First Shot(CE399)---Last Time

[Jack White]

so I'd like to have Tom state clearly where the shot was taken from

Knowing full well that you have not come to accept it, the answer to your question is provided again.

Burkley, a medical doctor, placed the back wound at the level

of the THIRD THORACIC VERTEBRA, not the seventh cervical

vertebra. Where did you come up with such misinformation?

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

so I'd like to have Tom state clearly where the shot was taken from

Knowing full well that you have not come to accept it, the answer to your question is provided again.

Burkley, a medical doctor, placed the back wound at the level

of the THIRD THORACIC VERTEBRA, not the seventh cervical

vertebra. Where did you come up with such misinformation?

Jack

I would suppose that I made the mistake of looking at what the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA medical panel had to say on the subject, as well as having discussed the subject with Dr. Boswell.

Perhaps some of Dr. Humes testimony as regards Dr. Burkley may place anything else which Dr. Burkley may or may not have stated or written, into it's proper perspective as well.

AARB Testimony

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. And I'd like to draw your attention to the bottom of page 16 and the top of page 17, if you could read that to yourself. You can read any other portion you wish, but that's where I will be asking you the question.

I'll just state for the record this is an oral history from the John F. Kennedy Library of George G. Burkley conducted by William McHugh.

A. Well, his memory is a little foggy here.

I ordered every X-ray that was taken. He didn't have a thing to do with the ordering of X-rays. X-rayed the President's body from head to toe for the simple reason that missiles do very funny things occasionally in the human body. And George Burkley had absolutely nothing to do with it, period.

Q. Would you say that--

A. He says he supervised the autopsy. He was in the room. As far as supervising the autopsy, he didn't. Nobody supervised. I'm, unfortunately, responsible for it. Maybe he thought he was supervising it. If that made him feel better, that's okay with me, too. But I could not have put up with that. You know, just--it was not in my nature to be that retiring. I'm afraid I haven't changed a great deal.

I never saw this document before, of course.

A. Let me interrupt there. May I?

Q. Sure.

A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.

Q. In the JAMA article, if they quoted you correctly, you said that the scene in the autopsy room was somewhat like trying to do delicate neurosurgery in a three-ring circus.

A. At times it was. Not always, but at times when there was a lot of people around. You had to stage stuff. I mean, you couldn't be taking X-rays of the whole body and photographs simultaneously. You know, somebody had to decide who was going to do what when, and I had to do that. George Burkley sure as hell didn't, you know.

And Admiral Burkley was anxious that that period be shortened to as much-- you know, as much as possible. And he did from time to time suggest--but as far as telling me what to do or how to do it, absolutely, irrevocably no. He's not a pathologist, to start with. He wouldn't

Q. I'd like to show you a document that's marked Exhibit 6, which appears on its face to be a death certificate for President John F. Kennedy, signed by George Gregory Burkley on November 23, 1963?

A. Right. Never saw it before.

Q. You've never seen Exhibit 6 before?

A. No, sir.

Q. You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that correct?

A. I don't know. I didn't measure from which vertebra it was. It's sometimes hard to decide which vertebra, to tell you the truth, by palpation. Maybe you can do it accurately because the first and second--did I say the third? Oh, he says third thoracic. I think that's much lower than it actually was. I think it's much lower than it actually--you have seven cervical vertebrae. I don't know. I mean, he's got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before, and I don't have an opinion about it.

Q. Did you ever discuss which vertebra--

A. I never discussed anything about it with George Burkley, period, or anybody else.

I mean, with all due respect, you seem to have come to me from left field. You know, I just- -they're not things of which I'm aware.

The measurements I made, as far as I'm concerned, were accurate. You could debate whether they were wise choices to be made or not, but they were accurate

Q. I'll show you a document that I believe you have seen before, earlier in the deposition, No. 19, which is a memorandum by Andy Purdy to the file dated August 17, 1977, which contains his notes from interviewing Dr. Burkley. I'd like you to take a look at the paragraph in the center of page 5.

Let me read it for the record, and then I'd like to get your response to it. Within the paragraph, Mr. Purdy, reporting on his conversation with Dr. Burkley, says, "Says he"--referring to Dr. Burkley--"was responsible for saving the brain after it was fixed in formalin. Burkley decided to keep the brain rather than put it back in the body, as Dr. Humes wanted to do."

Is that accurate?

A. That's absolutely false. I don't know where he got these ideas. I never put a brain back in a body in my life. Hundreds and hundreds of autopsies that I've done, and I certainly wouldn't put this one back in the body. It's ridiculous. And he had nothing to do with it. Not a thing.

God, that really--I can't believe some of this stuff. George is a fine man. I have great respect for him as a physician. But this must have spun his wheels or something. I don't know what happened, but he--this absolutely did not happen. I wouldn't dream of it.

It's just annoying as the devil--forgive me, but it is. And I say, I've never seen this document before. Just as well, because I'd just have been annoyed for longer if I had. It makes no sense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps Dr. Boswell's AARB testimony may be of some help.

Q. Was it your impression in 1963 that Dr. Burkley was supervising what was going on in the autopsy room?

A. Well, he wasn't supervising very closely. We were acting on certain of his instructions. Initially, Jim--at this time, I can't remember how Jim got his instructions from Burkley. I don't know whether Jim actually went upstairs to see Burkley or whether he came down. I never saw Admiral Burkley in the morgue. But at some point, Jim understood that we were to do a limited autopsy

to find--I think the initial thing that they told us was that we were to find the bullets, that they had captured the assailant, and that that's all they needed. And Jim argued and said that that was--you know, we couldn't do that kind of an autopsy. But we started out just with the idea that we were going to do an external examination and then we were going to do a limited internal examination. But at a point shortly after we started, it was agreed that we would do a complete autopsy. But I don't know how Jim got those instructions, whether he left the morgue and went up to see Burkley or whether Burkley came down or whether he sent a messenger. There was just too many things going on, I guess, that I wasn't aware of how that all happened.

Q. Was it your understanding that the instructions about the scope of the autopsy were, however, coming from Dr. Burkley?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. If I understood you correctly, you said that you have no recollection of Dr. Burkley being in the morgue. Is that correct?

A. I don't remember him being in the morgue at all. Now, he could very well have been in there very briefly early in the autopsy, but I'm sure that he was upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy most of the evening.

Q. I'd like to show you, continuing with this thing, Exhibit No. 6, which appears to be death certificate for President Kennedy signed by Admiral Burkley. The first question is: Have you ever seen this document before?

A. No.

Q. I'd like you to note on the second page where it says that--just read the first sentence to yourself, and I'll read it for the record. It says that "President Kennedy was struck in the head by an assassin's bullet, and a second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra." Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct?

A. No.

Q. What vertebra was the wound closest to, if you know? Again, we're talking about the wound other than the skull.

A. It would not be a thoracic vertebra. It would have to be a cervical vertebra.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is regretful that the facts confuse you Jack, be they written or photographic.

You really do need to attempt to research the subject matter somewhat before launching off into such as the non-present and unsubstantuated statements of someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the physical examination of the corpse of JFK.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Although previously provided, it would appear that a new grouping of members have not had the opportunity to scoff at the facts.

Therefore, before putting my marbles away and playing some other game, for the last time hopefully, here are the facts as relates to the first shot fired in the assassination of JFK.

Be reminded that I am neither more qualified than, or know more about the assassination than did certain members of the WC as well as the FBI and US Secret Service.

And, in that regards, the day after the WC completed their "staged"/aka phony assassination re-enactment, members of this group remained behind and were observed cutting and removing the limbs from the top of the live oak tree which is located directly in front of the TSDB/directly under the sixth floor window.

With that tidbit of knowledge, one can thereafter place the WC & it's true mission into it's proper perspective.

Hi Tom:

I have been following this thread and am impressed with your analysis. I have one quick question for you: Can you give me a source/reference for your statement that "the day after the WC completed their "staged"/aka phony assassination re-enactment, members of this group remained behind and were observed cutting and removing limbs from the top of the live oak tree etc..."?

Regards,

Gary Murr

Gary;

Some "depositories" are far more secure than a safe deposit vault.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

A continuation for those who actually know how to evaluate factual evidence.

"I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same"

James R. Looney

Member: AFTE

http://www.afte.org/AssociationInfo/a_contacts.htm

http://afte.org/AssociationInfo/a_committees.htm

Personally, I have this strange concept that one should expose their work to the opinion of true experts in the specific fields prior to getting on one of these talk shows and inserting their foot in their mouth, or their head rectally!

Edited January 20, 2007 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

A continuation for those who actually know how to evaluate factual evidence.

"I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same"

James R. Looney

Member: AFTE

http://www.afte.org/AssociationInfo/a_contacts.htm

http://afte.org/AssociationInfo/a_committees.htm

Personally, I have this strange concept that one should expose their work to the opinion of true experts in the specific fields prior to getting on one of these talk shows and inserting their foot in their mouth, or their head rectally!

One attachment at a time, it sometimes seems.

[Ashton Gray]

A continuation for those who actually know how to evaluate factual evidence.

Apparently you define "those who actually know how to evaluate factual evidence" as those who will select the same set of directly conflicting 'evidence' and ambiguous 'evidence' that you, in your infinitely superior expert wisdom, have selected to keep forcing everyone to accept whether it makes any sense to them or not.

I've waded through every excrutiatingly pedantic and redundant thing you've posted, and at this point it's my personal opinion that you're in freefall on this question of the back shot, lost in space, and that you have been ever since long ago you fell down that largish "D" shaped rabbit hole (that isn't a hole at all) depicted in the upper portion of John F. Kennedy's back in the autopsy photo.

I think that's why you never, ever can provide a simple, direct answer to anyone, but instead infinitely and repetitively post the same screeching screed over and over and over and over, never even bothering to select relevant portions—just hurling huge masses of it in people's face post after post after post, hoping, I guess, that repitition and volume somehow will make what is false true.

It won't.

You were duped. You were hornswoggled, bamboozled, conned. You bit the apple.

Okay. So what? Who doesn't get taken in this life? This is the wake-up call, but I ain't gonna' kiss you.

It wasn't any "accident" that two marks were prominently featured in that back autopsy photo, either one of which could be taken for a "hole." And it wasn't any "accident" that the phony one is "D" shaped.

It seems to me that you fell right into it, and have been in free-fall ever since, because it isn't a "hole" at all: it's a dead-end splotch on the back. It goes nowhere but to infinite free-fall through the winds of space, and leads to reposting page after page after repetitive page of attempts to prove haughty "rightness" for having been tricked.

There's everything right about having been tricked. It speaks of trust. On the other hand, there's nothing very right at all about tricking others.

Let it go. Nobody's going to be mad at you or ridicule you.

You can climb out of that rabbit hole full of fraud tar easily: it doesn't even have any depth. The only thing stopping you is yourself. And the way it's beginning to seem to me, Tom, is that you no longer even are able to consider that the bullet hole could have been the lower spot on the back.

That's the make-break point. Do you even have objectivity any more? Can you even answer that question with a simple yes or no at this point?

I'm not asking you this or saying any of this to be demeaning in any way. All I'm suggesting is for you to do some soul-searching and determine if you've left enough bread-crumbs along the path just to be able to find your way back to Square One on the issue.

Come on back. The weather's fine at Square One, and you'll have lots of friendly company.

Ashton

[Thomas H. Purvis]

A continuation for those who actually know how to evaluate factual evidence.

Apparently you define "those who actually know how to evaluate factual evidence" as those who will select the same set of directly conflicting 'evidence' and ambiguous 'evidence' that you, in your infinitely superior expert wisdom, have selected to keep forcing everyone to accept whether it makes any sense to them or not.

I've waded through every excrutiatingly pedantic and redundant thing you've posted, and at this point it's my personal opinion that you're in freefall on this question of the back shot, lost in space, and that you have been ever since long ago you fell down that largish "D" shaped rabbit hole (that isn't a hole at all) depicted in the upper portion of John F. Kennedy's back in the autopsy photo.

I think that's why you never, ever can provide a simple, direct answer to anyone, but instead infinitely and repetitively post the same screeching screed over and over and over and over, never even bothering to select relevant portions—just hurling huge masses of it in people's face post after post after post, hoping, I guess, that repitition and volume somehow will make what is false true.

It won't.

You were duped. You were hornswoggled, bamboozled, conned. You bit the apple.

Okay. So what? Who doesn't get taken in this life? This is the wake-up call, but I ain't gonna' kiss you.

It wasn't any "accident" that two marks were prominently featured in that back autopsy photo, either one of which could be taken for a "hole." And it wasn't any "accident" that the phony one is "D" shaped.

It seems to me that you fell right into it, and have been in free-fall ever since, because it isn't a "hole" at all: it's a dead-end splotch on the back. It goes nowhere but to infinite free-fall through the winds of space, and leads to reposting page after page after repetitive page of attempts to prove haughty "rightness" for having been tricked.

There's everything right about having been tricked. It speaks of trust. On the other hand, there's nothing very right at all about tricking others.

Let it go. Nobody's going to be mad at you or ridicule you.

You can climb out of that rabbit hole full of fraud tar easily: it doesn't even have any depth. The only thing stopping you is yourself. And the way it's beginning to seem to me, Tom, is that you no longer even are able to consider that the bullet hole could have been the lower spot on the back.

That's the make-break point. Do you even have objectivity any more? Can you even answer that question with a simple yes or no at this point?

I'm not asking you this or saying any of this to be demeaning in any way. All I'm suggesting is for you to do some soul-searching and determine if you've left enough bread-crumbs along the path just to be able to find your way back to Square One on the issue.

Come on back. The weather's fine at Square One, and you'll have lots of friendly company.

Ashton

Although little time and/or effort was wasted in review of your ramblings, let me just state:

That, if, and when, you manage to develop the capability for deductive reasoning and the application of true research and research techniques and cease to attempt to blame all of your failings to understand the evidence on the big, bad, ole CIA,/Parkland Dr's/etc; then just perhaps you may actually learn something in regards to factual examination and evaluation of forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence.

Until such time, might I suggest that you stick with your nursery rhymes and "piggy" stories.

At least you appear to understand this level.

Lastly, blaming the CIA has long been utilized (and virtually worn out) by many prior to you who either lacked the ability or were unwilling to expend the effort to conduct a complete examination of the facts of the assassination.

Certainly demonstrated nothing new to me in that regards.

It also certainly beats having to admit one's failings in life!

[Ashton Gray]

...blaming the CIA has long been utilized (and virtually worn out) by many prior to you who either lacked the ability or were unwilling to expend the effort to conduct a complete examination of the facts of the assassination.

Tom, despite what you seem to have as a fixed and unwavering belief, I have no desire whatsoever to render unto CIA anything except that which is CIA's. As long as you hold the unwavering conviction that I have some one-note drum to beat, you're going to ignore, deny, and discredit in any way you can any amount of evidence, up to and including a smoking gun, no matter what the relative merits of the evidence.

I feel certain at this point there is nothing I could say or do to convince you that my only interest is in getting at the truth, whatever that truth is.

At the moment, my best dispassionate and disinterested assessment of the evidence to hand is that the lower mark on the back is the bullet wound. Can't you make a special effort to understand and believe that I have absolutely no vested interest in it being either mark? I'm not trying to twist data to fit some fixed-in-stone model. I'm trying in good faith to get to the truth.

I've tried in good faith to demonstrate graphically and visually my foundation for that belief, which visual foundation is supported by my reading of a great deal of admittedly conflicting testimony and "expert" opinions.

I have no beef with you. I'm not out to get you or to discredit your data. My effort has been, and will continue to be, toward reconciliation and resolution of what I consider to be intentionally contrary "facts." The only way I know to resolve such contradictory "evidence" is to approach it with an unbiased view, collect and compare, and reach what seems to be the most reasonable conclusion.

I have no argument with the fact that CE399 ricocheted off of something before being "found" and introduced into evidence. I find all of your data on that compelling and truthful.

What has not been proven satisfactorily or dispositively is that that bullet entered the back of John F. Kennedy at all, at any time, so it certainly has not been proven dispositively that that specific bullet (or any bullet at all) entered the back of John F. Kennedy at the point of the dark splotch near the top of his back.

It also certainly beats having to admit one's failings in life!

My failings in life are legion. They are strewn like a train wreck in my wake. I determined early on that if I could be 51% right, I was ahead of the game. I am not trying to be "right" at the expense of someone else being "wrong." If that's a game you're playing, you ain't playing it with me. I'm not in that game at all.

I'm trying to get to the truth. In my experience, when the truth is found, everybody winds up being right who has been on a path in good faith of getting to the truth.

So: do we both want to get to the truth, whatever it is?

Ashton

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Malcolm Perry clearly did every "justified" thing he could dream up to destroy all evidence of the throat wound—which conveniently was precisely where he could do that very thing.

Perhaps some would call this a search for the truth and facts.

Personally, I consider it a disgusting tactic by persons who are either terribly mis-informed or mis-guided, or else an intentional attempt to "close the door" to any future researchers attempt to contact these persons and discuss the issues.

Such absolutely imoral tactics are the exact reasons why Dr. Humes and Dr. Finck would no longer speak personally with ANY researcher on the subject matter.

And now, with what is being stated about the "FRAZIER SPEAKS" book, this doorway may also be closed to anyone who may wish to seek first-hand evidence.

So, rather than expend the time and effort to actually make an attempt at understanding the evidence, one merely has to come up with some means and or methods to blame their lack of understanding on someone else.

Certainly nothing new here in the way of research.

I do believe the same tactic was applied against the autopsy surgeons.

Actually, nothing new in regards to any aspect of the past 40 years or so.

Certainly not hurting me as I long ago got to and spoke with virtually every available source of information.

However, one can rest assured that in event someone else takes it upon themselves to actually conduct research and they wish to speak with the few remaining "first-hand" participants, that it will progressively become more and more difficult to do so as a result of comments such as those which you have made.

Last time that I checked, research was supposed to "open doors" not close them

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200212/dallek-jfk/6

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy before the President's medical ailments could. But the evidence suggests that Kennedy's physical condition contributed to his demise. On November 22, 1963, Kennedy was, as always, wearing a corsetlike back brace as he rode through Dallas. Oswald's first bullet struck him in the back of the neck. Were it not for the back brace, which held him erect, the second, fatal shot to the head might not have found its mark.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One may get the impression that I wrote this!

Whatever?

It is an excellent article on the steroid treatment of JFK as well as how he later developed his "exercise" routine.

Not to mention "Dr. Feelgood", who should have been known to anyone who has dug into the background and history of JFK & Jackie.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

so I'd like to have Tom state clearly where the shot was taken from

Knowing full well that you have not come to accept it, the answer to your question is provided again.

Burkley, a medical doctor, placed the back wound at the level

of the THIRD THORACIC VERTEBRA, not the seventh cervical

vertebra. Where did you come up with such misinformation?

Jack

I would suppose that I made the mistake of looking at what the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA medical panel had to say on the subject, as well as having discussed the subject with Dr. Boswell.

Perhaps some of Dr. Humes testimony as regards Dr. Burkley may place anything else which Dr. Burkley may or may not have stated or written, into it's proper perspective as well.

AARB Testimony

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. And I'd like to draw your attention to the bottom of page 16 and the top of page 17, if you could read that to yourself. You can read any other portion you wish, but that's where I will be asking you the question.

I'll just state for the record this is an oral history from the John F. Kennedy Library of George G. Burkley conducted by William McHugh.

A. Well, his memory is a little foggy here.

I ordered every X-ray that was taken. He didn't have a thing to do with the ordering of X-rays. X-rayed the President's body from head to toe for the simple reason that missiles do very funny things occasionally in the human body. And George Burkley had absolutely nothing to do with it, period.

Q. Would you say that--

A. He says he supervised the autopsy. He was in the room. As far as supervising the autopsy, he didn't. Nobody supervised. I'm, unfortunately, responsible for it. Maybe he thought he was supervising it. If that made him feel better, that's okay with me, too. But I could not have put up with that. You know, just--it was not in my nature to be that retiring. I'm afraid I haven't changed a great deal.

I never saw this document before, of course.

A. Let me interrupt there. May I?

Q. Sure.

A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.

Q. In the JAMA article, if they quoted you correctly, you said that the scene in the autopsy room was somewhat like trying to do delicate neurosurgery in a three-ring circus.

A. At times it was. Not always, but at times when there was a lot of people around. You had to stage stuff. I mean, you couldn't be taking X-rays of the whole body and photographs simultaneously. You know, somebody had to decide who was going to do what when, and I had to do that. George Burkley sure as hell didn't, you know.

And Admiral Burkley was anxious that that period be shortened to as much-- you know, as much as possible. And he did from time to time suggest--but as far as telling me what to do or how to do it, absolutely, irrevocably no. He's not a pathologist, to start with. He wouldn't

Q. I'd like to show you a document that's marked Exhibit 6, which appears on its face to be a death certificate for President John F. Kennedy, signed by George Gregory Burkley on November 23, 1963?

A. Right. Never saw it before.

Q. You've never seen Exhibit 6 before?

A. No, sir.

Q. You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that correct?

A. I don't know. I didn't measure from which vertebra it was. It's sometimes hard to decide which vertebra, to tell you the truth, by palpation. Maybe you can do it accurately because the first and second--did I say the third? Oh, he says third thoracic. I think that's much lower than it actually was. I think it's much lower than it actually--you have seven cervical vertebrae. I don't know. I mean, he's got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before, and I don't have an opinion about it.

Q. Did you ever discuss which vertebra--

A. I never discussed anything about it with George Burkley, period, or anybody else.

I mean, with all due respect, you seem to have come to me from left field. You know, I just- -they're not things of which I'm aware.

The measurements I made, as far as I'm concerned, were accurate. You could debate whether they were wise choices to be made or not, but they were accurate

Q. I'll show you a document that I believe you have seen before, earlier in the deposition, No. 19, which is a memorandum by Andy Purdy to the file dated August 17, 1977, which contains his notes from interviewing Dr. Burkley. I'd like you to take a look at the paragraph in the center of page 5.

Let me read it for the record, and then I'd like to get your response to it. Within the paragraph, Mr. Purdy, reporting on his conversation with Dr. Burkley, says, "Says he"--referring to Dr. Burkley--"was responsible for saving the brain after it was fixed in formalin. Burkley decided to keep the brain rather than put it back in the body, as Dr. Humes wanted to do."

Is that accurate?

A. That's absolutely false. I don't know where he got these ideas. I never put a brain back in a body in my life. Hundreds and hundreds of autopsies that I've done, and I certainly wouldn't put this one back in the body. It's ridiculous. And he had nothing to do with it. Not a thing.

God, that really--I can't believe some of this stuff. George is a fine man. I have great respect for him as a physician. But this must have spun his wheels or something. I don't know what happened, but he--this absolutely did not happen. I wouldn't dream of it.

It's just annoying as the devil--forgive me, but it is. And I say, I've never seen this document before. Just as well, because I'd just have been annoyed for longer if I had. It makes no sense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps Dr. Boswell's AARB testimony may be of some help.

Q. Was it your impression in 1963 that Dr. Burkley was supervising what was going on in the autopsy room?

A. Well, he wasn't supervising very closely. We were acting on certain of his instructions. Initially, Jim--at this time, I can't remember how Jim got his instructions from Burkley. I don't know whether Jim actually went upstairs to see Burkley or whether he came down. I never saw Admiral Burkley in the morgue. But at some point, Jim understood that we were to do a limited autopsy

to find--I think the initial thing that they told us was that we were to find the bullets, that they had captured the assailant, and that that's all they needed. And Jim argued and said that that was--you know, we couldn't do that kind of an autopsy. But we started out just with the idea that we were going to do an external examination and then we were going to do a limited internal examination. But at a point shortly after we started, it was agreed that we would do a complete autopsy. But I don't know how Jim got those instructions, whether he left the morgue and went up to see Burkley or whether Burkley came down or whether he sent a messenger. There was just too many things going on, I guess, that I wasn't aware of how that all happened.

Q. Was it your understanding that the instructions about the scope of the autopsy were, however, coming from Dr. Burkley?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. If I understood you correctly, you said that you have no recollection of Dr. Burkley being in the morgue. Is that correct?

A. I don't remember him being in the morgue at all. Now, he could very well have been in there very briefly early in the autopsy, but I'm sure that he was upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy most of the evening.

Q. I'd like to show you, continuing with this thing, Exhibit No. 6, which appears to be death certificate for President Kennedy signed by Admiral Burkley. The first question is: Have you ever seen this document before?

A. No.

Q. I'd like you to note on the second page where it says that--just read the first sentence to yourself, and I'll read it for the record. It says that "President Kennedy was struck in the head by an assassin's bullet, and a second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra." Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct?

A. No.

Q. What vertebra was the wound closest to, if you know? Again, we're talking about the wound other than the skull.

A. It would not be a thoracic vertebra. It would have to be a cervical vertebra.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is regretful that the facts confuse you Jack, be they written or photographic.

You really do need to attempt to research the subject matter somewhat before launching off into such as the non-present and unsubstantuated statements of someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the physical examination of the corpse of JFK.

May as well throw in what Dr. Lattimer had to say on the subject as well, since he was allowed to review the X-rays also.