Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 6, 2020 20:28:41 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
kennedysandking.com/images/ctka/public/images/finck.gif
On March 11, 1978, Dr. Pierre Finck was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) regarding the autopsy of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) looked at this interview during their tenure and designated it MD-30.
Dr. Finck explains how and why he was selected to participate in the autopsy of President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image02.gif
Dr. PETTY. Who requested that you come to the autopsy?
Dr. FINCK. Dr. Humes called me at home asking that I come to National Naval Medical Center.
Dr. PETTY. And for what purpose, as you understand it, did he ask you to be present?
Dr. FINCK. I was at the time Chief of the Military Environmental Pathology Division which included the Wound Ballistic Pathology Branch. I was also Chief of the Wound Ballistic Pathology Branch and the Director of the Armed Forces AFIP Institute of Pathology. General Bloomburg had given my name to Dr. Humes telling him that if he needed consultation in the field of missile wounds I was available. I was asked as the Chief of the Would Ballistic Pathology Branch specifically to interpret the wounds.
Dr. PETTY. And so as you conceived your role or as you were ordered, whichever it is, you were there as a consultant, not as an actual member of the autopsy team, is that correct.
Dr. FINCK. Well, being there and having been asked to sign the autopsy report I have to say that I was a part of the autopsy team although to start with I was there as a consultant for the reasons I mentioned. (ARRB MD-30, pp. 70-71)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image02.htm
Dr. Finck was called for his expertise in the area of wound ballistics as he was a forensic pathologist. Neither Doctor James Humes or Doctor Thornton Boswell were. Neither had conducted an autopsy before. This means that Finck’s observations carried more weight as he had the expertise and experience when it came to bullet wounds.
He then tells the HSCA about restrictions in regards to the autopsy.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image02.gif
Dr. PETTY. …Now there is one thing that has concerned us and we have gotten into this previously today and that is something concerning any restrictions that might have been placed on the type of examination that was to be conducted. Were there any restrictions that you know of insofar as the extent of the autopsy was concerned?
Dr. FINCK. There were restrictions coming from the family and we were told at the time of autopsy that the autopsy should be limited to certain parts of the body. For example, autopsy limited to the head and modest extension but there were restrictions.
Dr. PETTY. The autopsy was limited then at least to the head as far as you begin with.
Dr. FINCK. For example, from what I remember we did not remove the organs of the neck because of the restrictions. (Ibid., pp. 72-73)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image04.htm
The restrictions are blamed on the Kennedy family, but how do we know that is true? The neck area was off limits. Could this have been to conceal JFK’s Addison disease? Or was it to hide the fact that there was no neck wound that traversed the neck area as the Warren Commission (WC) claimed?
Dr. Finck admitted that there was no way to know if the restrictions came from the Kennedy family or not.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image06.gif
Dr. PETTY. Now is it your knowledge then or concept that someone must have been in communication with the family so that these restrictions could be altered as it became necessary?
Dr. FINCK. It is difficult for me to answer that question because we did what we were told and it is hard for me to say -- well, the sequence is difficult for me to establish. (Ibid., p. 74)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image06.htm
This confirms that there is no way to show that the restrictions came from the Kennedy family. It would seem that they were more likely to come from whomever didn’t want the true version of the wounds to be known. Dr. Finck said that there was a general giving orders on what to check and not check.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image06.gif
Dr. WECHT. Pierre, in your subsequent testimony in the trial I believe you were asked about the bullet wound in the back and in the neck and why it had not been dissected out and you stated that all of you had been ordered and that your; recollection was that it was an Army General whose name you did not recall.
Dr. FINCK. And I still don't remember his name. I read my notes and I found in my notes an Army General and I don't know who it was.
Dr. WECHT. I was just saying with regard to what Charlie is asking you now, then you certainly remembered that somebody did give you orders not to do certain things.
Dr. FINCK. I cannot say that it was this Army General, I don't recall that precisely. I remember the prosectors and Admiral Galloway. As far as saying now so and so told me that or didn't tell me that, it is extremely difficult. There was an Army General in that room and I cannot really pinpoint the origin of those instructions to comply with those family wishes. (Ibid., pp. 75-76)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image07.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image07.htm
If Dr. Finck couldn’t say where the orders originated from, why was he so fast to believe that the were the wishes of the Kennedy family?
Dr. Finck's head wound observation is at odds with many other sources.
Dr. PETTY. …Let me get to another area then if I may in relationship to the head. There was an in-shoot wound, a wound of entry, in the right back of the head.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. Was that above or below the level of the tops of the ears?
Dr. FINCK. It was above the external occipital protuberance which is not -- I am showing now with my finger. (Ibid., pp. 80-81)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image12.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image12.htm
Countless witnesses, from doctors, nurses, Secret Service (SS) agents and the chief of police, all said that JFK had a gaping wound in the right rear of his skull. None mentioned a wound that matched Finck’s description. Why? How do we balance these two things?
Dr. Finck even thought the autopsy was incomplete after it was completed.
Dr. WECHT. But at that time -- This is not meant to disclaim or place anybody in an adversary position but merely to ascertain facts. In your memoranda you yourself referred to the fact that you had felt that it should not be listed or designated as a complete autopsy.
Dr. FINCK. At the time I felt so because of the restrictions and I suggested or I said I felt it is not complete but Dr. Humes then said that the autopsy had accomplished its purposes as stated -- the number of wounds, the direction of the projectiles and the cause of death -- so I was actually satisfied.
Dr. COE. Dr. Finck, was your statement that you thought the autopsy was incomplete based on a lack of examination during the autopsy or a lack of ability to write all the information which was garnered from the examination?
Dr. FINCK. Lack of examination at the time of autopsy, in that sense.
Dr. ROSE. In what sense?
Dr. FINCK. Well, more dissection of the neck, in that sense. (Ibid., p. 109-110)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image41.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image41.htm
So a man with much more experience doesn’t know what constitutes a complete autopsy, but a man who has never done one does? Only in the JFK assassination case is this possible according to the authorities.
This is an interesting exchange.
Dr. SPITZ. Pierre, when you all tried to put the account together at the end of when everything was completed you mentioned at the beginning they were embalming the body and they were putting it back together. Did you try or do you know whether it was tried to re-establish the shape of the head by putting back the features? I mean there is a pretty large cavity there.
Dr. FINCK. Oh, yes.
Dr. SPITZ. Was an attempt made to cover up the cavity with the bone pieces?
Dr. FINCK. From what I remember there was but there must have been bones missing because there were multiple fractures and fragmentation of the skull and I don't say that all the pieces of bone were found. I don't say that, no.
Dr. COE. Were the pieces that were brought in during the course of the autopsy included when they were attempting to make this reconstruction, do you know?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know.
Dr. BADEN. Do you know if those pieces were retained or put back into the body?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know. (Ibid., p. 112)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image43.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image43.htm
How could a full-metal jacket bullet, which is designed not to fragment, cause such fragmentation in the skull to the point where all the pieces couldn’t be found? Clearly, another type of bullet was used and this by itself shows that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) wasn’t the only shooter if one at all.
There is even more nonsense with this autopsy seen in this exchange.
Dr. BADEN. One point about the photographs. When you signed the report you mentioned you had not seen the photographs.
Dr. FINCK. That is correct.
Dr. BADEN. Is it your custom in doing autopsies on gunshot wounds to review the photographs before you complete your report?
Dr. FINCK. That is a good point. It is desirable, yes.
Dr. BADEN. You usually wait until photographs come back before completing the report?
Dr. FINCK. If I had the chance, I do it.
Dr. BADEN. When you do yours –
Dr. FINCK. Oh, yes. (Ibid., pp. 112-113)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image44.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image44.htm
He again had to do something he never did – sign the autopsy report without seeing the photographs of the body. In fact, he wouldn’t see the photographs by his WC testimony in March 1964 either.
The neck wound and the issue of a probe was discussed next.
Mr. PURDY. But on the issue that that relates to I wonder if you could go into a little more detail. You say you were primarily there to examine the wounds. What area did you do in probing the area and what did you find from doing that?
Dr. FINCK. The probing was unsuccessful.
Dr. WECHT. Could you describe in a little more detail what "unsuccessful" means?
Dr. FINCK. Well, you cannot go into a track when -- you know, this is difficult to explain. You can make an artificial track if you push hard enough with an instrument so you go gently to see that there is a track, and the fact that you don't find a track with a probe may be because of contraction of muscles after death.
Dr. WECHT. Was the probe done with a metal probe?
Dr. FINCK. That is why I said probing was unsuccessful.
Mr. PURDY. How far into the body did the probe go before you were afraid it might create an artificial track?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know. (Ibid., pp. 115-116)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image46.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image46.htm
Why would a metal probe make it unsuccessful? I would think metal would be the sturdiest type of material. What else could they use? Why could no track at all be found IF the bullet transited in the way the WC claimed? If rigor mortis was the real reason, how could any autopsy ever be completed?
When asked what could have happened to the bullet since it didn’t go out the front Dr. Finck said “I don’t know.” (Ibid., p. 117) Is this how you conduct an autopsy? There is the issue of the autopsy being performed for the prosecution of the alleged killer as well.
Dr. Finck is asked about this issue.
Dr. WESTON. I just wanted to ask a final question, Pierre. At the time this examination was done there was a possibility that there was going to be a criminal prosecution. What is your practice as a forensic pathologist to stop short of doing a short medical legal autopsy in face of criminal prosecution notwithstanding the wishes of anybody else?
Dr. FINCK. What you are saying, we should not have listened to the recommendations –
Dr. WESTON. No, I am not saying anything. I am asking you if it is not accepted medical legal practice when you anticipate a criminal prosecution to do a complete examination?
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Dr. WESTON. Okay. Then the reason that you did not do a complete examination was that you were ordered not to, is that correct?
Dr. FINCK. Yes, restrictions from the family as the reason for limiting our actions.
Dr. WESTON. But do you really believe that the family has – is this not, physical evidence which belongs to the state notwithstanding the wishes of the family when there is a suspected criminal prosecution?
Dr. FINCK. Of course it is ideal. In those circumstances you are told to do certain things. There are people telling you to do certain things. It is unfortunate.
Dr. WESTON. The last question. What do you consider would be the personal consequences of you or any of the other members of the team had you chosen to withdraw from the examination and not complete the examination or sign your name to it in view of the restrictions placed upon you? Did you consider that at that time?
Dr. FINCK. No. It is a delicate situation to say the least.
Dr. WESTON. I understand that but it is still a delicate situation.
Dr. FINCK. We were handicapped by those restrictions.
Dr. WESTON. Okay. Those restrictions you mentioned were, as you remember now, Admiral Galloway?
Dr. FINCK. Who passed them on to us as I remember so he should be consulted and asked who asked to have those restrictions. (Ibid., pp. 128-129)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image59.htm
This shows that the autopsy was a sham as they were “handicapped by those restrictions” as there was no intention of finding out the truth. His description of the head wound is totally inconsistent with the observation of many other people.
They couldn’t even track the neck wound which totally obviates the Single Bullet Theory!
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
kennedysandking.com/images/ctka/public/images/finck.gif
On March 11, 1978, Dr. Pierre Finck was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) regarding the autopsy of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) looked at this interview during their tenure and designated it MD-30.
Dr. Finck explains how and why he was selected to participate in the autopsy of President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image02.gif
Dr. PETTY. Who requested that you come to the autopsy?
Dr. FINCK. Dr. Humes called me at home asking that I come to National Naval Medical Center.
Dr. PETTY. And for what purpose, as you understand it, did he ask you to be present?
Dr. FINCK. I was at the time Chief of the Military Environmental Pathology Division which included the Wound Ballistic Pathology Branch. I was also Chief of the Wound Ballistic Pathology Branch and the Director of the Armed Forces AFIP Institute of Pathology. General Bloomburg had given my name to Dr. Humes telling him that if he needed consultation in the field of missile wounds I was available. I was asked as the Chief of the Would Ballistic Pathology Branch specifically to interpret the wounds.
Dr. PETTY. And so as you conceived your role or as you were ordered, whichever it is, you were there as a consultant, not as an actual member of the autopsy team, is that correct.
Dr. FINCK. Well, being there and having been asked to sign the autopsy report I have to say that I was a part of the autopsy team although to start with I was there as a consultant for the reasons I mentioned. (ARRB MD-30, pp. 70-71)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image02.htm
Dr. Finck was called for his expertise in the area of wound ballistics as he was a forensic pathologist. Neither Doctor James Humes or Doctor Thornton Boswell were. Neither had conducted an autopsy before. This means that Finck’s observations carried more weight as he had the expertise and experience when it came to bullet wounds.
He then tells the HSCA about restrictions in regards to the autopsy.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image02.gif
Dr. PETTY. …Now there is one thing that has concerned us and we have gotten into this previously today and that is something concerning any restrictions that might have been placed on the type of examination that was to be conducted. Were there any restrictions that you know of insofar as the extent of the autopsy was concerned?
Dr. FINCK. There were restrictions coming from the family and we were told at the time of autopsy that the autopsy should be limited to certain parts of the body. For example, autopsy limited to the head and modest extension but there were restrictions.
Dr. PETTY. The autopsy was limited then at least to the head as far as you begin with.
Dr. FINCK. For example, from what I remember we did not remove the organs of the neck because of the restrictions. (Ibid., pp. 72-73)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image04.htm
The restrictions are blamed on the Kennedy family, but how do we know that is true? The neck area was off limits. Could this have been to conceal JFK’s Addison disease? Or was it to hide the fact that there was no neck wound that traversed the neck area as the Warren Commission (WC) claimed?
Dr. Finck admitted that there was no way to know if the restrictions came from the Kennedy family or not.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image06.gif
Dr. PETTY. Now is it your knowledge then or concept that someone must have been in communication with the family so that these restrictions could be altered as it became necessary?
Dr. FINCK. It is difficult for me to answer that question because we did what we were told and it is hard for me to say -- well, the sequence is difficult for me to establish. (Ibid., p. 74)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image06.htm
This confirms that there is no way to show that the restrictions came from the Kennedy family. It would seem that they were more likely to come from whomever didn’t want the true version of the wounds to be known. Dr. Finck said that there was a general giving orders on what to check and not check.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image06.gif
Dr. WECHT. Pierre, in your subsequent testimony in the trial I believe you were asked about the bullet wound in the back and in the neck and why it had not been dissected out and you stated that all of you had been ordered and that your; recollection was that it was an Army General whose name you did not recall.
Dr. FINCK. And I still don't remember his name. I read my notes and I found in my notes an Army General and I don't know who it was.
Dr. WECHT. I was just saying with regard to what Charlie is asking you now, then you certainly remembered that somebody did give you orders not to do certain things.
Dr. FINCK. I cannot say that it was this Army General, I don't recall that precisely. I remember the prosectors and Admiral Galloway. As far as saying now so and so told me that or didn't tell me that, it is extremely difficult. There was an Army General in that room and I cannot really pinpoint the origin of those instructions to comply with those family wishes. (Ibid., pp. 75-76)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image07.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image07.htm
If Dr. Finck couldn’t say where the orders originated from, why was he so fast to believe that the were the wishes of the Kennedy family?
Dr. Finck's head wound observation is at odds with many other sources.
Dr. PETTY. …Let me get to another area then if I may in relationship to the head. There was an in-shoot wound, a wound of entry, in the right back of the head.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. Was that above or below the level of the tops of the ears?
Dr. FINCK. It was above the external occipital protuberance which is not -- I am showing now with my finger. (Ibid., pp. 80-81)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image12.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image12.htm
Countless witnesses, from doctors, nurses, Secret Service (SS) agents and the chief of police, all said that JFK had a gaping wound in the right rear of his skull. None mentioned a wound that matched Finck’s description. Why? How do we balance these two things?
Dr. Finck even thought the autopsy was incomplete after it was completed.
Dr. WECHT. But at that time -- This is not meant to disclaim or place anybody in an adversary position but merely to ascertain facts. In your memoranda you yourself referred to the fact that you had felt that it should not be listed or designated as a complete autopsy.
Dr. FINCK. At the time I felt so because of the restrictions and I suggested or I said I felt it is not complete but Dr. Humes then said that the autopsy had accomplished its purposes as stated -- the number of wounds, the direction of the projectiles and the cause of death -- so I was actually satisfied.
Dr. COE. Dr. Finck, was your statement that you thought the autopsy was incomplete based on a lack of examination during the autopsy or a lack of ability to write all the information which was garnered from the examination?
Dr. FINCK. Lack of examination at the time of autopsy, in that sense.
Dr. ROSE. In what sense?
Dr. FINCK. Well, more dissection of the neck, in that sense. (Ibid., p. 109-110)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image41.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image41.htm
So a man with much more experience doesn’t know what constitutes a complete autopsy, but a man who has never done one does? Only in the JFK assassination case is this possible according to the authorities.
This is an interesting exchange.
Dr. SPITZ. Pierre, when you all tried to put the account together at the end of when everything was completed you mentioned at the beginning they were embalming the body and they were putting it back together. Did you try or do you know whether it was tried to re-establish the shape of the head by putting back the features? I mean there is a pretty large cavity there.
Dr. FINCK. Oh, yes.
Dr. SPITZ. Was an attempt made to cover up the cavity with the bone pieces?
Dr. FINCK. From what I remember there was but there must have been bones missing because there were multiple fractures and fragmentation of the skull and I don't say that all the pieces of bone were found. I don't say that, no.
Dr. COE. Were the pieces that were brought in during the course of the autopsy included when they were attempting to make this reconstruction, do you know?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know.
Dr. BADEN. Do you know if those pieces were retained or put back into the body?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know. (Ibid., p. 112)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image43.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image43.htm
How could a full-metal jacket bullet, which is designed not to fragment, cause such fragmentation in the skull to the point where all the pieces couldn’t be found? Clearly, another type of bullet was used and this by itself shows that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) wasn’t the only shooter if one at all.
There is even more nonsense with this autopsy seen in this exchange.
Dr. BADEN. One point about the photographs. When you signed the report you mentioned you had not seen the photographs.
Dr. FINCK. That is correct.
Dr. BADEN. Is it your custom in doing autopsies on gunshot wounds to review the photographs before you complete your report?
Dr. FINCK. That is a good point. It is desirable, yes.
Dr. BADEN. You usually wait until photographs come back before completing the report?
Dr. FINCK. If I had the chance, I do it.
Dr. BADEN. When you do yours –
Dr. FINCK. Oh, yes. (Ibid., pp. 112-113)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image44.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image44.htm
He again had to do something he never did – sign the autopsy report without seeing the photographs of the body. In fact, he wouldn’t see the photographs by his WC testimony in March 1964 either.
The neck wound and the issue of a probe was discussed next.
Mr. PURDY. But on the issue that that relates to I wonder if you could go into a little more detail. You say you were primarily there to examine the wounds. What area did you do in probing the area and what did you find from doing that?
Dr. FINCK. The probing was unsuccessful.
Dr. WECHT. Could you describe in a little more detail what "unsuccessful" means?
Dr. FINCK. Well, you cannot go into a track when -- you know, this is difficult to explain. You can make an artificial track if you push hard enough with an instrument so you go gently to see that there is a track, and the fact that you don't find a track with a probe may be because of contraction of muscles after death.
Dr. WECHT. Was the probe done with a metal probe?
Dr. FINCK. That is why I said probing was unsuccessful.
Mr. PURDY. How far into the body did the probe go before you were afraid it might create an artificial track?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know. (Ibid., pp. 115-116)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/pages/Image46.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image46.htm
Why would a metal probe make it unsuccessful? I would think metal would be the sturdiest type of material. What else could they use? Why could no track at all be found IF the bullet transited in the way the WC claimed? If rigor mortis was the real reason, how could any autopsy ever be completed?
When asked what could have happened to the bullet since it didn’t go out the front Dr. Finck said “I don’t know.” (Ibid., p. 117) Is this how you conduct an autopsy? There is the issue of the autopsy being performed for the prosecution of the alleged killer as well.
Dr. Finck is asked about this issue.
Dr. WESTON. I just wanted to ask a final question, Pierre. At the time this examination was done there was a possibility that there was going to be a criminal prosecution. What is your practice as a forensic pathologist to stop short of doing a short medical legal autopsy in face of criminal prosecution notwithstanding the wishes of anybody else?
Dr. FINCK. What you are saying, we should not have listened to the recommendations –
Dr. WESTON. No, I am not saying anything. I am asking you if it is not accepted medical legal practice when you anticipate a criminal prosecution to do a complete examination?
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Dr. WESTON. Okay. Then the reason that you did not do a complete examination was that you were ordered not to, is that correct?
Dr. FINCK. Yes, restrictions from the family as the reason for limiting our actions.
Dr. WESTON. But do you really believe that the family has – is this not, physical evidence which belongs to the state notwithstanding the wishes of the family when there is a suspected criminal prosecution?
Dr. FINCK. Of course it is ideal. In those circumstances you are told to do certain things. There are people telling you to do certain things. It is unfortunate.
Dr. WESTON. The last question. What do you consider would be the personal consequences of you or any of the other members of the team had you chosen to withdraw from the examination and not complete the examination or sign your name to it in view of the restrictions placed upon you? Did you consider that at that time?
Dr. FINCK. No. It is a delicate situation to say the least.
Dr. WESTON. I understand that but it is still a delicate situation.
Dr. FINCK. We were handicapped by those restrictions.
Dr. WESTON. Okay. Those restrictions you mentioned were, as you remember now, Admiral Galloway?
Dr. FINCK. Who passed them on to us as I remember so he should be consulted and asked who asked to have those restrictions. (Ibid., pp. 128-129)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image59.htm
This shows that the autopsy was a sham as they were “handicapped by those restrictions” as there was no intention of finding out the truth. His description of the head wound is totally inconsistent with the observation of many other people.
They couldn’t even track the neck wound which totally obviates the Single Bullet Theory!