John Simkin Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 There is an interesting passage in William Matson Law's book, In the Eye of History (2005) Law: Let's go to Finck. Rydberg: The only thing I know about Colonel Finck - I did meet him, and he also reviewed these drawings - but I don't remember him being up there with Galloway and Captain Stover and Boswell and myself and Humes. But he was a very strong-armed do-it-my-way-or-no-way type colonel in the army. Special Forces and all the rest of this garbage. Intelligence, you know. That's an oxymoron (laughing). He was the one that they called to do the covers. Law: The covers? Rydberg: Well, look at him. He's in Calley. He's in Kennedy. He's in Pitzer. Law: It does seem rather strange. Rydberg. The denominator weaves a pretty strong cloth. Law: He does seem to pop up in. Rydberg: Any time you want it covered or you want somebody to blame, call Finck. Aptly named. He was a very deadly man, I'll put it that way. I've seen other officers like him, people in Special Forces. Like Liddy, that Nixon had put in his hand in a flame and burn it? That's about like him. He was one you wouldn't turn your back on. I wouldn't. Law: Well, that sounds ominous. Rydberg: I'll probably hear from him. If I do, I'll e-mail you (laughing)... Law: Is there anything for the historical record that you would like people to know? Rydberg: For the historical record- it was one of the biggest cover-ups to enhance two people's futures: Johnson and Hoover. Pierre Antoine Finck studied at the University of Geneva Medical School. After graduating in 1948 he spent two years at the Institute of Pathology in Geneva before moving to the United States where he continued his studies at the University of Tennessee Medical School. In 1955 Finck was drafted into the United States Army. He was sent to Germany and became a pathologist at the U.S. Army hospital in Frankfurt. In 1959 Finck was sent to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington. The following year he was appointed Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the institute. I also found this passage on another website: Pierre Finck is not the only one in his family to have done high-profile work. His grandfather, a professor of legal medicine, performed the autopsy on Elizabeth, Empress of Austria in 1888. Finck himself gained noteriety as the only professional to attend the autopsies of both President Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy. Finck served in the US Army Medical Corps from 1955-1975. He was a member of the Academy of Forensic Sciences and at the time of the autopsy was an Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chief of Wound Ballistics Pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). His background shows a deep connection to the national security establishment. He appeared as an expert medical witness before the International Commission of Jurists in Panama, 1964. His role there was to show that the gunshot victims were not killed by American soldiers. In Germany he testified in a case involving the killing of an American officer. He was also a consultant to the FBI. The most curious association is Finck's connection to the International Police Academy (IPA), formerly the Inter-American Police Academy, founded in Panama by the CIA's station there. Later, the Academy moved to Washington. CIA-controlled and using AID cover, the International Police Academy was engaged in training police forces from the Third World. Finck was a lecturer there. http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr1195-finck.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 There is an interesting passage in William Matson Law's book, In the Eye of History (2005)Law: Let's go to Finck. Rydberg: The only thing I know about Colonel Finck - I did meet him, and he also reviewed these drawings - but I don't remember him being up there with Galloway and Captain Stover and Boswell and myself and Humes. But he was a very strong-armed do-it-my-way-or-no-way type colonel in the army. Special Forces and all the rest of this garbage. Intelligence, you know. That's an oxymoron (laughing). He was the one that they called to do the covers. Law: The covers? Rydberg: Well, look at him. He's in Calley. He's in Kennedy. He's in Pitzer. Law: It does seem rather strange. Rydberg. The denominator weaves a pretty strong cloth. Law: He does seem to pop up in. Rydberg: Any time you want it covered or you want somebody to blame, call Finck. Aptly named. He was a very deadly man, I'll put it that way. I've seen other officers like him, people in Special Forces. Like Liddy, that Nixon had put in his hand in a flame and burn it? That's about like him. He was one you wouldn't turn your back on. I wouldn't. Law: Well, that sounds ominous. Rydberg: I'll probably hear from him. If I do, I'll e-mail you (laughing)... Law: Is there anything for the historical record that you would like people to know? Rydberg: For the historical record- it was one of the biggest cover-ups to enhance two people's futures: Johnson and Hoover. Pierre Antoine Finck studied at the University of Geneva Medical School. After graduating in 1948 he spent two years at the Institute of Pathology in Geneva before moving to the United States where he continued his studies at the University of Tennessee Medical School. In 1955 Finck was drafted into the United States Army. He was sent to Germany and became a pathologist at the U.S. Army hospital in Frankfurt. In 1959 Finck was sent to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington. The following year he was appointed Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the institute. I also found this passage on another website: Pierre Finck is not the only one in his family to have done high-profile work. His grandfather, a professor of legal medicine, performed the autopsy on Elizabeth, Empress of Austria in 1888. Finck himself gained noteriety as the only professional to attend the autopsies of both President Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy. Finck served in the US Army Medical Corps from 1955-1975. He was a member of the Academy of Forensic Sciences and at the time of the autopsy was an Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chief of Wound Ballistics Pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). His background shows a deep connection to the national security establishment. He appeared as an expert medical witness before the International Commission of Jurists in Panama, 1964. His role there was to show that the gunshot victims were not killed by American soldiers. In Germany he testified in a case involving the killing of an American officer. He was also a consultant to the FBI. The most curious association is Finck's connection to the International Police Academy (IPA), formerly the Inter-American Police Academy, founded in Panama by the CIA's station there. Later, the Academy moved to Washington. CIA-controlled and using AID cover, the International Police Academy was engaged in training police forces from the Third World. Finck was a lecturer there. http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr1195-finck.html "Special Forces and all the rest of this garbage" There is most asuredly some "garbage" here. However, it has little, if anything to do with LTC Finck's qualifications and/or assignments. And, although I only spoke with him on one occassion, there was nothing which would serve to indicate that LTC Finck ever had any type assignment to anything related to Special Forces Units and/or operations. That many who have never dealt with the Swiss, and especially those who became Military Officers do not understand how absolute "strict" they are in their manner and interpretations, is merely their failure to understand other cultures. That anyone, especially a know-nothing such as Arlen Specter, would even question any statement made by Dr. Finck, goes against all that he stands for. And, after fully coming to recognize that there was something going on which constituted a deliberate attempt to discredit him and his observations during the JFK assassination, he politely packed his bags and went back home to Switzerland. Unfortunately, the actions of those such as Arlen Specter, have apparantly given Dr. Finck a "bad taste" as regards the U.S. Government in which he served as a Military Officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share Posted July 25, 2006 http://www.namebase.org/main3/Pierre-A-Finck.html Assn. National Security Alumni. Unclassified 1995-SP (19) Blumenthal,S. Yazijian,H. Government by Gunplay. 1976 (213) Davis,J. Mafia Kingfish. 1989 (328) DiEugenio,J. Destiny Betrayed. 1992 (98, 190, 197, 288-309) DiEugenio,J. Pease,L. The Assassinations. 2003 (74) Duffy,J. Ricci,V. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy. 1992 (181-2) Garrison,J. On the Trail of the Assassins. 1988 (243, 245-9) Groden,R. Livingstone,H. High Treason. 1990 (2, 4-5, 31, 35, 77, 92-3) Marrs,J. Crossfire. 1990 (368-9) New York Times 1992-10-06 (C3) Russell,D. The Man Who Knew Too Much. 1992 (571) San Antonio Express-News 1998-08-03 (2A) Scott,P.D... The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond. 1976 (505) Summers,A. Conspiracy. 1981 (43) Thomas,K. Popular Alienation: A Steamshovel Press Reader. 1995 (106) Washington Post 1992-05-20 (A3) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 Pierre Antoine Finck gave evidence to the Assassination Records Review Board on 24th May, 1996. This is an interesting exchange. Q: Thank you. Dr. Finck, have you ever testified before any government body on issues related to the assassination of President Kennedy? A: Yes, I did. Q: Approximately how many times have you previously testified? A: Warren Commission, the Shaw trial, the Select Committee on Assassinations appointed by the House of Representatives, and in `67 when I was recalled from Vietnam to go to the Archives, I don't remember if it was a testimony. That is a total of four times... Q: Okay. Do you have just a very rough estimate of how many autopsies you had been involved in at any time prior to the autopsy of President Kennedy? A: Missile wounds or not missile wounds? Q: All autopsies. A: All autopsies? Hundreds of them... Q: I would like to ask you some questions now related to documents that you may have had in your possess on at one time or another related to the autopsy of President Kennedy, so let me start out first by asking you, did you prepare any autopsy notes during the course of the autopsy? A: I don't remember walking out of the autopsy room with notes. It was contribution, taking measurements and writing notes, but as far as knowing who wrote what, I don't know. Q: But did you write some things down yourself during the autopsy? A: Yes. Q: We are aware of prior statements that suggested that you did write down autopsy notes originally during the autopsy. Can you provide any clarification? A: No. Q: Do you remember a discussion that you had with some other people at the lunch room of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology shortly after the autopsy where you said that your original autopsy notes had been or were missing and that you had had to recreate autopsy notes from memory? A: I don't remember that. Q: Do you remember ever saying to anyone that you gave to Commander Humes notes that you had taken during the course of the autopsy? A: Can you repeat the question? Q: Sure. Do you remember ever saying to anyone that you had given autopsy notes to Commander Humes following the autopsy? A: In the autopsy room? Q: Notes that you had taken during the autopsy and had given to Commander Humes after the autopsy was completed. A: I don't remember. Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to show you testimony that appears to be testimony that you offered to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, House of Representatives, marked for the purposes of this deposition as MD-30. I would like to draw your attention to page 82, lines 18 through 22, if you could take a look at that. And please feel free to read anything else in the document that you would like to read. [Handing document to witness] A: [Perusing document] It is more accurate to determine an anatomic location when you have the wound itself on the dead body. That's what I just told you. Do you have a specific question regarding this? Q: Yes. I would like to read for the record question from Mr. Purdy: "When did you write your notes that you gave the location of the wound?" "Dr. Finck. During the autopsy I took measurements, but all my notes were turned over to Dr. Humes, and after the autopsy I also wrote notes, but the notes I wrote at the time of the autopsy were turned over to Dr. Humes." Dr. Finck, do you recall having been asked that question by the House Select Committee on Assassinations and having given that answer? A: I don't, and I agree with this. Q: Does this passage help refresh your recollection as to whether you took any notes at the time of the autopsy?. A: Yes. Q: You did take notes. Do you recall how many pages of notes you took during the autopsy? A: No. Q: Do you have any recollection at all whether it was one or more than one page? A: No. Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to show you another document that has been marked as Exhibit 74 to this deposition, and it is on its face an affidavit of Leonard D. Saslaw, Ph.D. And I wish that you would take a minute to read this affidavit. [Handing document to witness] [Discussion off the record.] Q: Dr. Finck, have you had an opportunity to read the affidavit of Leonard D. Saslaw, Ph.D.? A: Yes, I did. 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 6 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." Paragraph 7: "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, in 1963, 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 1963? A: I don't remember. Q: I am not trying to ask you to remember any details of what were in the notes, but just simply whether it was your regular practice and whether you have any knowledge about whether you did take notes at the time of the autopsy. A: I took notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 Pierre Antoine Finck does not seem to have a very good memory: Q: Dr. Finck, prior to the deposition today, did you discuss the fact that you would be coming to the United States and having your deposition taken with anybody? A: No. Q: Other than your wife, I should say. A: Other than my wife, I don't remember. I don't know. Q: Dr. Finck, when was the last time you spoke with Dr. Boswell? A: I don't remember. Q: When is the last time you spoke to Dr. Humes? A: I don't remember. Years ago, but with no more precision. Q: Have you spoken to either Dr. Boswell or Humes at any time during the last ten years? A: Oh, I don't know if it was within the past ten years or not. It's a long time. Q: When is the last time that you saw Dr. Boswell or Dr. Humes? A: I don't remember. Not recently at least, I didn't see them. I don't remember the last time I saw them with precision. `67 when I was recalled from Vietnam, this is one of the times. But other than that I don't remember details over the years. Q: Do you remember whether you saw either Dr. Boswell or Dr. Humes at the time that you testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations? A: I don't remember. Q: Dr. Finck, did you ever receive any orders or instructions from anyone not to discuss the assassination or autopsy of President Kennedy? A: At the time of the autopsy, yes. Q: Can you tell me what the circumstances were around that, who gave you the order for example? A: As far as I remember, it was in the autopsy room, and I may have recorded that somewhere, but now the name escapes. I don't remember specifically who told us not to discuss it. Q: Did you ever receive a written order not to discuss the autopsy? A: I don't remember receiving a written order not to discuss the autopsy. I don't remember. Q: Did you ever receive an order from Colonel Stover, Captain Stover, not to discuss the autopsy? A: I think this is recorded here somewhere, we read today that someone told us not to discuss it. [Perusing document] Q: You are referring to Exhibit 28? A: Page 23 of Exhibit 28 says: "After the completion of the post mortem examination, the Surgeon General of the Navy" - and that refreshes my memory - "told us not to discuss the autopsy with anyone, even among prosectors or with the investigators involved." I don't remember more than that. Q: Do you have any recollection whether you received any similar orders from the Surgeon General of the Army? A: No, I don't. Q: Would you turn to page 3 of the document that you have in front of you, Exhibit 28. I would like to draw your attention to the paragraph numbered 2 and ask you if that helps to refresh your recollection of any other orders you may have received? A: Before the Warren Commission, Warren report: "Before the Warren report was published in September `64, I received directives by telephone from the White House through" - something illegible - "through your office." Q: Your office. A: "And through the Naval Medical School in Bethesda not to discuss subject autopsy beyond the contents of the Warren report." I don't remember that. Q: Do you remember receiving any telephone calls from the White House? A: No, I don't. Q: Do you remember receiving any telephone call in your life from the White House? A: I don't. Q: Dr. Finck, is there any order or promise or other kind of restraint on you today that would keep you from answering questions fully and honestly? A: No. Can you repeat again? Q: Sure. Let me try to rephrase it. Is there any order of which you are aware that currently restricts your ability to answer questions in this deposition fully and honestly? A: Definitely not. Q: Similarly, is there any promise that you have made to anyone that you feel would constrain your ability to answer questions fully and honestly here today? A: Can you repeat this? Q: Yes. Have you made any promise to anyone that would keep you from answering questions fully and honestly today? A: No. Q: Were you ever told that the Kennedy family did not want you to discuss issues related to the autopsy of President Kennedy? A: No. [Discussion off the record.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 For a full account of Pierre Finck's numerous testimonies see: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfinck.htm What is interesting is the comparison between the questioning in 1964 compared to 1996. (1) Pierre Antoine Finck was interviewed by Arlen Specter on behalf of the Warren Commission (1964) Mr. Specter. Relating then your evaluation of the situation with respect to President Kennedy, and turning to Commission Exhibit No. 388, what is your opinion as to whether point A is a wound of entrance or exit? Colonel Finck: My opinion as regards Exhibit 388, letter A, is that this wound is the wound of entrance. Mr. Specter: And what are the characteristics of that wound which lead you to that conclusion? Colonel Finck: The characteristics were that seen from the inside of the skull, I could see a beveling in the bone, a beveling that could not be seen when the wound was seen from outside the skull.Mr. Specter: Are there any other individual characteristics that led you to conclude A was the wound of entrance? Colonel Finck: No. Mr. Specter: Based on your observations and conclusions, was President Kennedy shot from the front, rear, side or what? Colonel Finck: President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear. The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out on the right side of his skull, producing a large wound, the greatest dimension of which was approximately 13 centimeters. Mr. Specter: And as to angle, was he shot from below, from level, from above, or what, in your opinion? Colonel Finck: In my opinion, the angle can be determined only approximately due to the fact that the wound of entrance is fairly small and could give enough precision in the determination of the path, but the dimension of the wound of exit, letter B of Exhibit 388, is so large that we can only give an approximate angle. In my opinion, the angle was within 45 degrees from the horizontal plane. Mr. Specter: Is that to say that there was a 45-degree angle of declination from the point of origin to the point of impact, from the point of origin of the bullet where the bullet came from a gun until the point where it struck President Kennedy? The Chairman: In other words, you mean was he shot from above or below. Mr. Specter: Yes. Colonel Finck: I think I can only state, sir, that he was shot from above and behind...Mr. Specter. Were the bullets used dumdum bullets, in your opinion, Dr. Finck? Colonel Finck: In what wound, sir? Mr. Specter: Well, start with the head wound, or the back wound, either one. Colonel Finck: In all the wounds considered, on the basis of the aspect of the wound of entrance, dumdum bullets were not used. Mr. Specter: And what characteristics of dumdum bullets were absent, in your opinion--in your evaluation of these wounds? Colonel Finck: I would expect more jagged, more irregular and larger wounds of entrance than described in this case. Representative Ford: With a dumdum bullet? Colonel Finck: With a dumdum bullet. Mr. Specter: With respect to the question of likelihood of Governor Connally having been wounded in the back and chest with the same bullet which passed through President Kennedy in 385, what reduction would there be, if any, in the velocity, considering the relative positions of the two men in the automobile as reflected in photograph, Exhibit 398? Colonel Finck: Of course, to reach precise figures we would need experiments and similar circumstances with the same type ammunition at the same distance through two human cadavers, which I did not do. On the basis that if we assume that this is one bullet going through President Kennedy's body and also through Governor Connally's body, the reduction of velocity would be of some extent after passing through President Kennedy's body, but not having hit bones, the reduction in velocity, after going through President Kennedy's body, would be minimal. Mr. Specter: Would there be sufficient force then to inflict the wound which Dr. Humes described from the Parkland Hospital records as having been inflicted on Governor Connally's back and chest? Colonel Finck: There would be enough energy to go through the body of the Governor. Mr. Specter: In expressing your opinion on that subject, Doctor Finck, have you taken into account the assumptions on distance, that we are dealing here with a weapon that has a muzzle velocity in the neighborhood of slightly in excess of 2,000, and that the vehicle carrying these two individuals was approximately 150, about 150 feet away from the site of origin of the missile? Colonel Finck: At this range, a bullet of this velocity loses very little velocity, and keeps upon impact a large amount of kinetic energy. (2) Pierre Antoine Finck, Assassination Records Review Board (24th May, 1996) Q: At the time that you completed the autopsy of President Kennedy, did you believe that the standards as set forth in the autopsy manual had been satisfied for the autopsy of President Kennedy? A: You mean at the time the autopsy was completed? Q: Yes. A: I didn't - I did not ask myself the question. We examined the wounds and there were questions answered following the autopsy. It was clear that there was a wound of entry in the upper back, but it is, thanks to Dr. Humes, that next morning he found out there was a wound in the front of the neck. At the time of the autopsy, we did not see the exit in the front of the neck. For the head it was clear, but for the neck it was not. So this was clarified the next day. So to answer your question, at the time the autopsy was completed, there was still no answer. It shows once more that you have to wait for certain things to be put together. Q: Do you believe that everything that was done, everything that should have been done during the time of the autopsy on President Kennedy was in fact done during the autopsy? 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] 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. Q: During the course of an autopsy, what was the standards practice in the 1960's for recording measurements and information gathered during the course of an autopsy? A: To locate the wound in reference to anatomic landmarks. Q: Was it the general practice for somebody to record the measurements in writing during the autopsy? A: Yes. Q: During the autopsy of President Kennedy, did anyone record the measurements? A: Yes. Q: Who first made the measurements during the course of the autopsy? A: I remember taking measurements. Q: Do you recall anyone else taking measurements? A: The other people, the two other prosectors probably. Q: Was there one or more persons responsible for writing down the measurements? A: I wouldn't know. More than one person responsible for? Q: Recording. A: I wouldn't know that. Q: Do you consider it an important function to record measurements during an autopsy? A: Yes. Q: What is the purpose for recording measurements in an autopsy? A: To keep a record of the measurements. After the body is gone, it's too late to take measurements, so you have to keep records while the body is there. Q: Were the measurements that were recorded during the autopsy of President Kennedy measurements that conformed to standard autopsy procedures in the 1960's? A: Yes. Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to show you a document that is now marked Exhibit 1 to this deposition, which previously has been identified as the autopsy face sheet for President Kennedy, [Handing document to witness] My first question to you, Dr. Finck, will be whether you have previously seen the document that is now marked as Exhibit 1? A: [Perusing document] I think so. Q: Is any of the handwriting on Exhibit 1 your handwriting? A: No. Q: Dr. Finck, the only record in existence which we are aware of notes taken during the course of the autopsy is Exhibit 1 that you have before you. Can you identify anything in Exhibit 1 that you believe is substandard in terms of reporting measurements from an autopsy? A: [Perusing document] I don't know how to answer that. Q: Could you look at the top part of the face sheet, the portion where it refers to weights [indicating]. Do you see that? A: Yes, I do. Q: Is there a weight that is recorded for the brain? A: No. Q: President Kennedy was killed by a gunshot wound to the head, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Should the brain have been recorded as a relevant measurement in a medical/legal autopsy? A: I don't think I can answer that question by yes or no, because when you perform an autopsy, you put the brain in formalin, which is a preservative, and that is what we did. And the brain was weighed later on. But it was severely damaged at the time of the autopsy and we put it in formalin, so I don't think I can answer that question simply. Q: Should the brain have been weighed before it was put in formalin? Let me withdraw that question and ask another question. Is it standard autopsy practice when the brain is removed in an autopsy to weigh a brain... A: Yes. Q: Before it is put in formalin? A: Yes. Q: Is there a reason that that was not - the brain weight was not recorded for President Kennedy? A: I don't know. Q: Do you recall whether the brain of President Kennedy was weighed before it was put in formalin? A: No, I don't. Q: Is it correct to say that in the autopsy, it was concluded that President Kennedy had been killed or had been hit by two gunshot wounds, one to the head and one to the upper thoracic cavity? A: The President was struck by two bullets. Q: And it was the final autopsy conclusion that the bullet to the head was the fatal bullet? And that he was also shot by a bullet that entered in the upper thoracic cavity and exited from the throat? A: Yes. Q: Are there any weights of any organs of the neck that appear on the autopsy face sheet? A: I don't see organs of the neck on that autopsy face sheet. So you mean we removed organs of the neck? Q: You removed organs... A: Oh, they were not removed, the organs of the neck. I know so. Q: So that I'm clear here, the two parts of the body of President Kennedy that were actually struck by the bullets were not weighed during the course of the autopsy, is that correct? A: Oh, you don't weigh the organs of the neck. Even if you remove them, you don't weigh them. Q: Okay. A: Can you rephrase your questions? Q: Sure. Would it be fair to say two parts of the body that were injured by the gunshot wounds were not analyzed at the time of the - let me withdraw that. Could you tell me what, in just a very brief way, the thyroid is... A: Well, the thyroid is a gland in the front of the throat. Removed with the organs of the neck, it would be weighed separately. Q: So it would have been possible to weigh an organ of the neck and that would have been a standard. A: Oh. Q: Part of an autopsy? A: But in that case, the weight of the thyroid would be irrelevant. Q: Let me try asking you a question again that I posed to you before. As you now look at the autopsy face sheet, is there anything that you believe should have been present on the autopsy face sheet that is not on the autopsy face sheet with regards to measurements? A: Measurements. [Perusing document] I can't answer that. Q: Dr. Finck, are you surprised that the exhibit marked Exhibit 1 to this deposition is the only note or record currently in existence related to the autopsy of President Kennedy? Let me withdraw that. Are you surprised that the only document that we have of notes taken during the course of the autopsy is Exhibit 1? Would you have expected there to be more notes, or more complete notes? A: Can't answer that... Q: Are you able to identify any reason why the autopsy of the President of the United States has no more detail than we have in Exhibit 1? A: No. Q: Let me ask again whether any of our recent discussion has refreshed your recollection on whether you yourself took notes during the course of President Kennedy's autopsy? A: Some of the documents I have seen, I recognize, and signed. They refresh my memory. Q: But my question is simply whether you have any kind of better recollection right now as to whether you took notes during the time of President Kennedy's autopsy? A: Maybe so. Q: When you say "maybe so," do you now recall that you took notes during President Kennedy's autopsy? A: I must have when I see those documents, but I don't - after more than 30 years, I cannot recall details about it. Q: Dr. Finck, in standard medical/legal autopsies during the 1960's, was it the standard practice to examine the clothing the victim was wearing at the time of the injury? A: Yes. Q: During the course of the autopsy of President Kennedy, did you examine the clothing that he was wearing at the time that he was shot? A: No. Q: During the course of the autopsy, did you or any other doctor ask to see the clothing President Kennedy was wearing? A: I asked to see the clothing. Q: What were you told? A: That it was not available. Q: Were you told why it was not available? A: No. Q: Do you know where the clothing was? A: No. Q: After you were told that it was not available, did you make any further inquiry as to where it was or what might be done to bring the clothing. A: No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Finck bowed, but would not break. He tried to get through his career with his pride intact. To his credit, he refused to accept the Clark Panel/HSCA FPP bullet entrance, and insisted that his earliest descriptions of the entrance wound on the skull were accurate. To his discredit, he testified for the defense in the trial of Clay Shaw and repeatedly referred to the back wound as a neck wound, something he never did previously or subsequently. He also told us much of what we know about the early examinations. It is only through his 1967 Trip Report, for example, that we know that the 1967 so-called "Military Review" was in fact written by the Justice Department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Pat Speer Posted Yesterday, 09:17 PM Finck bowed, but would not break. He tried to get through his career with his pride intact. To his credit, he refused to accept the Clark Panel/HSCA FPP bullet entrance, and insisted that his earliest descriptions of the entrance wound on the skull were accurate. To his discredit, he testified for the defense in the trial of Clay Shaw and repeatedly referred to the back wound as a neck wound, something he never did previously or subsequently. He also told us much of what we know about the early examinations. It is only through his 1967 Trip Report, for example, that we know that the 1967 so-called "Military Review" was in fact written by the Justice Department. Finck probably said "I don't remember" 20 times in his testimonies also " I can not answer that" was one favorite of his. Such type of "amnesia" is common when one is lying. It merely reinforces the cover-up in Bethesda that night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Adams Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Dr. Finck said that he had done hundreds of autopsies. It would be difficult to address the particulars of one autopsy, given that he had done so many. That is, unless the one autopsy on which he participated on Nov. 22, 1963 was different, in some way, than all the others. That difference being, the autopsy was done on the President of the United States. I find it disgusting the number of times that he used, " I don't Know" or " I can't remember" as answers to direct questions. The events of that night, the measurements, every minute of that autopsy, would forever be burned into his memory. He was the perfect soldier, following orders no matter the consequences. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Dr. Finck said that he had done hundreds of autopsies. It would be difficult to address the particulars of one autopsy, given that he had done so many. That is, unless the one autopsy on which he participated on Nov. 22, 1963 was different, in some way, than all the others. That difference being, the autopsy was done on the President of the United States. I find it disgusting the number of times that he used, " I don't Know" or " I can't remember" as answers to direct questions. The events of that night, the measurements, every minute of that autopsy, would forever be burned into his memory. He was the perfect soldier, following orders no matter the consequences. Terry It's simply not true that the details of important events are "burned in our memories." It's been tested over and over again, and while the impression of having something "burned in our memory," is common, the accuracy of these "burned memories" is lacking. Finck largely told the truth up until he was pressured into appearing at the Shaw trial. He was then put in the position of defending the Clark Panel's high entrance on Kennedy's head, when he was convinced the entrance was in the hair line, where it had been recorded in the autopsy protocol. He failed miserably, insisting that the entrance on the x-rays and the entrance on the scalp were not necessarily the same. His HSCA testimony was hidden away due to his refusal to admit he was wrong about the entrance. The last pages of his transcript disappeared. In 92 he was contacted by the Journal of the American Medical Association. He gave them an interview confirming that the entrance was in the hairline. It's clear by this interview that he is simply sick of all the controversies over the bullet entrance, and ANNOYED as heck that the Clark Panel and HSCA FPP questioned his competence and moved the wound. By the time of his interview with the ARRB he was an old man. In his mind, he had been routinely abused and insulted by the U.S. Government. I believe his many "I don't knows" were basically "I don't know but I have an idea, but I'm not gonna tell you my ideas because you IDIOT Americans are just gonna come up with your own STUPID theories anyhow. So screw you." If so, the historical record shows he was justified. My intensive study of the medical evidence revealed that, while the original autopsists made mistakes and twisted their findings to help support the single assassin theory, the REAL cover-up of the medical evidence began in 1967, and was orchestrated by the Justice Department, and continued in 1968 with the creation of the Clark Panel. I believe Finck was basically honest. His "Trip Report" from 1967 provides the evidence that the Justice Department wrote the "military review." His Trip Report from the Shaw Trial provides the evidence that he was briefed by the Justice Department beforehand, which explains his referring to the wound he knew to be a thoracic wound as a neck wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John J. McCarthy Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 (edited) There is an interesting passage in William Matson Law's book, In the Eye of History (2005)Law: Let's go to Finck. Rydberg: The only thing I know about Colonel Finck - I did meet him, and he also reviewed these drawings - but I don't remember him being up there with Galloway and Captain Stover and Boswell and myself and Humes. But he was a very strong-armed do-it-my-way-or-no-way type colonel in the army. Special Forces and all the rest of this garbage. Intelligence, you know. That's an oxymoron (laughing). He was the one that they called to do the covers. Law: The covers? Rydberg: Well, look at him. He's in Calley. He's in Kennedy. He's in Pitzer. Law: It does seem rather strange. Rydberg. The denominator weaves a pretty strong cloth. Law: He does seem to pop up in. Rydberg: Any time you want it covered or you want somebody to blame, call Finck. Aptly named. He was a very deadly man, I'll put it that way. I've seen other officers like him, people in Special Forces. Like Liddy, that Nixon had put in his hand in a flame and burn it? That's about like him. He was one you wouldn't turn your back on. I wouldn't. Law: Well, that sounds ominous. Rydberg: I'll probably hear from him. If I do, I'll e-mail you (laughing)... Law: Is there anything for the historical record that you would like people to know? Rydberg: For the historical record- it was one of the biggest cover-ups to enhance two people's futures: Johnson and Hoover. Pierre Antoine Finck studied at the University of Geneva Medical School. After graduating in 1948 he spent two years at the Institute of Pathology in Geneva before moving to the United States where he continued his studies at the University of Tennessee Medical School. In 1955 Finck was drafted into the United States Army. He was sent to Germany and became a pathologist at the U.S. Army hospital in Frankfurt. In 1959 Finck was sent to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington. The following year he was appointed Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the institute. I also found this passage on another website: Pierre Finck is not the only one in his family to have done high-profile work. His grandfather, a professor of legal medicine, performed the autopsy on Elizabeth, Empress of Austria in 1888. Finck himself gained noteriety as the only professional to attend the autopsies of both President Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy. Finck served in the US Army Medical Corps from 1955-1975. He was a member of the Academy of Forensic Sciences and at the time of the autopsy was an Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chief of Wound Ballistics Pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). His background shows a deep connection to the national security establishment. He appeared as an expert medical witness before the International Commission of Jurists in Panama, 1964. His role there was to show that the gunshot victims were not killed by American soldiers. In Germany he testified in a case involving the killing of an American officer. He was also a consultant to the FBI. The most curious association is Finck's connection to the International Police Academy (IPA), formerly the Inter-American Police Academy, founded in Panama by the CIA's station there. Later, the Academy moved to Washington. CIA-controlled and using AID cover, the International Police Academy was engaged in training police forces from the Third World. Finck was a lecturer there. http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr1195-finck.html Greetings, What has always fascinated me about the Warren Commission was the focus on the magic bullet theory which precluded any conclusion of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK with their finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I focus on this issue because the man who provided the 'expert' opinion evidence before the Warren Commission is the same man who secreted the recantation of a fellow pathologist who testified at my court-martial where I was charged and convicted of premeditated murder. This witness before the Warren Commission was Ltc Pierre Finck of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Bethesda Hospital who had been involved in the autopsy of JFK. In March, 1969, Finck had denied any knowledge of 'new information' related to my case, or his former subordinate's location, when asked by my attorney. The "expert witness" testimony of this pathologist had compelled the jury to convict me in a Top Secret General Court-martial. This was, and is, a capital murder case. As an 'open case', it remains unsolved. A year later, an attorney working at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology contacted my attorney in the Pentagon Cafeteria and asked if he had seen 'the McCarthy file' at Bethesda. The motivation of the AFIP attorney who located and reported the information to my attorney has not yet been determined. Located in the filing cabinet in Finck's office was a signed written recantation of the pathologists' expert sworn testimony at trial. The recantation of Captain Richard T. Mason was dated September 9, 1968, eight months after I was sentenced "to be confined for the term of your natural life". When presented to the appellate court, this signed document was deemed to be "newly found evidence and fraud on the court" and the conviction for premeditated murder was overturned. So, what does this new information do to Finck's reputation for truth and veracity before the Warren Commission with the eggregious, feloneous, criminal action in violation of his oath of office? Finck was called in for questioning by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1997. The Board had been provided the above information and the book in the URL below PRIOR to Finck's appearance. Finck was not questioned about his obligation as a forensic scientist to provide the defense counsel of any and all exculpatory information in cases in which he has knowledge re the chain of custody of evidence; in this matter, the recantation cited above. As a forensic pathologist, Finck is acutely aware of the law and his responsiblities with respect to his profession. He has failed miserably. The Record of Trial and Allied Papers are not headed by "UNITED STATES ARMY VS CAPTAIN JOHN J. MCCARTHY, JR." They read: "THE UNITED STATES VS CAPTAIN JOHN J. MCCARTHY, JR." The United States is a very big outift. All government offices can and will be used in case preparation and presentation in a court of law, including the CIA, DIA, DOD, DOJ, NSC, NSA, State Department and the FBI. Other documents secreted in the file in Fincks' office were FBI Laboratory Reports signed by J. Edgar Hoover, and initialed as read by assisstant's like DeLoach and Sullivan, that included further exculpatory evidence which was not provided to my attorney as required by Supreme Court Case Brady vs Maryland land mark decision of 1963, which requires all exculpatory evidence be provided to the defense. The exculpatory evidence was provided by the FBI Lab in their examination of a metal object thought to be a bullet fragment by Mason. The FBI found that they could not determine the type, caliber or make of the fragment, if in fact it was from a bullet, but it did have a piece of quartz stuck to the tip of the fragment. This fragment was returned to Mason nine days after the conclusion of the trial. Mason later stated in his recantation that he didn't think it necessary to inform my attorney. Strangely enough, this 'bullet' fragment was LOST in the REGISTERED MAIL in transit from Mason to Finck. This material was not presented to the appeallate court because the recantation was deemed sufficient to overturn the conviction. Mason also did not think it necessary to inform my attorney that he had changed his sworn testimony at trial. Fortunately for me, Mason had been first to testify and the judge allowed him to remain in the courtroom to listen to the other witnesses. Mason realized immediately after the trials conclusion that his 'expert' theory was misplaced. He could have said so there and then but decided to wait eight months to recant and then did so by providing his recantation only to Finck. Interestingly enough, the FBI did not conduct an investigation within it's jurisdiction of the criminal action on the part of these two pathologist's. And, of course, the FBI does not investigate it's own criminal action. Finck is retired and living in Switzerland. Richard T. Mason (search) is now the Coroner for the County of Santa Cruz, California. The Sheriff of Santa Cruz County, who employs Mason, was notified of this matter in 2003 and provided with the appropriate documentary copies of the material mentioned above subsequent to his request. Mason continues to be employed as the County Coroner to this day. He also continues to testify as an 'expert witness' in criminal trials in California and across the nation. Mason had been located in 2003 during an Internet search. After leaving the service in 1969, Mason was employed by a hospital in San Francisco. Contacted by JAG attorney's in 1970, Mason wrote and signed an affidavit, witnessed by a Notory, that he had obtained no further information on the case in question since his testimony at trial. That constitutes perjury in a capital murder case. I was still under charge of premeditated murder. This interogatory came about AFTER Finck had been approached by my attorney re new information about my case and the possible location of Mason, if known. There is no statute of limitation in a capital murder case. The charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice in a capital murder case is still a viable option for any attorney general. It applies to both Finck and Mason. The Feres Doctrine, http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id70.html currently protects Finck because he was a member of the United States Army at the time he committed felonies. Mason, however, is treading in cold, deep waters for perjury in a capital murder case AFTER he left the service by signing an affidavit falsely, knowing he had recanted eight months after trial, so the Feres Doctrine does not apply to him. Of course, Finck can be compelled to testify in this particular matter. Because there is no extradition treaty applicable because Finck resides, in Switzerland, he might think he is in a safe haven. But he continues to receive retirement pay and he can suffer administrative action if he refuses to testify in a capital murder case charge of perjury. Finck cannot be charged for his previous crimes relating to my case while he served in the Army of the United States. But while on the stand, he can be grilled on his testimony in the Clay Shaw trial, now that the CIA has admitted Shaw (who is dead) was employed by the CIA during the JFK assassination. And he can be questioned, under oath, about his actions and inactions of secreting exculpatory evidence in my case and lying to an officer of the court on the existence of this material during the appellate process. The information above was included in the submission of documentary evidence located in 2000 and originating from the State Department, once classified Top Secret, on the matter of Treason in Wartime on the part of members of the National Security Council during the Vietnam War, to then Attorney General John Ashcroft, in 2001 without response. Ashcroft continued to ignore repeated attempts by numerous parties who requested his participation in this matter until he departed the DOJ. Perhaps that makes him an accessory after the fact for failing to carry out his sworn duties as Attorney General to protect the Constitution of the United States. The trial ended on January 30, 1968, twenty five minutes before the Tet Offensive began. The recantation was located in March, 1970. The appellate court ruled in November 1970. The charge was dismissed on January 8, 1971. I resigned effective August, 1971 because "I no longer had the desire to serve as a commissioned officer in the United States Army". I received an honorable discharge and a General Order signed by General William Westmoreland, then Army Chief of Staff, which included the following; "All rights, privileges and property removed as a result of the findings and the the sentence will be restored." Someone, somehow overlooked the fact that the court had sentenced me to life, although I was facing the death penalty, but had not reduced my rank, forfeited my pay and allowences nor dismissed me from the service as part of the sentence. When asked by the judge if that was their complete sentence the jury remarked; "You said life was the minimum and that's what we gave him". The essential elements of information regarding the trial and it's aftermath are located in the URL's below. http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id120.html http://www.geocities.com/larryjodaniel/17.html http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id258.html http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id1.html Bests, John Edited September 28, 2006 by John J. McCarthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John J. McCarthy Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) http://www.pissedoffcombatveterans.com/id43.html An Open Letter to Pierre Finck By John McCarthy, 1996 Pierre, you xxxx and hypocrite: There is no statute of limitations for conspiring to obstruct justice in a capital murder case. Stand by for your summons. Or do you think that being an expatriate in that neutralist haven of Switzerland will save you. You see, Pierre, should you choose to exercise Switzerland's non-extradition treaty with the United States, you may do so at the peril of forfeiting your retirement check for ignoring a summons from the U.S. Congress. Take another sip of that fine wine, Pierre. It wasn't enough for you to screw up the JFK autopsy and provide Arlen Specter with your expert opinion before the Warren Commission. You had to go along with the government's faulty desires to "get that case behind us", so we could all heal the wounds which continue to fester 33 years later. No, Pierre, you got involved in the RFK aftermath, and then the Panamanian Police effort which I am sure you recall, was supervised by the CIA. Coincidence, I guess, how most knowledgeable people think the CIA was responsible for the JFK and RFK murders also. But let's not get presumptuous. But perhaps we should talk about CIA black terror and assassinations missions later. I wonder if the Assassinations Record and Review Board will want to grill you about the following matters as were exposed in Probe. Perhaps they will feel, as I do, that your behavior in my case sheds backward light on your performance at Bethesda on the night of 11/22/63. 1. What was the reasoning for involving yourself in attempting to change the findings of a so-called expert in forensic pathology, one Richard Mason, an Army pathologist, who had testified as the government's first witness in a Top Secret murder trial conducted on January 29th and 30th, 1968. 2. Did you also believe that your protege, Mason, was terribly mistaken or flat out wrong in his deduction that the wound in question was caused by a .22 or.25 caliber projectile? Did Mason's opinion rub you the wrong way also? 3. Did Mason's "field expedient" test leave you with the feeling that such an experiment would not stand the scrutiny of your peers? I'll bet you got a lump in your throat when you observed Mason's findings and conclusion that there were microscopic particles of gunpowder residue in the wound tract? That was a real frost for your forensic mind. 4. Were you stupefied by Mason's testimony based on his detective-minded, non-supportive conclusions which flew in the face of all other testimony at the trial? Is that why you encouraged him to reevaluate his expert opinion and ultimately recant his in-court expert testimony, in writing? Is that why you sent Mason a letter of congratulations for changing his expert testimony? Pierre, how could you? 5. Did the post-trial review conducted a month after the trial cause you to have some concern because the legal experts had modified Mason's irrefutable in-court testimony by contradicting his expert opinion that it was impossible for a .38 caliber bullet to have caused the wound in question by concluding, "science can not say under any fact or circumstances that a .38 could not have caused the wound in question." ??? Did that bother you very much, Pierre? Those damn lawyers can certainly make life difficult for you experts, can't they? 6. Did you have difficulty sleeping with the knowledge that the FBI had detected a particle of quartz stuck to the bullet fragment that Mason had submitted to the FBI lab for analysis? Did you spill any wine when you were advised that the bullet fragment had been lost in the registered mail? Did it bother you in the least that the FBI could not determine the make, caliber, or manufacturer of the bullet fragment Mason removed from the face of the deceased? Do you recall that the FBI report was issued nine days after the trial ended in a conviction and the sentencing of an innocent man to life in prison? Was that the reason you needed Mason to change his testimony and get on board with the new theory that, irrespective of Mason's testimony, as well as that of a firearms examiner, both of whom concluded that a .38 could not have been used to kill the deceased, that a conviction with any theory was better than no conviction at all? 7. In September, 1968, you received Mason's recantation of his expert testimony at trial. You must have been happy since you sent Mason a letter of congratulations for finally altering his testimony 8 months after trial. So you had Mason's recantation, the FBI lab report, the autopsy protocol, the autopsy report, Mason's original testimony, but you don't have the bullet fragment since it was lost in registered mail. You have made Mason's recantation available to the government prosecutors, but they choose to argue Mason's original testimony before the Appeals Court. Why? Because only you and the government know about his recantation. What a sensitive situation. And what do you decide to do? You decide to say nothing until you are confronted by one of my lawyers who asks you if you have any new information from Mason or knowledge of where hi is located. You said you had none. This was in March of 1969. But my lawyers did not know you were lying. They had no knowledge of either the FBI report or Mason's altered testimony; or of your correspondence with him coaxing him to alter the testimony and get on board with a new .38 caliber theory. How do I know this? Because of the assignments of error submitted to the Board of Military Review, first step in the appellate process. You see, Pierre, my lawyers quoted your own book on forensic science in detail on the point of not having doctors like Mason relying on unproven, untested, field expedient "tests" like the one he did. But you probably weren't aware of us using your own book. You were too busy testifying at Jim Garrison's trial of Clay Shaw where you revealed the equally unbelievable bad work you supervised at President Kennedy's autopsy. 8. Were you ware Pierre that one of your subordinates blew your cover in the McCarthy case after your cover was blown by Garrison in the Kennedy case? I'll set the scene for you. My lawyer was sitting in the Pentagon cafeteria in early March of 1970. Suddenly he was joined by a lawyer who worked for you in the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. He startled my attorney by asking if he had seen the McCarthy file in your office. Recall, you had denied the existence of such a file and specific information in it. When my lawyer said no, your colleague escorted him over to your office. He then gave him the file from your cabinet. He cautioned him by saying there was a sergeant down the hall, but there was a copy machine in the same room. When my lawyer opened this file, the first page was Mason's recantation. This was fairly forthright. He says he was mistaken about the weapon being a .22 caliber and the wound being a contact wound, which, by the way, was the compelling testimony leading to the original guilty verdict. The FBI lab report and your coaxing of Mason to switch was also in the file. Why do you think your lawyer did this? Was he upset with your performance at the Shaw trial? Or was it something deeper? Was this the opportunity to remedy this circus be letting you be the fall guy for a change? Did you then feel you might be summoned to explain your actions or did you feel secure in the knowledge that you were still part of the "Secret Team", and therefore were untouchable? What was the result of this discovery of this secret file? The appellate court saw it all and they were not pleased. They focused on Mason's switch in testimony and deemed it "newly found evidence and fraud on the court." They then reversed the premeditated murder conviction. Why did they do so? Evidently they thought that a pathologist should be able to recognize the difference between a .22 caliber contact wound and a .38 caliber blast. And they couldn't accept you conduct in attempting him to switch his story to better fit the gun that I had in my possession at the time i.e. a frame-up on your part. One more thing Pierre. Richard Mason, lately of San Diego, signed an affidavit in December of 1969, stating that he had never "knowingly" kept any information from my defense team. He swore to this in front of a notary public in San Francisco. Does that mean he perjured himself? Probably, since Mason had written his recantation in September of 1968. As stated above, this was located in your files in March of 1970. Maybe you thought that your associates in CIA and Pentagon would forever keep this matter from being public record, exposed to the light of day and illuminated by fact. Wrong, Pierre. And there is more to come. Will you come down from your Swiss chalet now, to talk to someone besides Don Breo and JAMA? John McCarthy April 1996 Edited September 27, 2006 by John J. McCarthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John J. McCarthy Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 May 26 2006, 09:44 AM Classified Activities and Clandestine Special Operations Studies Program Institute Study 1 Open Letters to Senators Kyl and Shelby and Study 2 Open Letter to Attorney General Ashcroft http://www.geocities.com/larryjodaniel/21.html Honorable Senator Richard Shelby Honorable Senator Jon Kyl Dear Sirs: I am addressing this letter to you for various reasons. The United States intelligence system is in disarray and you have both recognized this fact and urged changes. I am proposing some changes and hereby request your kind consideration of them. I am a former Military Intelligence Officer who served in a Special Operations Program in Vietnam named Phoenix. My friend, John J. McCarthy Jr., served in another Special Operations Program that was rogue, unauthorized, and highly illegal. The current CIA administration is, as this is being written, condoning this operation and hiding its existence from court and government scrutiny. The Operation, Codename Cherry, was not authorized by the President, was unknown to the President, and was used to send a Special Forces soldier, CPT McCarthy, to jail for life. Former Congressman John J. Rhodes called the whole operation The American Dreyfus Affair. It is so important to the Agency that they sent John Anast, at the behest of William Colby, to offer McCarthy a half million dollars plus the Congressional Medal of Honor, to cease and desist in his efforts to clear his name. McCarthy refused. Two situations today, the 9/11 failure and Operation Cherry, are tied together as follows. The Central Intelligence Agency, through its compartmentalization of intelligence and because of the lack of oversight over its activities, can defy a President, miss numerous warnings about coming disaster, and hide illegal operations. The following is intended to show you how this has happened in the past. In 1963, President Kennedy adopted a policy of reconciliation with Cambodia and its mercurial leader, Norodom Sihanouk, which was reiterated in a Presidential Decision by Lyndon Johnson as one of his first orders. That policy, enunciated in letters to the Saigon Government, was in terms of no contact with or cooperation with the anti-Sihanouk forces of the Khmer Serei. However, in 1965, the CIA chose to defy those orders and Cherry was born. It was eventually buried in a legitimate Special Operations Program called B-57, run by Special Forces. On June 26, 1966, President Johnson, needing to control Special Forces operations into Cambodia, which he knew were being run, issued an order to the CIA, to the State Department, and to the JCS that, while operations could be run across the border, there was to be no contact with Khmer Serei forces, no hiring of Khmer Serei forces, and no cooperation with Khmer Serei forces. Those Khmer Serei forces were currently inside the Republic of Vietnam and Cherry, through the CIA, was cooperating with them. Despite the fact that the Joint Chiefs immediately issued implementing orders, the CIA continued Cherry in defiance. One of the missions of Cherry was to overthrow Sihanouk and facilitate his murder using Khmer Serei forces. Another was to foment instability in Cambodia using black (deniable) terror with the blame attributable to North Vietnam. Some clarification is in order regarding McCarthy’s relationship with Special Forces (SF), Special Operations Group (SOG), and Cherry. Project Cherry was not an SF mission. The Commanding Officer of the 5th SFG in Vietnam did not know the mission of Project Cherry. The Pentagon was persuaded to order the second in command for SF in Vietnam, the XO or Executive Officer, to be filled by an Intelligence Branch Colonel (COL) or Lieutenant Colonel (LTC). He would take his orders from the Military Intelligence (MI) establishment, NOT the SF Chain of Command! That began in 1966. All of the Greek Designated Projects (Sigma, Delta, Omega and B-57 (Gamma)) were run by the Intelligence Community. While McCarthy was the S3, Operations Officer of Project Omega, he briefed GEN William Rossen, who was, in fact, full-time CIA in an Army uniform. He did not brief Nha Trang (Headquarters location for 5th SFG) and the 5th SFG. Project Cherry was subordinate to B-57, an intelligence detachment subordinate to the 5th SFG in Nha Trang but only reporting to the XO of the 5th SFG, not the CO. In addition, B-57, staffed by MI Officers posing as Green Berets were meeting daily, in civilian clothes, at the US Embassy and with the CIA for directives on given activities. This cut-out system was used to prevent chains of evidence from linking rogue operations back to the military, SF, the Embassy, the CIA, or the State Department. This all happened outside the knowledge and against the directive of the President of the United States. Because of the above, no one in SF knew of these activities. Bear in mind, SOG and others were assigned to the 5th SFG, not the Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV). No orders were cut to connect any members with the Greek detachments. Quite a CYA program for those responsible for the end results! This, I hope, provides some relevant background. In September 1967, McCarthy inherited Cherry, ignorant of its rogue nature. He was not to find out, in reality that Cherry was rogue until October 2000 when the files on Cambodia for this period were declassified, although noticeably missing from those State Department files was any actual mention of Cherry. Included were references to and description of code-name operations Daniel Boone and other Cambodian cross border operations, which were then Top Secret. Those operations were, of course, authorized by - and known to - the President and the State Department. The only agency objecting to the declassification of these State Department records was the CIA. Soon after inheriting Cherry, McCarthy received orders to disband the operation, with the Agency citing budgetary constraints. He sought employment for his Cambodian operatives, the Khmer Serei forces. All were hired with one exception: Inchin Lam, aka Jimmie. McCarthy was told no one would touch Jimmie, who worked for Sihanouk, the KGB, and the CIA. At that time, McCarthy was known as John McAlister, civilian, reporting to the Agency, and had strict orders not to associate with other Special Forces personnel. He was to find out later that the Agency was attempting to double Jimmie back on the KGB. Jimmie was also the third most important person in the Khmer Serei, all of whom knew of his affiliations with Sihanouk and the KGB. In November 1967, McCarthy picked Jimmie up for questioning and possible firing from employment by the Agency. On the way to the location where the questioning was to take place, one shot rang out. The windshield of the vehicle in which Jimmie and McCarthy were being driven was broken, and Jimmie was dead. McCarthy was arrested for murder. In the Court Martial, which was held in camera, top secret, and rapid, McCarthy was found guilty of the murder of Inchin Lam. The trial was unusual for several reasons. The pathologist who testified for the prosecution, managed to convince the jury that a .22 pistol had been used. The record shows that such a pistol was never issued to McCarthy or to any person in the unit. McCarthy was issued and was holding a .38 pistol seen by every witness on that night. It had been fired, but the evidence showed it had been fired after the windshield had been broken and was pointed away from the victim. The pathologist was allowed to listen to the rest of the trial after his discharge as a witness, and months later recanted his testimony by stating that the weapon killing Jimmie must have been a .38 since that was the only weapon available. Further, the pathologist testified that Jimmie was killed by a contact shot, even though the wound lacked characteristic powder burns around it. No ballistics evidence or report was entered at the trial. A ballistics report that was issued over the signature of J. Edgar Hoover, several days after the conviction, was lost in registered mail and never arrived in Vietnam. It was found in records at the Pentagon in 1970. Neither the recantation nor the ballistics report were given to the defense counsel until their discovery in the Pentagon. The ballistics report showed that a fragment from a bullet of undetermined size, extracted from the victim, had a fragment of quartz attached, consistent with having passed through the windshield. McCarthy was found guilty. His sentence was unusual: life imprisonment with no reduction in rank, no reduction in pay, and no separation from service. He had previously turned down a plea agreement for no more than 10 years assuming the Agency did not control the trial. He knew that he had not been responsible for the death of Inchin Lam. McCarthy appealed. It took the military 229 days to vet his civilian attorney for the national security case. While the attorney was working on the case, the Washington Post ran an article, Feb 8, 1970, entitled Terminated Agent May Haunt U.S., by Murray Marder. It said in part: - While comparatively obscure, the McCarthy case carries a larger potential for international complications than the celebrated Green Beret case. - Marder was referring to the Rheault case from 1969, in which Special Forces soldiers were charged with murdering a double agent. President Nixon chose not to try the men because the CIA had refused to testify in the trial. However, CIA master Ted Shackley said publicly he was not afraid to testify in the Rheault case because the CIA had already testified in the McCarthy case. In truth, trial records show that all persons who testified in McCarthy’s case swore they were military. The Rheault case was very public, whereas the McCarthy case was very secret. The mission of Cherry, the overthrow of Sihanouk - including his possible demise - was disclosed in camera, still secret. Cambodia had not yet been invaded. In 1969, a new President was in office. However, the policy towards Sihanouk had changed, with increased bombing allowed and apparent operational contact with Khmer Serei officials, including Son Ngoc Thanh and Lon Nol, encouraged. McCarthy rotted in jail. On September 29, 1969, all charges against Rheault et al. were dismissed. In the New York Times, Henry B. Rothblatt, attorney for Rheault et al., said that Nixon had made the decision. Rothblatt authored a semi-fictional book with Robin Moore, Court Martial, about the Rheault case. In the opening pages, B-57 was tied in with the CIA and cross-border Cambodian operations. The paperback version was published in 1971. Working with the civilian attorney for McCarthy (Charles Morgan Jr., attorney for, among others, Anthony Herbert, Muhammad Ali, and Howard Levy), was his military attorney Stewart Davis. Morgan came along as an attorney for McCarthy partly as a ploy by Levy to gain access for Morgan to his low-level security files (Outlined in Morgan’s book One Man, One Voice, Henry Holt & Co., Inc. June, 1979). Davis had previously met with Dr. Pierre Finck, Chief Army Pathologist (who participated in the autopsy on President Kennedy), who told him there was nothing new on the McCarthy case. In 1970, however, an attorney for DOD met with Davis in the Pentagon and asked Davis to accompany him to Finck’s office. There, in files not relating to McCarthy, were the recantation of the pathologist plus the ballistics results of the FBI. Davis was allowed to copy these files, which led to an appeal similar to a civilian appeals court. The appeal was based upon newly found evidence and fraud upon the court. McCarthy had been released from incarceration under new UCMJ rules, pending the outcome of the appeal, and was assigned to Ft. Huachuca, AZ. The command he was assigned to was the Combat Surveillance and Electronic Warfare School. Assignment there usually required a Top Secret clearance. McCarthy had no clearance. In the meantime, Cambodia had been invaded, the secret out, and there was no need to further incarcerate McCarthy. Furthermore, he was a convicted felon with no credibility. McCarthy’s appeal was ruled on October 29, 1970, and his conviction overturned. One judge, concurring with the reversal, further urged no new trial, arguing that McCarthy’s duties as an officer, involving numerous activities in sensitive operations in Nationalist China, the Philippines, and Vietnam, had been performed in a well disciplined manner that were sensitive to the ramifications of all his actions, not only towards the security of the United States but with an eye towards diplomatic relations with other political entities whose interests were similarly involved. The facts of Cherry were never revealed to the court. They knew only that it involved national security. On 22 March, 1971, General Court Martial Orders 32 were cut and signed acknowledging the reversal of the charge of murder, setting aside the finding of guilty and the accompanying sentence, and granting of a new trial. W.B. Latta, Commanding General of Ft. Huachuca, AZ, after examining McCarthy’s file, decided that a new trial was not warranted and the charge was dismissed. Further, all rights, privileges, and property of which McCarthy had been deprived by virtue of the previous findings and sentence were to be restored. That order was signed by GEN William C. Westmoreland, Chief of Staff of the Army. In August 1971, McCarthy left the service, expressing his feelings that he no longer had the desire to be an officer. However, the Agency was not through with him. His DD-214 (Discharge papers), despite his eleven years of honorable service and voluntarily resigning his commission, reads, -separation from service by request,- and the SPN (separation code used by employers in those days for judging an employee candidate) says 524, Resignation, unqualified other miscellaneous reasons. (Employers had access to the SPN codes and soldiers did not. The SPN definition was not on the DD-214.) These designations indicate that he left the service as an unqualified officer at the request of the military. McCarthy was unaware of the significance of these codes until November 2002. After Huachuca, McCarthy landed a job with the Sheriff’s Department, Dade County FL. After being elected as president of his training class, at an interview he was presented with another problem. His NCIC (National Criminal computerized background check) report for the academy showed that officially he was still incarcerated in Ft. Leavenworth, a convicted felon. It took a letter from Ft. Huachuca to inform the personnel officer, and a copy was sent to the FBI. Since then, the following have happened: - He was the victim of released material to a newspaper in Florida that he is a war criminal. The newspaper cited official documents, quoting from trial records still sealed under secrecy rules, not from appellate records, argued in open court. He did not see these papers until 10 years after the fact. - Through legislators and congressmen he has submitted FOIA requests to see files and to clear his record, only to be told the records were clear or there were no records, and -FERES- (see below) prevented any relief to him. - Unknown agency personnel leaked documents to authors indicating that McCarthy is a cold-blooded killer. He did not find this out until a few months ago. Libelous books are in print worldwide. - In 1998, he was forced into a plea agreement on a charge in California based on the three strikes rule. The first strike showing on his record was a 4/10/68 entry of conviction, with 24 years in Fort Leavenworth, for premeditated murder. In fact, other than the supposed conviction, he had never been arrested. Only a government agency can play with the NCIC like this. -He sued in Federal District Court to clear his record, citing conspiracy to obstruct justice. This was the option shown him by government offices when he appealed to President Clinton. Attorney General Janet Reno, the same person McCarthy had problems with in Florida when a newspaper there called him a war criminal, cited FERES as precluding getting justice. In addition, the attorneys said his record was clear and amended, thus ending the case which was dismissed by the judge. The same attorneys also knew, unbeknown to John until very recently, that other cases they had defended were overturned in appellate court, throwing out the government defenses that had been raised in McCarthy’s case. These appellate cases were decided while they were arguing in District Court in McCarthy’s case. They did not notify John, nor the court, that their arguments against his position had been overturned on appeal in these other cases. McCarthy, who had to argue in pro per, as he has no money for an attorney, also did not have access to law libraries or staffs as did the government attorneys. - In November 2000, after McCarthy and I talked over an open phone about my discovery of the smoking gun documents in the State Department, McCarthy was in his vehicle traveling 70 miles an hour on a California Interstate. The left rear wheel fell off his SUV. The wheel had locking lug nuts. The master mechanic inspecting the vehicle after the accident wrote the wheel had been tampered with. - Take this with the following factors for consideration. Ted Shackley showed up unannounced at McCarthy's trial in 1968. Shackley was based in Laos, not Saigon. Inchin Lam was the Agency's best and only chance to double back on the KGB. The Agency did not notify McCarthy, who had the clearance and need to know that Lam was a triple agent, about Lam until the trial. Only the Agency stood to benefit from an expanded war in Cambodia against the wishes of their superior, the President. Only the Agency could make the expanded war happen. Shackley once boasted that only the Agency had breached COSVN (Central Office For South Vietnam, the highest Viet Cong agency under Hanoi) with an agent. The codename of that operation was HACKLE - add ShackleY - and what do you have? During the war, there were unexplained Operational Security breaches on some of our most secret cross border operations. By this, I mean the names of the cross border operators were known to Hanoi shortly after the operations were planned and before the operators took off on their operations. While the Walker ring could explain part of this, a well placed mole at the Embassy or Agency, compartmented away from normal security findings could have been in place. Did we have Venona or son of Venona holdovers unfound? Are they still there to plague Presidents when they want a policy outcome different from the President? - His DD-214 has not been changed, despite government assertions in court to the contrary. The government argued that he was responsible for changing his NCIC report, although this was supposed to have been cleared up in 1972. In response to an FOIA request by me, the CIA asserted that Cherry and related files are still classified. I appealed through the office of Senator Kyl last year, since the mail made it almost impossible to submit my appeal in time. For over a year (it took them 2 years to respond to my FOIA request in the first place), they failed to respond, although I cited the fact that Cherry was unauthorized and secrecy rules do not pertain to unauthorized activities. Thus, McCarthy was denied access to files to defend his case as a result of citation of secrecy rules, a position that was defended by the Department of Justice. What relevance does this Arizona-based case (McCarthy) have to today’s problems? This, I believe: The Agency has a record of abusing authority. In my case, in Operation Phoenix, they created an information-sharing program designed to collate information on the Viet Cong Infrastructure (VCI). Our classified orders were that we were to achieve rapid evaluation and dissemination of infrastructure intelligence and form quick reaction operations targeted at disrupting, harassing, capturing, and eliminating local VCI. On the latter point, eliminating, the Agency cut and ran when critics charged assassination. Yet, they knew, as they did in the case of McCarthy, that the military had no orders allowing assassination. In Phoenix our orders were specific. We were told in many formats, each year, that Phoenix advisers had the same legal status as other US military personnel. We were under the same restraints of international law, military law, and regulations as other US military personnel. Our advice to our counterparts was to act within those legal restraints. Participation in actions contrary to law was expressly prohibited. All violations of law were to be reported to our superiors. Yet the Agency left us high and dry and we were prohibited from defending ourselves from assassination charges while on active duty. Documents outlining our case have been difficult to obtain over the years. This, despite the fact Phoenix was declassified years ago. It is noteworthy that Cherry is still classified. (Note: Assassination charges by critics were part of their effort to dismantle Operation Phoenix. Today, our brave men looking for the Bagdad 55 and top level Al Qaeda infrastructure are plagued with the same assassination and hit men headlines. Those charges against McCarthy, Operation Phoenix, and Special Operations personnel today are bogus. Military ambushes are not what is commonly known in civilian circles as assassination. Targeting and killing Reinhard Heydrich, the Nazi Butcher of Prague in an ambush, or targeting and killing Admiral Yamamoto in an airplane, are examples of what Operation Phoenix was about. CIA rules for Cherry, which McCarthy was part of, were different from military directives.) You are now investigating the intelligence failure of 9/11. It has its roots in failure to defend and implement Phoenix information-sharing. Had it been implemented at CIA, as I believe former Ambassador and later CIA Director William Colby, its father, intended, 9/11 may not have occurred. However, the Agency does not want accountability. It brags in its own literature about its ability to operate without accountability. Cherry proves that they seek and defend the lack of accountability, even to a President. Let me outline how lack of information sharing rendered our country vulnerable, using open pre-9/11 sources. In December, 1998, Osama Bin Laden targeted New York City and Washington, DC, specifically naming the World Trade Center Towers, according to intelligence sources cited in the New York Post, citing Time magazine. This targeting was in retaliation for the August 1998 strikes on the aspirin factory in the Sudan and the untended terrorist camps in Afghanistan. No one, except for Rick Rescoria, the late security director for Morgan Stanley, who died on 9/11 implementing a security program he started after the first WTC bombing, took seriously those threats of Bin Laden. Also there was Bojinka in the Philippines. This was the operation thought up by the WTC bomber, Ramzi Yousef, to simultaneously take out many airplanes over the Pacific. Another part was to fly a small commercial plane into the Pentagon. The Agency did not take it seriously. Yet, Tom Clancy, FBI agents Kenneth Williams in Phoenix, AZ, and another in Minnesota separately shared their concerns about the possibility of potential terrorists flying planes into buildings. They were predated by concerns written in books on Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden published in 1999. In addition, the still-classified study Terror 2000 accurately predicted virtually every move made by the 9/11 terrorists. Of course, one of the analysts, former KGB agent Oleg Kalugin, as a member of the KGB, taught the terrorists their skills. (Former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev further explained a Soviet connection. He wrote in 1998 that the bombers of the World Trade Center in 1993, while they may never have attended a GRU training school - the KGB delegated operational training responsibility to the GRU while doing the financing - the GRU was responsible for the formation of the terrorist group they belonged to. In other words, those people were not the independents the CIA and FBI made them out to be.) Terror 2000 also predicted an air assault based upon known habits predating 9/11. Written in 1993, the study predated even Bojinka. Of course, Terror 2000 was not released because President Clinton and Attorney General Reno did not want to panic the populace with what terrorists could do in the United States. Rex Hudson, Library of Congress analyst, and Stephen Gale, a terrorism expert at the University of Pennsylvania, were both cited by former CIA Chief Jim Woolsey as foreseeing the aerial assaults that the CIA could not bring itself to address. Yet, in June 2001, an alert went out to airlines that a hijacking might occur because Americans were high-priority targets for terrorists. The warning specifically cited Bojinka as a reason for the hijacking alert. An Arabic satellite TV station was cited as saying a big surprise was due within two weeks of the 23 June 2001 warning. A severe blow was expected against US and Israeli interests worldwide. They continued that it was a race who would strike first, Bin Laden or the United States. Correctly, the people writing the warning focused on an anniversary, the fifth of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, as a possible date for the hijacking. Unfortunately, no one focused in on September 12, 2001, a trial date, I believe, of some terrorists. These terrorists use such dates to plan attacks as expressions of support to those on trial. ((We just had such a warning from Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden’s top lieutenant against the United States and such an attack in Jakarta, Indonesia against American and allied interests in support of a key terrorist about to be sentenced only 48 hours after the attack occurred. It is also noteworthy that the al-Zawahiri warning was less than 72 hours before the Jakarta attack. In it, he said, (-Every prisoner of the Disbeliever’s camp can be sure that the necessity of his liberation is crystal clear for every Majahid and the day of liberation is close... the alerter has fulfilled his obligation. The responsibility lies with the American people and the reality will testify for itself.- The terrorists likewise sent an after the fact message saying - This is a message for ... all our enemies that, if they execute any of our Muslim brothers, we will continue this campaign of terror in Indonesia ...-)) The June 2001 warning stated that the airlines were at risk, citing Bob Monetti, President of the Victims of Flight 103, who lost his son Rick over Lockerbie. Monetti ended the warning by citing the need for the airlines to take all appropriate measures and counter measures to ensure the safety of their passengers. No one listened. An intelligence failure was predicted by many sources. I personally wrote in the book I published in 2000 that an intelligence failure was bound to occur on the scale of Pearl Harbor because of the failure to share information and have objective information analysis. Russ Travers, a DIA analyst, wrote in 1997 about The Coming Intelligence Failure in the professional publication, Studies in Intelligence, an unclassified CIA document available in the intelligence circles. He predicted that a state-sponsored terrorist attack would come as a complete surprise or we would not provide sufficient warning of a surprise attack against one of our allies or interests. His four-page analysis succinctly outlined, in 1997, the problems that remain unresolved in the intelligence community. The problem lies in the bureaucracy of CIA and their desire to abrogate analysis and play soldiers. Their legacy lies in Cherry and other similar programs designed to interfere in foreign policy rather than collate intelligence. We have our DOD and the Special Operations Command to take on the sensitive missions that require soldiers. Their efforts can successfully be supplemented by non-Special Operations personnel to do intelligence work, as Phoenix proved in Vietnam. I remind you that Phoenix was successful in neutralizing through arrests, defections, and operational kills, over 85,000 VCI and was run, to a large degree, by newly minted second lieutenants who also operated in the field besides behind the intelligence desk. A CIA that will lie to a President, cover it up for 35 years, send a Special Forces Captain to rot in jail, cover it up, and leave Phoenix operatives to suffer for crimes they did not commit, cannot be trusted to reform itself. There is much more, but it would be repetitive. The Agency has cited a lack of human intelligence sources with Arabic language skills as a reason for not knowing intentions. Yet, I can tell you that Osama Bin Laden, his associates, and even Saddam Hussein, have all presaged their major moves in Arabic language newspapers, magazines, and by means of mosque preachings. Translations are available and have proven to be accurate predictors of their moves. Prior to the Cole attack, a DIA analyst noted this. I picked up on his writings and several times have accurately predated raising of terror levels in the United States to orange. This was in the form of sending warnings to appropriate government officials that terror attacks could be expected. On one occasion, I predicted major attacks planned in the United States on a specific date. This was several days prior to the arrest of Bin Laden’s associate in Pakistan. If you remember the news media said we scrambled to upset attacks in the implementation stages within 48 - 72 hours of his arrest. This was the time frame I had predicted days before. The terrorists talk in codes, with meanings known to them, and those who read their religious and political history. A Bin Laden lieutenant even publicly chastised the CIA for misunderstanding statements prior to our attack in Iraq about their using weapons of mass destruction to protect the oil fields. The lieutenant said that we did not have the religious permission to do so. What the CIA missed was the writing of Osama’s second in command, Ayman Al-Zawahri, years ago, that battling superpowers like the United States required the use of suicide attacks. It was the multiple use of suicide attacks by their side that they, in their minds, believed the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction. That is what they promised would await us, suicide attacks, not literal weapons of mass destruction. (I want to distinguish here between WMD being used against us in this context and their existence. I believe WMD are there. The terrorists in their own writings believe they are there.) If the CIA and FBI would study the real intent of Muslim extemists rather than require our agents to attend sensitivity training, we would be further along in understanding their warnings. They have even written that they have given us fair warning about their intentions. It is not their fault if we do not detect and interpret those warnings. (Read again the message of al-Zawahri above. The alerter has fulfilled his obligation. The responsibility lies with the American people and the reality will testify for itself.) Little has happened in Iraq, including the current guerilla and suicide attacks that the terrorists did not warn about in their writings prior to their implementation. Yet, the CIA says they cannot predict their moves? If they were to read some of the books on Osama and his philosphy, they would find, through analysis, the ability to predict terrorist moves. Also, if they would trust some of our allies, who can read Arabic (and I am not referring to Saudi Arabia) and who provide translations of the warnings in English, they might be ahead of the game. Of course, the CIA rule paraphrased is if we did not find it through our own resources, it is not reliable information. Even now, the Agency says there is no Al Qaeda-Saddam connection. This ignores their own reports, made public by Yossef Bodansky and Bill Gertz. The Agency still operates under the Clinton dictate: start with the impression you want to create, work backwards to the policy it follows, and create the facts needed to support it. Woolsey stated it, and he should know as former CIA Director. The CIA is working to undercut not only this President and his Iraq policies but also those outside of the Agency who back assessments different from their own. The Cherry precedent shows how brazen they can be. Elements of CIA want a return to Clinton policies. Senators Kyl and Shelby, I have outlined some serious problems. I have outlined a solution or two. There is more, and both McCarthy and I are available to discuss any or all aspects. The documentation exists to prove every point. I urge you to contact us. John McCarthy is aware of this letter. Larry J. O’Daniel former CPT Military Intelligence 928-859-3819 John J. McCarthy Jr. former CPT Special Forces Infantry 310-397-1143 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John J. McCarthy Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Although many documents have been declassified over the years, some remain classified without justification; and the real reason is to secret that information which show high crime. An example of not responding to "classified" FOIA Requests from the CIA is their reply to Larry O'Daniel's request for release of all documents concerning Project Cherry. Larry (Goldencoast Publishing) has challenged the CIA's response that information of "Cherry" remains classified. His argument is that it is illegal to classify a crime consisting of a rogue operation specifically prohibited by Presidential Directives. I have Cc'd Larry a copy of this email and expect he will be ready for an immediate response. Because we NOW KNOW that Cherry was an unauthorized, rogue operation using Black Terror and Assassination (much like today's Sy Hersh's exposure of the Special Action Plan) AND it existed in defiance of Presidential Directives issued during National Security Council meetings while using Khmer Serie operatives in their attempt to overthrow the Cambodian Government and Assassinate, then Prince, now King Norodom Sihanouk, we can no longer be an unwitting party to the deception on the part of the Intelligence Community. A pattern and modus operandi is emerging here. Although the personnel have changed over the years, the mindset remains the same. Larry and I are in possession of the NSC documents downloaded from the LBJ Library. These once Top Secret documents were declassified by the State Department in 2000, much to the consternation of the CIA. Now we know why. This is a perfect example to use before the appropriate committee who must have the moral courage and temerity to take the appropriate action. If you compile all of the abuses CIA has created since they decided to work outside of the charter of the National Security Act of 1947, you will have the justification to abolish the CIA, dismantle it's subsidiaries and start all over with an organization that will refuse to fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction to justify preemptive attacks on sovereign nations, create an atmosphere for wars of insurrection in Third World Nations and the murder of well over 5,000,000 civilians. CIA's declaration of a "slam dunk" to the President re the WMD in Iraq is one more horrendous and egregious blunder that approaches conspiracy to deceive the President into ordering preemptive action. Secretary Powell today expressed having been given the "best information available at the time from the CIA" for his presentation to the UN. CIA and DIA KNEW this information was bogus or at least suspect. There may have been a demand for this information to cause career intelligence analysts to send this "intelligence" up the chain to the President, and the demand for justification may have come from the White House. VP Cheney is known to have made many trips to CIA while the "intelligence" was being "processed". CIA activities in the Prisons of Iraq break all the rules of the Geneva Convention and are equal to the crimes evidenced in the Nuremberg International War Crimes Tribunal. The definition of Aggressor War levied against Nazi Germany at the Nuremberg Trials dovetails exactly with the preemptive attack on Iraq. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson temporarily stepped down from the Court in 1945 to become the lead prosecutor at Nuremberg. Parts of his opening statement to the Tribunal are applicable here. Crime Against Peace "The basic provision of the Charter is that to plan, prepare, initiate or wage a war of aggression, or war in violation of international treaties (such as the UN) agreements, and assurances, or to conspire or participate in a common plan to do so, (such as Briton) is a crime. "I suggest that an "Aggressor" is generally held to be that state which is the first to commit any of the following actions: (1) Declaration of war on another state; (2) Invasion by it's armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory, vessels or aircraft of another state; (3) Attack it by land, naval, or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another state. "And I further suggest that it is the general view that no political, military, economic or other considerations shall serve as an excuse or justification for such actions..." "They (the defendants) took from the German (Iraqi) people all those dignities and freedoms that we hold to be natural and inalienable rights in every human being. "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. "These defendants were of a station and rank which does not soil it's own hands with blood. They were men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the planners and designers, the inciters and leaders without whose evil architecture the world would not have for so long scourged with the violence and wracked with agonies and convulsions of this terrible war. "My task is to show the scale on which these men who were in responsible positions and who conceived the plan and design which renders them answerable, regardless of the fact that the plan was actually executed by others. "Any resort to war, to any kind of war, is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. "Can there be no doubt that the outlawing of aggressive war was one of the generally accepted rules of International Law in 1939? The closing remarks from Justice Jackson follow: "We may admit too that the world had failed to provide political or legal remedies (such as the UN in the case of Iraq) which would be honorable and acceptable alternatives to war. We do not underwrite either the ethics or the wisdom of any country, including my own, if the face of these problems. But we do say that it is now, as it was for sometime before 1939, illegal and criminal for Germany or any other nation to redress grievances or seek expansion by resort to aggressive war. "The measure of the criminality of the plan and therefore of the guilt of each participant is, of course, the sum total of crimes committed by all in executing the plan. But the gist of the offense is participation in the formulation or execution of the plan. These are rules which every society has found necessary in order to reach men, like these defendants, who never get blood on their hands but who lay plans that result in the shedding of blood." --7/26/1946 Bests, John McCarthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John J. McCarthy Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 (edited) From the November-December, 1995 issue (Vol. 3 No. 1) Pierre Finck & the Secret Team In the following pages Probe explores an area of the medical evidence that has been virtually untouched. Many articles and books have been written about the facts of the autopsy. Very little has been revealed about who the medical doctors are. Of late, some interesting facts have come to light about Dr. Luis Alvarez which helps explain his findings and involvement on the Kennedy case. Full disclosure is key in this regard since, as Fletcher Prouty wrote in his milestone book The Secret Team, "there are other military personnel working with the CIA who are really Agency employees" and "who for special reasons" assume a "military uniform" but "are really Agency employees." This possibility has yet to be explored in relation to the medical practitioners on this case. It should be. John McCarthy is a former Army Special Forces Captain who served in various parts of the globe over a long period of time in the service of his country. John's career encompasses Eastern Europe, China, Okinawa, Vietnam and Cambodia. These last two spots furnish the backdrop for this part of his four hour interview videotaped by a friend of CTKA. In Southeast Asia in the mid-sixties, John was involved in the latter stages of a top secret project aimed at destabilizing Vietnam's neighbor, Cambodia. While John was decommissioning a Cambodian asset, the ally was shot and killed by sniper fire. Inexplicably, John was accused of the killing and forced to undergo a court-martial. In a very strange proceeding, of which McCarthy maintains a transcript, John was convicted of the crime. Upon appeal, and the surfacing of new evidence dealing with the autopsy, the government decided to dismiss the charges. The case is highly relevant to everyone, including those who care about the Kennedy case since it involves the ubi-quitious Dr. Pierre Finck. At about the same time McCarthy's appeal process was going on, Finck was prepping to appear at the Clay Shaw trial where, as readers know, he underwent a withering, historic cross-examination by Garrison's assistant Al Oser. With McCarthy's never before printed revelations, Finck's background in the accompanying sidebar, and the reproduced withheld HSCA document, we now have enough evidence to truly question who Pierre Finck is. We would also like to ask Robert Blakey why the HSCA did not dig into his background so they could question him on it under oath. The Review Board, which gets Probe, should now reserve his seat and start readying the questions. The following is the transcript by Dave Manning of Jim DiEugenio's interview with John McCarthy concerning McCarthy's court martial trial for murder, in South Vietnam, January 29-31, 1968 and the involvement of Colonel Pierre Finck in a cover-up of exculpatory evidence. This interview took place on August 17, 1995. JD: The Pentagon would actually try and "booby-trap" or sabotage a Special Forces operation because they knew they weren't in control of it? JM: Yes. JD: Can you remember any examples? JM: Well, my court martial to begin with. There was such glee that there was going to be a court martial for premeditated murder of a captain, Special Forces, that was facing the death penalty, that these people were bending over backwards to get this to trial. And then they went through all the efforts they did to fabricate information in order to obtain a conviction. Then they modified that information to maintain the conviction. We can talk about the way we found out about these things a little later. McKernan's object in trying to close any or all of the portions of the trial to the public was designed to prevent the exposure of "Project Cherry." In fact, when the trial did start and the government witnesses mentioned "Project Cherry," McKernan about had a heart attack. And the judge noticed this and there were many side-bar conferences to discuss what was and what was not classified. And the judge threatened to close even the prosecution side of the case, on numerous occasions. Fortunately, a portion of it was left open. JD: So, in other words the truth would have been too terrible. JM: Well, the truth in the government's argument, that it would seriously affect further prosecution of the war, means that had the truth come out, the war in Vietnam may have stopped in January of 1968 and would have inevitably saved thousands of lives on the allied side and hundreds of thousands of lives on the Asian side. JD: So, they had to limit the trial to make the case against you stick? JM: They had to limit what was held in open court. Fortunately, enough information was held in open court that it showed how little was necessary for a military conviction under the United States military judicial system. JD: Let's talk about Mason's actual testimony. Mason testified in court that his autopsy showed that the bullet fired into Jimmy had to be either a .22, or at the outside limits a .25. Correct? JM: That's correct. JD: If those were his findings, how could they possibly pin it on you? JM: By Mason's expert testimony that the wound was a contact wound. Even though there was an absence of powder burns or powder tattooing at the wound periphery or the entrance wound, there was nothing but microscopic particles that were in the wound track, which we have no idea how they got there. Since Mason didn't perform a nitrate test (for his own reasons) we don't know what those black spots were that were in the wound track itself. But, this information allowed Mason to conclude that a weapon firing a .22 was held tightly or loosely against the back of Jimmy's neck. JD: How did they ever connect you with a .22? JM: They didn't ever connect me with a .22. JD: How did they try and connect you with a .22? JM: By reason of association. The government assumed that since there were .22 caliber devices known as "stingers" that were available, that I most likely must have had one. JD: Did you? JM: No, I did not have one! JD: What was a "stinger?" JM: It is an assassination weapon which the Agency contracted an American manufacturer of firearms to construct. It looks like a pipe lighter or a large tube of lipstick. It's silver in color. It has a threaded barrel which can be unscrewed and a .22 caliber short round is inserted and when the barrel is screwed back on, the whole thing can be held in the palm of the hand and utilized for an assassination at a public place where a lot of noise is occurring, such as a sporting event. It's an assassination weapon that is provided by the CIA. I didn't have one. JD: Did you ever have one? JM: No. I've never had one, I've never owned one. I saw one in 1969 at Fort Holabird when I went to visit some people who were on "Project Cherry" during 1967. That was the first and only time I've ever seen one in my life. JD: Did the government ever produce a witness who testified that you had one or who would testify to seeing you with one? JM: No. JD: So, in other words, Mason's contention, his theory was basically always just a theory? JM: Mason's theory (for whatever motivation he had) was only that. But, he was an expert. The court, in no uncertain terms recognized that he was an expert witness In fact, when Mason finished his testimony, rather than withdrawing from the courtroom, he took a seat in the spectator section. That was noted by Captain Davis who brought it to the attention of the judge. The judge said, "Well, do you expect him to be brought back to the witness stand?" He asked this question of the prosecutor, Captain Lee and Captain Lee said he did not. Then the judge said (in the presence of the jury), "Well, I consider Dr. Mason a friend of the court. We've been on many courts martial before. As far as I'm concerned, he can stay and listen to this the rest of the trial, if he wants to." And that was that! So, Mason in effect, listened to every other testimony that came about as a result of that court martial. JD: Why do you think Mason decided to stay in the courtroom? JM: I think he was caught up in this theory of his and was trying to justify it in his own mind. After the trial, there were certain elements taking place by the post-trial review board, which was handled by the Judge Advocate General's office (the lawyers who worked for USARV). Mason's theory didn't work. The post-trial review countermanded Mason's expert testimony. Captain Lee, in summarizing his case before the jury, said, "It is the position of the United States government that a weapon employing a .22 was used to kill Inchin Lam." [Note: Inchin Lam or "Jimmy" refers to the victim. - Ed.] The post-trial review said, "Science cannot say under any facts or circumstances, that a .38 could not have caused the wound in question." Now, which position of the government had we been defending against? The investigator who test-fired my weapon had presented his results before the court. Mason had presented his theory before the court. People of common sense know that you can't put a .38 through a 5 millimeter hole or a 9mm through a 5mm hole. So, that's where this thing stood-in limbo-until three or four months after the trial. JD: So, Mason was step-by-step, tailoring his testimony to fit the circumstances. JM: Tailoring his testimony to fit a theory which provides for my guilt, even though it's contrary to all of the other evidentiary testimony that's taking place at trial. JD: You don't think he was under orders to stay there, do you? JM: I think he was under some strong influence to come up with this theory to make a conviction possible. I think he was told to come up with something much more substantial, other than a .22 and a 5mm hole, which are not conducive to the .38 that I had, in order to obtain a conviction. Now, who he got this directive from (if he got such a directive) I don't know. JD: What was the excuse overheard outside the courtroom, for convicting you on such flimsy evidence? JM: Well, Colonel Entrekin was discussing the fact that this was the first time in history that anybody had been sentenced under those particulars. He made the statement, "We don't know how he did it but we think he did it." During this conversation Captain Mason (who testified as an expert witness) the pathologist, was overheard to say to Stewart Davis, "Well, you should have asked me certain questions that you didn't ask!" And Davis said, "Are you playing word games with me, when we're talking about a man's life being at stake?!" And Mason said "Well, you should have talked a little bit more about "formalin." This is a fixative that is used on these thin slices of tissue that were excised from the wound track. Mason also brought out at court, that he had excised a bullet fragment from the left nasal pharynx of Inchin Lam and he had shipped that to the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C. for analysis. JD: Your attorney did not know that at the time, correct? JM: He knew as a result of testimony in court, but he had never been advised before the court that that bullet fragment had been transferred to Washington, D.C. JD: As far as you and lawyer Stewart Davis knew, at the time of the trial there was no FBI report? JM: That's true, there wasn't. It was issued on the 9th of February, 1968. JD: Did the prosecution know about the report? JM: The prosecution couldn't have had knowledge about it because it wasn't issued until the 9th of February, which was ten days after the trial. JD: What is the purpose of having the FBI examine the bullet, if their analysis is not going to be introduced at trial? JM: Well, they didn't know what the response was going to be from the FBI. As it turned out, the FBI report could not conclude the type, manufacturer, make or size of bullet that this fragment came from. The report further states, that a particle of quartz was stuck to the tip of the bullet fragment. The FBI shipped this bullet fragment with the particle of quartz attached to it back to Captain Mason, in Vietnam. He, in turn, shipped it to the chief of forensic pathology for the United States military, at Bethesda naval hospital, which was under the command of Colonel Pierre Finck. [Note: Finck's precise title appears in the sidebar.] But, when Richard Mason received this report from the FBI on the 12th or 14th of February, 1968, he didn't think that report was important enough to let the defense counsel know about it or the fact that there was some quartz on the tip of this bullet fragment. JD: So, even after the report is in the hands of the army, neither you nor Stewart Davis see it, right? JM: That's correct. Neither Davis nor myself were aware that the report even existed. JD: But, Mason and his commanding officer, Pierre Finck do see it. JM: It was in Pierre's file. JD: What was Pierre Finck's position at this time? JM: He was chief of forensic pathology for all the military services of the United States. [Again, note correct title in sidebar.] JD: In 1967 Finck is actually in Vietnam so, he has to know about your case. Then, he has the entire case file (which includes the pathologist's report) after your trial, correct? JM: Mason's autopsy report and the complete medical file with regards to the testimony was later located in Pierre Finck's office, under very unusual circumstances. JD: And you were not able to see this during the entire time of the trial, during your incarceration, up until the time of your appeal? JM: The FBI report which was sent to Mason in Vietnam was then sent to Colonel Finck, by registered mail. Somehow, that bullet fragment with the particle of quartz stuck on the tip of it, was lost. My lawyers were never able to have that fragment tested or analyzed. That information would have been exculpatory. What it really means is that that bullet hit something before it hit Inchin Lam and that fact would have cleared me. This report was found in Pierre Finck's office files in February of 1970! Two years after my conviction! Also included in this file, was a recantation (in writing) by Dr. Richard Mason wherein he says he was mistaken about the contact wound theory, during his expert testimony at trial. JD: And so now he had changed his story to what? JM: He had now changed the story to say that the .38 that I had carried could have caused the wound in question, fired from several inches away into the back of Inchin Lam's neck and that the size of the wound was due to the fact that the epidermis had shrunk between the time that he was killed and the time that Mason viewed the remains. JD: As far as you know, is that possible? JM: No, as far as I know it is not possible. And those two documents were in a file which also contained copies of letters from Pierre Finck back to Richard Mason in Vietnam, asking Mason to get on board with this .38 theory because the post-trial review had found that a .38 could have caused the wound in question. JD: In essence, as Mason's commanding officer, Finck was directing him to change his story. JM: Yes. And to change his story by recanting his sworn testimony which compelled the jury to convict me! JD: Now, if there had been a second trial, wouldn't Mason have had to explain the two different stories or theories? JM: Yes, he would have had to explain why he flip-flopped on his theory. Now, a year after the trial Stewart Davis contacted Pierre Finck in an attempt to ascertain the whereabouts of Richard Mason. The last information we had about him was that he was in the San Francisco Bay area. Finck told Davis he had no idea where Mason was, but that he had left the service. JD: But Finck had been Mason's commanding officer, right? JM: Yes, he was Mason's commanding officer. JD: And Mason, had been involved in a very important case, about which Finck had recently communicated with him, correct? JM: That's correct. JD: So, does Finck's story about not knowing Mason's whereabouts make sense? JM: Finck's denial of any knowledge of Mason's whereabouts or of knowledge of any other information which would have been useful to the defense, is a flat-out lie. A year later, after Davis had left Vietnam and gone back to the Pentagon, I requested he be reassigned to my defense again, because he was so familiar with all the aspects of my case up to that point. Charles Morgan, who was then my civilian attorney agreed, because by that time Davis had been reassigned to the prosecution side of JAG at the Pentagon. JD: So, Finck had declared to Davis both that he was unaware of Mason's location and that there was nothing in the case file which would have been helpful to the defense? JM: There was no file! JD: He denied the existence of a file? JM: He denied the existence of a file. As a forensic pathologist, Pierre Finck had to know and understand the significance of expert testimony at trial, the ramifications of a recantation of that expert testimony and its impact on the judicial system. In the meantime, I was sitting in Leavenworth. In November of 1969, I was released under the first opportunity to exercise military "bail." I was still under a conviction and I was reassigned to another military post in Arizona. In March of 1970, Stewart Davis was having coffee in the cafeteria at the Pentagon and a lawyer who worked in the forensic pathology department (Colonel Finck's department, still), approached Davis and asked him if he had seen the McCarthy file. Davis was surprised to say the least, in as much as he had been told no file existed. This attorney escorted Davis over to Finck's office. He was shown where the file was and then he was told that the copy machine was just down the hall but, that he should be careful because there was also a sergeant there. JD: Was Davis then left alone? JM: Stewart Davis was left alone with the file. JD: A file that Pierre Finck said did not exist? JM: That's correct. JD: He's left alone and the copy machine is pointed out to him? JM: Exactly. As he opened the file the first page was Mason's recantation of his testimony, dated August, 1968. The next pages in the file were letters from Finck to Mason suggesting that he get on board (with the .38 theory) and another letter congratulating him for recanting his testimony. Also in the file was the FBI report dated the 9th of February, 1968, which was exculpatory evidence. So, the FBI knew there was exculpatory information, Pierre Finck knew there was exculpatory information, the prosecutors knew there was exculpatory information and nobody did a damn thing about it. All materials within Copyright © 2000 to CTKA. Do not republish or copy this material in any form, electronic or otherwise, without written permission from CTKA. http://www.ctka.net/pr1195-finck.html Edited September 27, 2006 by John J. McCarthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now