment. As summarized in Livingstone's 1992 book High Treason 2:

[Chapter 6. The Autopsy: Some Conflicts in the Evidence]

[...]

Spinal Cord

Jenkins describes removing the spinal cord with a Stryker saw, but Dr. Karnei does not remember it having been removed. When I tried to ask Dr. Humes if it had been removed, he hung up on me.¹⁵ Dr. Boswell told me that the cord was not removed.¹⁶

The question of removal and examination of the spinal cord is important because this would tell us if the tuberculosis Kennedy had been exposed to as a child had been reactivated by the steroids he was being given, and only examination of the tissues of the spinal cord would tell this.

Normally during an autopsy the spinal cord is removed and its condition is reported.

Livingstone interviewed Dr. Karnei on 8/27/1991, Dr. Humes on 9/5/1991, and Dr. Boswell 8/7/1991.

[...]

[Chapter 7. Dr. Robert Frederick Karnei]

[...]

"Nobody got a look at the spine area?"

"Not that I remember. I don't remember anybody going into the spinal area to take a look there."

[...]

"In the end, don't you think they performed a complete and good autopsy?"

"I think it was as complete as they were allowed to do. I mean, normally they would have gone into the spinal column and taken the spinal cord and all that sort of thing. And they were not allowed to do that. And there was no way they could have looked at the spinal column there to see if there was any disease in the spinal column."

"They didn't remove the spinal column?"

"No. No. Not that I can remember. I am almost sure they did not touch the spinal column. [...]

[...]

"So the spinal cord was not removed, so there was no opportunity to take tissue samples from it or study whether or not he might have actually had TB of the spine?"

"No, I don't remember the spinal column ever being touched."

[...]

[Chapter 11. James Curtis Jenkins]

[...]

Later the spinal cord was removed-a Stryker saw cut both sides of the vertebral column. Jenkins saw Dr. Boswell remove the spinal cord.¹²

Both Dr. Boswell,¹³ and Dr. Robert Karnei, who was present in the autopsy room, deny that the spinal cord was removed. Once again it sounds as though we are talking about two different autopsies.

Part of the problem of trying to solve a case with so much conflicting evidence is the way people's minds play tricks on them. A lot of the witnesses did not see certain things because they were momentarily out of the room or otherwise occupied, so they will compensate by making certain assumptions in their mind which then become fact. If they think that Robert Kennedy was limiting the autopsy and they did not see the spinal cord removed, for instance, then they may state that the spinal cord was not removed because Robert did not want it done.

It is very common under stress for people's minds to imagine that they saw something they did not or to block out the memory of certain events. Jackie K as climbing on the trunk or Nelly Connally going up a flight of stairs.

I am not suggesting that that is what happened here, and that the spinal cord was in fact removed. I don't know at this point. The cord is not properly mentioned in the autopsy report, wheras normally it would be.

From Livingstone's 1993 book Killing The Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case:

[Appendix J, Encyclopedia of Medical Events And Witness Testimony by Harrison E. Livingstone and Katlee Link Fitzgerald]

[...]

SPINAL CORD

[...]

Doctor Robert Karnei: The spinal cord was not removed. He was quite strong about this. (Aug. 27, 1991)

Jim Jenkins: said that later the spinal cord was removed separately-use of Stryker saw but both sides of the vertical column. Jenkins saw Dr. Boswell remove the spinal cord (a: June 6, 1991) Jenkins thinks the brain stem was severed before it arrived at the autopsy because when they removed it from the head, the spinal cord did not come with it. He also said during the same interview that he did not recall removing the spinal cord and that he would have removed it (a: May 29, 1991)

However, approximately 90% of the time the spinal cord will separate from the brain when the brain is removed.

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

On 1/31/2019 at 7:27 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Hi Paul.  Welcome.  The part about Burkley comes from James Jenkins At the Cold Shoulder of History, pg. 16.  He says "During the examination of the temple wound, Dr., Humes was called to the gallery to talk to one of the people that had come into the morgue with him and who seemed to be directing the autopsy.  I later was told this was Dr. George C. Burkley (Admiral), the President's personal physician.  Dr. Humes returned to the table and immediately directed Dr. Finck away from the small wound in the temple...".

Jenkins described this alledged "temple wound" as a small dark-colored splotch in the skull on the edge of the large defect above the right ear. which looked like lead. He did not describe seeing a "whole" hole. I wonder if this memory could have come from the lead identified on the disembodied FRAGMENT of skull delivered later that night. He also didn't describe this interaction in any of his earlier statements, and I suspect he either intentionally or unintentionally borrowed from Paul O'Connor's story about Burkley directing the pathologists away from the THROAT wound (not the temple).

Edited March 22, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[Ron Bulman]

19 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Jenkins described this alledged "temple wound" as a small dark-colored splotch in the skull, around the area of the right ear. which looked like lead. He did not describe seeing an actual hole. I wonder if this memory could have come from the lead identified on the disembodied FRAGMENT of skull delivered later that night. He also didn't describe this interaction in any of his earlier statements, and I suspect he either intentionally or unintentionally borrowed from Paul O'Connor's story about Burkley directing the pathologists away from the THROAT wound (not the temple).

But isn't the point that Burkley called Humes back to the gallery to tell him not to investigate the possible wound?

[Joseph McBride]

There was a bullet in the right temple that was removed during the autopsy or pre-autopsy.

There was also a bullet hole in the top right of Kennedy's forehead at the hairline.