Post by Rob Caprio on Jan 13, 2019 22:03:12 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md74d/pages/md74_0001a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md74d/pages/md74_0002a.gif
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) took an affidavit from Leonard Saslaw that told us something very important.
Saslaw worked at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) at the time of the assassination in the Biochemistry branch. He was a FS-11 as a food chemist.
One day in the week following the assassination Saslaw was in the lunchroom with Dr. Pierre Finck, who was with two other officers (one of them may have been either Commander James Humes or Thorton Boswell), when Dr. Finck began talking loudly. Saslaw said that he knew who Finck was and since he was interested in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) like everyone else he paid attention to what was being said.
Here is what he reported in his affidavit to the ARRB.
Quote on
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 him 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.
Dr. Finck concluded his story by angrily stating that he had to reconstruct his notes from memory shortly after the autopsy. [Lenord Saslaw 5/16/1996 affidavit; ARRB MD 74 (D), p. 1)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md74d/html/md74_0001a.htm
Quote off
What could have happened to his notes? If they were taken (And what else could have happened to them?), why didn't the person who took them say that they did so? This is a big issue. If the notes confirmed what was officially claimed, why would someone take them?
Here is what Saslaw said about this issue and why he reported it to his supervisor.
Quote on
…I did so because it troubled me that a medical doctor's original observations of such an important event, made and recorded contemporaneously, were missing without explanation and had to be reconstructed. As a scientist, I know that data recorded from memory is not as likely to be as accurate, or as complete, as data contemporaneously. (Ibid., p.2)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md74d/html/md74_0002a.htm
Quote off
This is 100% true and accurate. If the official claim was accurate, why would this be needed? Why would notes based on memory be accepted? Why were the original notes never accounted for? Saslaw stated, “…I have therefore never heard of any further examination as to what may have happened. (Ibid.) To add insult to injury, they didn't even try to find out what happened to the original notes! They also never even mentioned that the original notes were missing! This sums up the whole case to me.
If this was an honest investigation, why was any of this allowed?
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md74d/pages/md74_0001a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md74d/pages/md74_0002a.gif
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) took an affidavit from Leonard Saslaw that told us something very important.
Saslaw worked at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) at the time of the assassination in the Biochemistry branch. He was a FS-11 as a food chemist.
One day in the week following the assassination Saslaw was in the lunchroom with Dr. Pierre Finck, who was with two other officers (one of them may have been either Commander James Humes or Thorton Boswell), when Dr. Finck began talking loudly. Saslaw said that he knew who Finck was and since he was interested in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) like everyone else he paid attention to what was being said.
Here is what he reported in his affidavit to the ARRB.
Quote on
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 him 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.
Dr. Finck concluded his story by angrily stating that he had to reconstruct his notes from memory shortly after the autopsy. [Lenord Saslaw 5/16/1996 affidavit; ARRB MD 74 (D), p. 1)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md74d/html/md74_0001a.htm
Quote off
What could have happened to his notes? If they were taken (And what else could have happened to them?), why didn't the person who took them say that they did so? This is a big issue. If the notes confirmed what was officially claimed, why would someone take them?
Here is what Saslaw said about this issue and why he reported it to his supervisor.
Quote on
…I did so because it troubled me that a medical doctor's original observations of such an important event, made and recorded contemporaneously, were missing without explanation and had to be reconstructed. As a scientist, I know that data recorded from memory is not as likely to be as accurate, or as complete, as data contemporaneously. (Ibid., p.2)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md74d/html/md74_0002a.htm
Quote off
This is 100% true and accurate. If the official claim was accurate, why would this be needed? Why would notes based on memory be accepted? Why were the original notes never accounted for? Saslaw stated, “…I have therefore never heard of any further examination as to what may have happened. (Ibid.) To add insult to injury, they didn't even try to find out what happened to the original notes! They also never even mentioned that the original notes were missing! This sums up the whole case to me.
If this was an honest investigation, why was any of this allowed?