From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: JAMA redux
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 13 OCT 92 13:57:42 PDT


A short break from Lattimer...

The current (October 7) issue of "JAMA" contains three separate 
sections relating to the JFK autopsy:

1. Numerous letters critical of the first (May 27) "JAMA" article
with responses by "JAMA" personnel and Humes/Boswell.

2. An article relating to JFK's Addison's disease. (definitely
had the disease)

3. Interview with Dr. Pierre Finck, the third pathologist
present at JFK's autopsy.  

Dr. Finck is clearly not inclined to talk about the autopsy, and
has *never* given a face-to-face interview, except to officials.
(the Warren Commission, the Jim Garrison trial, and the HSCA)
He agreed to this interview only because he was infuriated at the
insinuations made in some quarters that his non-participation for
the first article somehow indicated that he disagreed with Drs.
Humes and Boswell.  Dr. Finck states that he was traveling and did
not get the original invitation in time, and that he refused to do
phone interviews: "[there is] too much chance of confusion in the
talking and too much misunderstanding later in the print."

Thus, Dennis L. Breo flew to Switzerland to obtain the interview.

Prior to the face-to-face interaction, Mr. Breo submitted a list of
25 questions.  At the interview, Dr. Finck submitted his written
answers to the questions and engaged in further conversation on the
subject of the autopsy.

Let us note that Dr. Finck was not only a certified forensic
pathologist as of 11/22/63, but was chief of the Wound Ballistics
Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

1. Extracts from Dr. Finck's comments:

About the first "JAMA" article: "Except for the comments that I
was very `brass conscious,' and that I had `mistaken perceptions'
about an `alleged military presence in the morgue,' I basically
agree with the "JAMA" article.  I saw generals, but they did not
interfere with the autopsy.  There was no military interference."

About the "controversy" over the direction from which the bullets
which struck JFK were fired: "I am very much tired of hearing so
much nonsense about the Kennedy assassination.  All of this has been
answered before, and this will be my only interview.  I am quite
aggravated by having to listen to all the questions that have been
answered before - to be asked the same questions and have to repeat
the same descriptions simply because of suspicions and fictions.
I have answered these same questions during my testimonies before
the Warren Commission in 1964, at the National Archives in 1967 [where
he saw the autopsy photos for the first time], at the trial of Clay
Shaw in 1969, and before the Select Committee on Assassinations
of the US House of Representatives in 1978.  Because of this, I have
always declined to give interviews to the press or television."

"We got it right in 1963 and it still stands in 1992.  All these
discussions will not change the fact that the conclusion of our
1963 autopsy remains: there were two bullets striking from behind,
and there is no evidence for any wounds from the front.  In summary,
to those who say the wounds came from the front, I say, NO!  Also,
it is very important that you understand this: the generals did NOT
interfere with the autopsy."

On "best-selling" books: "Asked his view of some best-selling books
that purport to show alleged autopsy photos indicating a wound to
the front of Kennedy's head, Finck is typically abrupt: "These types
of things I disregard.  They are merely commercial ventures.  I
*examined* the wounds with my own eyes.  The fatal wound was 
frightening - 13 cm across at its widest.  It was very obvious that
it came from the back and exited the front."

On the Clay Shaw trial: "It was quite a horrible experience,"
Finck says of the trial.  "An attorney for the defense called me to say
he would be issuing a subpoena for my appearance.  I told him that I was
still uncomfortable from a recent hernia operation and would prefer not
to come.  He said I would have to appear.  Well, it was my hernia,
not his!  I was forced to testify for several days, including five hours
of cross-examination.  Under the circumstances, it was extremely
difficult and confusing and very unpleasant.  Of course, I supported
our original autopsy findings, and any suggestion to the contrary
is wrong."

On the procedures of the autopsy: "Was the autopsy complete?"  Finck
looks pained, but backs down from his written assertion to Gen 
Blumberg that he questioned checking the box for "complete autopsy,"
as proposed by Cmdr Humes.  "After all these years have passed,"
he says, "and keeping in mind that the purpose was to determine
the cause of death, I think that it was adequate.  At the time,
it may not have seemed as `complete' to me as some other autopsies
I have done, but for the purposes of history, yes, it was complete.
We did not do everything possible in the way of a complete autopsy.
For example, we did not dissect the organs of the neck, and it was my
impression that this was not done because of the wishes of the
Kennedy family.  But it was not necessary to dissect the organs
of the neck to determine the cause of death.  Also, initially,
the Kennedy family did not want us to examine the abdominal
cavity, but the abdominal cavity *was* examined.  Today, I
call it a `complete' autopsy."

There is quite a bit of material relating to Finck's original
notes and reports and previous testimony.  It is all exquisite
documentation of Finck's finding: two bullets from behind.

Considering the fact that the three autopsy doctors authenticated
the x-rays and photos, and that every single forensic pathologist
and radiologist who has examined the original documents agrees
with the central autopsy findings - two bullets, fired from
behind - it is astonishing that any doubt yet exists on this
point.  

Finally, let's look again at Dr. Cyril Wecht's comments from "The
Forensic Science Gazette", Sept. 1973:

"The available evidence, assuming it to be valid, gives no support
to theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of
the presidential car.  The wound in the President's head can only
have been fired from somewhere to the rear of the President."

and

"The X-rays and photographic materials give every indication of being
authentic...and the facial features, where they can be seen, are
consistent with the author's recollections of the President."

Wecht's support for this view was reiterated during his participation
in the HSCA investigation; Dr. Wecht's dissent was with respect to
the SBT.

In short, forensic determinations such as bullet paths are made by
trained pathologists.  There is zero dispute among the scientists
who have examined all of the original autopsy material as to the
path of the bullets: posterior entry, anterior exit.  No scientific
dispute whatsoever, even from Dr. Wecht, a long-time critic of
the autopsy procedures in particular and the Warren Commission
in general.

Amateur speculation on this point is fun, but hardly relevant to
the medical and historical facts of the case...

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk