Richard J. Smith

******************************************************************* Are you asking those of us with I.Q.'s above, or below 100? Those above 100 should be equally appalled and livid that we've allowed this government to be usurped by a laissez-faire condoning, fascist, neo-con congress in 1994, for starters. In other words, how was it that so many people were asleep at the wheel to have allowed this to occur? Only in a system whose checks and balances are so out of wack! But, this certainly paved the way for the ultimate low achiever to have sailed to victory on his father's coat-tails. What do you expect from a moron? You've got ONE party with TWO branches. The blind leading the blind. Those under 100, will immediately find this inquiry to be UN-AMERICAN. Why? Because they voted for Bush solely based on his christian faith. Because, the majority between NY and LA comprise the RED states, and you "best believe" they're standing by their president, RIGHT or WRONG. Why? Because they voted for him, and no amount of pointing out to these people how the inequities in their lives, their lack of healthcare, their waitress, stock-boy jobs at minimum wage, and the fact that they'll never be able to rise above this poverty level of existence is ever going to register in their pea-brained minds, as a direct correlation to the moronic idiot they voted into office, based on his religious beliefs. Also known as, blind faith. But, thats merely MHO. Check out TRUTHOUT'S traveling roadshow through the RED states. They're interviewing the American heartland, asking their reasons for voting for Alfred E. Neuman. Bush's authorization to allow illegal wiretapping is in violation of the US Constitution and is an impeachable offense. Bush, nor any other president, has the authority to initiate such action. I accidently watched about 30 seconds of Bush's speech tonight(flipped over from ESPN football to watch FOX Family Guy), and was SO pissed when I heard him say something about the "democratic constitution in Iraq", especially after what was revealed in the last few days. He clearly violated the constitution of the United States. If Congress had any schmaltz, they'd move on this quickly. Even the Republicans are irate. It's simply unbelieveable what this guy and his cronies have done. RJS

Come on, guys, this place is beginning to look like Conspiracies R Us. The CIA condoning central American operatives in the drug trade is not the same as the CIA orchestratiing the drug trade and specifically targeting the black population. I suppose the current Meth epidemic devastating White Trash America is the CIA's attempt to balance the scales? Pat, I was in touch with a retired DEA agent a few years ago who essentially confirmed a story that had been making the rounds for several years. You recall the death of DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena in Mexico in 1985, said to have been murdered by Mexican drug lords. If I recall, 2 low level traffickers were convicted and sentenced to life in prison for Camarena's death. This former DEA guy said Camerena was murdered by the CIA because he found out about an airfield in Mexico used by the CIA as a stopover from Central America to the US. As you know(and this forum's own Tosh Plumlee can confirm this I'm sure, as he made many of these flights), the CIA would fly weapons and supplies to Central America, and bring tons of cocaine back on the return flight. Barry Seal was also heavily involved in these operations(who was himself murdered outside New Orleans allegedly with a trunk full of documents proving ties to the CIA and GHWB). Tosh's closed session testimony to the Kerry Committee is still sealed as secret, related to national security. In the early 90's, CIA officials went to Los Angeles and held a news conference to try to convince poor black families that they had nothing to do with cocaine smuggling. It was big news. They were nearly run out of the city. And if is in fact true that John Kerry apologized to one of Operation 40's chief assassins(and personal friend of GHWB), it certainly changes my mind about that senator. But then again, it's all politics as usual isn't it? RJS

Well Hi Nancy, Let me clarify a few things if I may. Terry is absolutely correct. "Standing on the shoulder" of the highway as cars pass by is a metaphor, a euphemism of sorts, that indicates life passing you by. Mary's statement has nothing to do with I95 or any other highway. You are partially correct however, in that a 50 mile portion of I95 in Maryland is called the "JFK Highway". Local towns and counties do that quite often in the US. There's a portion of a state highway in my area that the county named "Veterans Memorial Highway", but still has its number designation. It's just a political thing in the local area. The entire I95 isn't the JFK Highway however, just that 50 mile stretch. Mary's statement HAD meaning, in that we need to get moving on this case or it will pass us by, just as cars pass by someone standing on the shoulder of a highway. RJS

Interestingly, Armitage was an assistant to Secretary of State Colin Powell during the first Bush term. A simple internet search turns up plenty of dirt on Mr Armitage. Bo Gritz, former Green Beret and intel operative, was commissioned by Ross Perot to serach for MIAs in Vietnam, confirmed the Armitage heroin link and reported it back to Perot. Perot then called fellow Texan George Bush(Vice President at the time) and told him of the information. Bush apparently blew him off. RJS

Bill, An excellent article to be sure. What certainly is needed is a team to put together the evidence. Not hearsay, speculation, theories, and innuendo, but hard evidence and documentation. It IS out there afterall, and it will be necessary for this "team" to put aside the theories and concentrate on the facts. This forum apparently has members who are lawyers or affiliated with lawyers or prosecutors in Texas. Perhaps that's a good place to start. Seems to me if I was an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Texas, and called myself a JFK researcher, I'd be all over this. So someone should grab the bull by the proverbial horns and get moving. RJS PS: Is your on-line grand jury petition still active? I recall we discussed this a few years ago.

Just saw the last segment and it made me sick. They lined up a couple of torsos and tried to replicate the wounds by firing a Mannlicher Carcano from a sixty foot tower. Although the wounds DID NOT line up (the bullet passed below the first torso's clavicle and out of the chest instead of out of the throat, hit the second torso four inches below the armpit, and failed to penetrate its thigh) and the bullet was bent into a "c" shape, they explained it all away by saying the bullet hit two ribs instead of one on the second torso and so therefore the single bullet theory was supported by their experiment. This is utter nonsense. I SCREAMED when I heard their conclusion. I nearly broke something. Obviously, they were too chicken-xxxx to say their test did not support the "magic bullet;" I'm wondering what executive made this decision. If the whole thing was a fraud they would have just faked their results. To make matters worse, they allowed Vincent Bugliosi, who was also featured on a recent episode of Penn and Teller's TV show Bullxxxx! dismissing conspiracy theories, to have the last word, warning people that an obsession with the assassination can be "toxic" Clearly Vince is getting ready for his book release this fall. This whole turn of events really makes me angry. I wrote "Unsolved History" a letter last year offering to help them create a similar program, but one with some credibility, and received no response. Instead they feed us this crap. Well, at least they showed us the tests and that is on the record. I believe I'll be using their test in my upcoming presentation on the medical evidence. For anyone interested in further debate on the Discovery program visit JFK Lancer at the forum links below. I posted video captures of the "reenactment". Original thread: JFK Lancer Rebuttal thread: JFK Lancer RJS

Ron, Note the editor didn't answer my question regarding crackpot theories. RJS

This, in particular, is why I usually read these posts with interest(and suspicion). You never know what may inadvertantly come out. Gerry posted this comment 8/27/05: "The day of the JFK assassination, Jim Lewis was [as usual] playing Chess at "Little Joe's" apartment by the Miami River -- together with Eddy Collins, "Skinny", Dick Whatley, Bobby Willis, and Bill Dempsey. When Garman started dancing in the street soon after hearing the news from Dallas, Jim chastized him severely [along with Cuban pissed-off neighbors]; He reminded him that just four days before he had been a member of our security detail for JFK at MIA [Monday, 18th Nov.], and that he had been prepared to "take-a-bullet" for the President !!" Anyone else think it odd that Garman would "dance in the street" after hearing of JFK's demise, yet was "prepared to take a bullet" for him 4 days earlier? I wouldn't dismiss EVERYTHING GHP has to say. RJS

Bill, Nice to hear from you again. Sorry to change the subject of this thread, but I've been wondering about your progress in trying get a grand jury convened. Haven't heard anything for well over a year. What's the current status? RJS

The question was answered years ago. Only those that don't know the facts keep bringing it up. "We now know it was both". We "know" no such thing. "Stunning development"? The only thing stunning is that you believe this junk. Why did Billy Lovelady wear a shirt to resemble LHO? He didn't, plain and simple. It's misstated, speculative, untrue junk such as this that gives the entire research community a bad name.

Lynne, I believe the Warren Report is full of excellent information and should not be dismissed. Do you really think every witness lied, or every document is false? The WCR is one of the best sources FOR a conspiracy I know of. It's their conclusion I don't agree with. Regarding "debunking" the "real possibility" that LHO was photographed standing on the steps, you must think that Billy Lovelady committed perjury. If you read his testimony, HE drew the arrow pointing to himself in the photo when asked to identify where he was. He's given many interviews over the years, and was photographed with the now famous red checkered shirt. There is no "real possibility". There is only speculation, innuendo, and supposition. Time for a reality check. Do you realize it's this kind of thing that makes CTs look like a bunch of loonies? Geez, just jump at anything no matter how far out. It WAS Billy Lovelady in the doorway of the TSBD. What anyone believes about the Warren Report is immaterial. RJS

It was unquestionably Billy Lovelady. Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are? Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture. Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating). Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken? Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating). Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step? Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level. Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there? Mr. LOVELADY - Right.

Tim, Granted it is difficult to ascertain positive ID from a old photo blowup, but not only does the trenchcoat fit Hunt, so does the hat. And why else would Hunt be in DP? He's denied being there, and as someone pointed out, tried to use his children as an alibi. Of course, you'd more than likely have to subscribe to the theory that the CIA was the driving force behind the assassination to allow for Hunt's presence.

I agree 100%, although I do not believe Hunt was one the tramps. IMO, this was Hunt.

Carol, Let me relay some personal info regarding Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root. Halliburton, as you may know, was the defendant in an asbestos class action lawsuit brought about due to KBR's manufacture and use of asbestos. After the suit was filed, Halliburton broke KBR into separate entities so its multi billion dollar profits would not be affected by the suits. When the move was challenged, a judge agreed that Halliburton could do it. That KBR division then declared bankruptcy. My father was part of the suit, and subsequently died of asbestosis related lung cancer almost 3 years ago. KBR's division that will bear the brunt of the suit settlements has yet to pay a dime, although a settlement has apparently been determined. So instead of facing up to its responsibilities, Halliburton devised a plan to save its profits, effectively negating what may have been payouts to thousands of very ill people who worked with KBR products containing asbestos. The division splitting allowed substantially less payouts by the designated division instead of the whole Halliburton/KBR conglomerate. And a federal bankruptcy judge let it all happen. This was a well conceived plan by Halliburton to limit its responsibility, and it worked. Needless to say, I also hope Cheney chokes on his dividend checks. I'm sure he's thrilled that my 80 year old widowed mother will get very little if anything, while he's laughing all the way to the bank with check in hand. RJS

Tim said: "75 percent of the Army and Air National Guard are available nationwide. In addition, the federal government has agreed since the conflict in Iraq started not to mobilize more than 50 percent of Guard assets in any given state, in order to leave sufficient resources for governors to respond to emergencies. In Louisiana only about a third of Guard personnel are deployed, and they will be returning in about a week as part of their normal rotation. The Mississippi Guard has 40 percent overseas." These figures are correct. Where I disagree is that 7500 troops were called out and on the ground within a day. They obviously weren't, and weren't seen until Friday. Something was dreadfully wrong with this picture. I agree with CNN's Jack Cafferty, who said "the government fell flat on its face". There was no excuse for the reaction(or lack thereof). From one of the most conservative newspapers in America, the New Hampshire Union Leader: "A better leader would have flown straight to the disaster zone and announced the immediate mobilization of every available resource to rescue the stranded, find and bury the dead, and keep the survivors fed, clothed, sheltered and free of disease. The cool, confident, intuitive leadership Bush exhibited in his first term, particularly in the months immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, has vanished. In its place is a diffident detachment unsuitable for the leader of a nation facing war, natural disaster and economic uncertainty. Wherever the old George W. Bush went, we sure wish we had him back." From the New York Times: "George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end." RJS

The photo posted was taken at Bethesda. There were no photos taken at Parkland. Additionally, the autopsy photos currently in the public domain were never "officially" released. Not sure what you mean by "no square on front right back". Are you referring to a photo of the entire right side of the head? The autopsy photos are in the National Archives, but can only be viewed with permission of the Kennedy family attorneys. http://www.jfklancer.com/aphotos.html RJS

Parkland Memorial Hospital Operative Record - Lee Harvey Oswald Surgery Date: 11-24-63 Pre-Operative Diagnosis: GSW of upper abdomen and chest with massive bleeding. Post-Operative Diagnosis: Major vascular injury in abdomen and chest. Operation: Exploratory laparotomy, thoracotomy, efforts to repair aorta. Began: 1142 Ended: 1307 Anesthetic: General Began: 1142 Anesthesiologist: Dr. M. T. Jenkins, Dr. Gene Akin, Dr. Curtis Spier Surgeon: Dr. Tom Shires Assistants: Dr. Perry, Dr. McClelland, Dr. Ron Jones Scrub Nurse: Schrader, Lunsford Circ. Nurse: Schrader, Bell, Burkett, Simpson Sponge Counts: 1st, 2nd 2 counted sponges missing when body closed. Square pack count correct. Drugs: Ca chloride - 3 vials, Cedilanid - 12, One molar lactate - 6, Isuprel - 24, Adrenalin 1:1000 - 3. I. V. Fluids and Blood: 3-1000 cc lactated Ringer's solution, 16-500 cc. whole blood, 6-1000 cc. 5% dextrose in lactated Ringer's solution. Measured blood loss - 8,376 cc. Condition of Patient: Expired at 1307 Notes: Previous inspection had revealed an entrance wound over the left lower lateral chest cage, and an exit was identified by subcutaneous palpation of the bullet over the right lower lateral chest cage. At the time he was seen preoperatively he was without blood pressure, heart beat was heard infrequently at 130 beats per minute, and preoperatively had endotracheal tube placed and was receiving oxygen by anesthesia at the time he was moved to the operating room. Under endotracheal oxygen anesthesia, a long mid-line abdominal incision was made. Bleeders were not apparent and none were clamped or tied. Upon opening the peritoneal cavity, approximately 2 to 3 liters of blood, both liquid and in clots, were encountered. These were removed. The bullet pathway was then identified as having shattered the upper medial surface of the spleen, then entered the retroperitoneal area where there was a large retroperitoneal hematoma in the area of the pancreas. Following this, bleeding was seen to be coming from the right side, and upon inspection there was seen to be an exit to the right through the inferior vena cava, thence through the superior pole of the right kidney, the lower portion of the right lobe of the liver, and into the right lateral body wall. First the right kidney, which was bleeding, was identified, dissected free, retracted immediately, and the inferior vena cava hole was clamped with a partial occlusion clamp of the Satinsky type. Following this immobilization, packing controlled the bleeding from the right kidney. Attention was then turned to the left, as bleeding was massive from the left side. The inspection of the retroperitoneal area revealed a huge hematoma in the mid-line. The spleen was then mobilized, as was the left colon, and the retroperitoneal approach was made to the mid-line structures. The pancreas was seen to be shattered in its mid portion, bleeding was seen to be coming from the aorta. This was dissected free. Bleeding was controlled with finger pressure by Dr. Malcolm O. Perry. Upon identification of this injury, the superior mesenteric artery had been sheared off of the aorta, there was back bleeding from the superior mesenteric artery. This was cross-clamped with a small, curved DeBakey clamp. The aorta was then occluded with a straight DeBakey clamp above and a Potts clamp below. At this point all major bleeding was controlled, blood pressure was reported to be in the neighborhood of 100 systolic. Shortly thereafter, however, the pulse rate, which had been in the 80 to 90 range, was found to be 40 and a few seconds later found to be zero. No pulse was felt in the aorta at this time. Consequently the left chest was opened through an intercostal incision in approximately the fourth intercostal space. A Finochietto retractor was inserted, the heart was seen to be flabby and not beating at all. There was no hemopericardium. There was a hole in the diaphragm but no hemothorax. A left closed chest tube had been introduced in the Emergency Room prior to surgery, so that there was no significant pneumothorax on the left side. The pericardium was opened, cardiac massage was started, and a pulse was obtainable with massage. The heart was flabby, consequently calcium chloride followed by epinephrine-Xylocaine were injected into the left ventricle without success. However, the standstill was converted to fibrillation. Following this, defibrillation was done, using 240, 360, 500, and 750 volts and finally successful defibrillation was accomplished. However, no effective heart beat could be instituted. A pacemaker was then inserted into the wall of the right ventricle and grounded on skin, and pacemaking was started. A very feeble, small, localized muscular response was obtained with the pacemaker but still no effective beat. At this time we were informed by Dr. Jenkins that there sere no signs of life in that the pupils were fixed and dilated, there was no retinal blood flow, no respiratory effort, and no effective pulse could be maintained even with cardiac massage. The patient was pronounced dead at 1:07 P. M. Anesthesia consisted entirely of oxygen. No anesthetic agents as such were administered. The patient was never conscious from the time of his arrival in the Emergency Room until his death at 1:07 P. M. The subcutaneous bullet was extracted from the right side during the attempts at defibrillation, which were rotated among the surgeons. The cardiac massage and defibrillation attempts were carried out by Dr. Robert N. McClelland, Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Dr. Ronald Jones. Assistance was obtained from the cardiologist, Dr. Fouad Bashour. /s/ Tom Shires, M. D.

I recall reading somewhere that when the subject is broached with Novel, he gets NASTY. IMO, Novel was Umbrella Man.

Yes, I have it on VHS. It includes portions of the Roy Cooper film, with that segment narrated and presented by Richard Trask. Also has a presentation by John Newman. Very worthwhile IMO. RJS

Nic, Between the area of the parking garage where LHO was shot and the elevator, there was a jail office. Between the jail office and the garage, there was a glass door and partition. Just inside the door there was what I would refer to as a reception desk, about as high as a bank teller's station. LHO was on the floor behind the desk. WFAA shot film footage of this area after LHO was shot, but the front desk was in the way(you couldn't see him on the floor). You could, however, see detectives standing around him looking down. The footage is seen in the WFAA documentary The Story Behind the Story. After the shooting, Ruby was led into the jail office, past LHO, and into the elevator. Sorry I don't have any photos of the jail office, but I marked your drawing with X's showing LHO's approx location. RJS

I believe Finck, Boswell and Humes all tried to tell the truth when possible, but shied away when they realized their words might get twisted into something that will support the conclusion of conspiracy. They determined Kennedy was hit by two shots and two shots only, and will stick to that until death. How could they admit they made a mistake on the most important job they ever performed? Finck told his superiors in 65 that the neck should have been inspected, and repeated this at the Garrsion trial. It was his impression Burkley ordered Humes not to inspect the neck, but Humes later told JAMA it was his own decision, not Burkley's. The key to understanding the autopsy is to understand that Humes had no experience performing a proper autopsy, had no mandate to perform one, and was pressured into doing a half-assed one in order to save time. Boswell and Finck followed his lead. Finck knew the whole thing was wrong but it wasn't his call to make. He did his best, and has done his best to forget the thing ever since. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pat, I found this very interesting aspect of Boswell's ARRB deposition regarding Finck and the Shaw trial: Q. Very early on in your deposition today, you made reference to Mr. Eardley from the Justice Department asking you to go to New Orleans; is that correct? A. Mm-hmm. Q. What did he say to you about the reason he wanted you to go to New Orleans? A. He was really upset. He says, "J, we got to get somebody in New Orleans quick. Pierre is testifying, and he's really lousing everything up." And I called Jim to see if he didn't want to go, and he was having--his mother-in-law was ill, and he couldn't go. So they put me on a plane that day and took me to New Orleans, and that was one of the most interesting adventures of my life. I met--do you want to hear all of this? Q. Yes, please. A. Carl Eardley sent me to a hotel, and I went into the hotel and registered. I was already registered. I got up to my room, and there was a note on my bedside table telling me to meet somebody at a certain place at a certain time. And this was a scary place. This was down around the wharfs, and the federal attorney's office was in a big warehouse down there. And that's--I met somebody on the street. He took me in there, and then they told me what was going on. They showed me the transcript of Pierre's testimony for the past couple of days, and I spent all night reviewing that testimony. And it was this bit about the general. Jim said, "Who's in charge here?" 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. I spent two days down there and then came home, never appeared in court. And the government won their case. Q. Actually, the government was the district attorney. So my next question for you actually was: 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? A. Well, they--I went over and met somebody, some lawyer in another firm that night, and I don't know who he was representing. But, obviously, the federal attorney was on the side of Clay Shaw against the district attorney. Q. Do you remember the name of that federal attorney? A. No. I have no idea. Q. Was it Harry Connick? A. It could very well have been. That name sounds--of course, Connick is not an uncommon name. It could have been. Q. Do you recall meeting with an attorney named Wegman? A. No. Q. Or Dymond? A. Thirty years ago, no, I can't remember that. Q. What did the government attorney say to you? Did he help prepare potential testimony for you? 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.

It was a Discovery Channel documentary called Death in Dealey Plaza. http://shopping.discovery.com/stores/servl...catalogId=10000

Hi Nic, Humes died in 1999, Finck lives in Switzerland. For an insight into these guys, read the interviews by William Law in In the Eye of History. Finck, in his 1996 ARRB deposition, said "I don't know" and "I don't recall" so many times it was ridiculous. He did, however, make a rather groundbreaking comment about how the back wound was located by using the mastoid process as a starting point: May 24, 1996, ARRB deposition of Dr Finck: Q: Was there any procedure, for example, that should have been performed that was not performed? A: The removal of the organs of the neck. In my training we were trained to remove the organs of the neck. And in this particular case, they were not removed. Q: Isn't that particularly important in the autopsy of President Kennedy in the sense that there is believed to have been a wound that went through the neck? A: Yes. Q: And isn't it important in a medical/legal autopsy to be able to track the course of a bullet through the body? A: Yes. Q: When you were performing the autopsy of President Kennedy, did you make any attempts to track the course of the bullet - A: Yes. Q: - that you referred to as the upper back? A: Yes. That was unsuccessful with a probe from what I remember. Q: What kind of probe did you use? A: I don't remember. Q: Is there a standard type of probe that is used in autopsies? A: A non-metallic probe. Q: In using the probe, did you attempt to determine the angle of the entrance of the bullet into President Kennedy's body? A: Yes. It was unsuccessful from what I remember. Q: In the probes that you did make, did you find any evidence that would support a bullet going into the upper back and existing from the place where the tracheotomy incision had been performed? A: From what I recall, we stated the probing was unsuccessful. That's all I can remember. Q: My question is did you find any evidence during the course of the autopsy that would link the wound in the upper back to the exit wound in the throat? A: I don't recall. Q: Do you recall anyone during the course of the autopsy suggesting that the bullet wound in the upper back might have exited from the throat? A: I don't remember. Q: Dr. Finck, are you familiar with the term "fixed body landmark"? A: Yes. Q: For example, would the midline in the cranium be considered to be a fixed body landmark? A: No. Q: When one is attempting to determine the location of a wound, we'll say, in the thoracic cavity; would it be appropriate to use as a fixed body landmark a mastoid process? A: No. Q: For purposes of identifying the wound in the back, the thoracic cavity. A: An immobile bony structure is a fixed body landmark. Q: Well, for the identification of the location of a wound in the thoracic cavity - A: Thoracic cavity. Q: - is a mastoid process a standard and understood fixed body landmark? A: For the thoracic cavity, no. Because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move. Q: So that the mastoid process would not be a standard fixed body landmark for the purposes of identifying the location of a wound in the thoracic region, is that fair to say? A: Yes. Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to show you a document that has been marked as Exhibit 6, and I would like to ask you whether you have ever seen the document marked Exhibit 6? [Handing document to witness] MR. GUNN: I will state for the record that Exhibit 6 appears on its face to be a certificate of death, signed it appears by Rear Admiral George Gregory Burkley, dated November 23rd, 1963. [Witness perusing document] BY MR. GUNN: Q: Again, my question to you, Dr. Finck, is whether you previously have seen the document before that is now marked Exhibit 6? A: I don't remember. Q: Do you know who George Burkley was? A: Physician to the President. Yes, I recall now that I see this. Q: Do you recall whether Admiral Burkley was in the autopsy room at the night of the autopsy of President Kennedy? A: I think he was. Q: I would like to draw your attention to the second page of the document, the fourth line down. Do you see the reference there to the third thoracic vertebra? A: I do. Q: For the purpose of locating a wound in the back, would the third thoracic vertebra be considered to be a fixed body landmark? A: Yes. Q: Was Dr. Burkley correct in identifying the posterior back wound as being at the level of the third thoracic vertebra? A: I don't know. Q: Did you make any attempt during the night of the autopsy to locate the upper back entry wound with any vertebra? A: I don't recall. Q: Is there any reason that you would not have attempted to locate the back wound in connection with a vertebra? A: No. Boswell is described an in an interview with Harold Rydberg In the Eye of History as the one who might "crack" someday, being the "weak link". Recall that at the HSCA, Boswell moved the back wound on the autopsy face sheet to the back of the neck. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...md159_0001a.htm

Tim, I tried contacting him by email about a year ago, and got no response. Here's a good interview with him. http://www.jfk-info.com/pr796.htm RJS