If you could ask one living witness anything..

[Nic Martin]

I believe a letter to Humes would end up in the...ahem..."dead letter office."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cute.

[Pat Speer]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Richard J. Smith]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Pat Speer]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eardley was the Justice Department's point man on all things autopsy. He briefed the doctors before their TV appearances, oversaw the so-called military review that changed the descritions of the autopsy photos, oversaw the doctors' participation in the Shaw trial, and convinced Boswell to write the letter that brought about the Clark Panel. And yet he was never interviewed as far as I can tell. (I think he died before the HSCA could ever ask him any questions.)

That Connick replaced Garrison as DA is a bit of a coinkydink, don't you think?

[Wade Rhodes]

Question: Who of all 16 agents are still alive that were assigned to the motorcade.

The 16 agents he names are:

1.) Bennet, Glen A.

2.) Greer, William R.

3.) Hickey, George W., Jr.

4.) Hill, Clinton J.

5.) Johns, Thomas L.

6.) Kellerman, Roy H.

7.) Kinney, Samuel A.

8.) Kivett, Jerry D.

9.) Landis, Paul E.

10.) Lawson, Winston G.

11.) McIntyre, William T.

12.) Ready, John D.

13.) Roberts, Emory P.

14.) Sorrells, Forrest V.

15.) Taylor, Warren W.

16.) Youngblood, Rufus W.

[Tim Gratz]

How far up on the witness list should we place Gordon Novel?

[Richard J. Smith]

How far up on the witness list should we place Gordon Novel?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Tim Gratz]

If Novel was the Umbrella Man, was the man who told the HSCA he was then put up to it? And does that not then make him a fairly interesting subject to interview? If he was put up to it, arguably he could face the death penalty as an accessory after the fact. That might make him cooperative!

(As, by Salandria's reasoning, so could the editor of the Nation. Sorry, just could not resist. I do not like criminalizng dissent.)

Edited August 29, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Chuck Robbins]

Just curious as to what everyone would be curious about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would ask Tosh Plumlee if he was known by the nickname "Zappi", and if so, who knew him by that nickname.

[John Dolva]

Just curious as to what everyone would be curious about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nic, If I had an oportunity to speak to Marina, I would try to think of questions that might give me an answer to what she meant when she said that Oswald abused her. Depending on life experience one person might think harsh words to be abuse, another might reserve it for severe sexual attacks.

As I'm trying to understand Oswald I find this to be a unexplored area. Perhaps it's an 'unmentionable' where one is left to assume what she means. Perhaps coming from another culture she means something in a different way to say USA '63?