ARRB DEPOSITION OF DR. PIERRE A. FINCK, 5/24/96
Dr. Finck was one of the pathologists at the autopsy.
-----
This transcript was OCR'd by Joe Durnavich. Send
corrections to: joejd@earthlink.net
BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
In Re:
The deposition of PIERRE A. FINCK, M.D., called for
examination by counsel for Assassination Records Review Board in the
above-entitled matter, pursuant to notice, at 8801 Adelphi Road, College Park,
Maryland, convened at 10:22 a.m., before Alice R. Chiang, a notary public in and
for the State of Maryland, when were present behalf of the parties:
APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Assassination Records
Review Board:
JEREMY GUNN, ESQ.
General Counsel
Assassination Records
Review Board
600 E Street, N. W.
Second Floor
Others Present:
DAVID G. MARWELL, Executive Director DOUGLAS P. HORNE,
Senior Analyst TIMOTHY A. WRAY, Chief Analyst for Military Records MARK HEILBRUN,
Senate Intelligence Committee Staff
CONTENTS
EXAMINATION BY WITNESS COUNSEL FOR ARRB
Pierre A. Finck, M.D.3
ATTACHMENTS
ARRB Master Medical Exhibit List, 5/24/96
ARRB Master Medical Illustrations List, 5/24/96
Autopsy Photographs Numbering Supplied by
November 10, 1966 Report of Inspection
PROCEEDINGS
MR. GUNN: Could you swear the witness, please. Whereupon,
PIERRE A. FINCK, M.D., was called for examination by counsel for Assassination
Records Review Board, and having been first duly sworn by the notary public, was
examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW
BOARD BY MR.GUNN:
Q: Would you please state your full name for the record,
please.
A: My first name is
Q: Dr. Finck, we are in this room at the
National Archives in order to conduct a deposition on behalf of the
Assassination Records Review Board. My name is Jeremy Gunn. I am the general
counsel of the Assassination Records Review Board. We have some other people
here I would like to introduce. Sitting to my right is Doug Horne, who works on
medical records at the Review Board. Next is David Marwell, who is the Executive
Director of the Assassination Records Review Board. We have also Tim Wray, who
works on military records for the Assassination Records Review Board. And we
have a visitor named Mark Heilbrun, who is here from the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence.
As you have been told, Dr. Finck, we are here not to come
to any conclusions regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, but the
Assassination Records Review Board is attempting to collect and clarify records
related to the assassination. What we would like to do after the deposition is
concluded and after the court reporter has prepared a transcript of the
deposition, is to send you, a copy of the deposition so that you can read and
make any corrections in it that you think should be made. We will be keeping a
tape recording of the deposition and we will keep both a copy of the deposition
as originally recorded and one with your corrections in it.
At
the conclusion of this process, we will be happy to send you a completely
corrected version of the deposition if you so choose. We want to make sure that
the testimony that you are giving is the best that you are able to give and is
true to the best of your knowledge and ability. During the course of the
deposition, I am going to be trying to ask questions in a clear way. If at some
point the question is not clear, please do not hesitate to ask me to repeat it
or to reformulate the question.
We
also should make clear that you should let us know if you want to take a break
at any point during the deposition; that can be arranged easily, just signify
that you would like to have a few minutes and that is easy enough to arrange.
We
are going to be working with some exhibits that we will be showing to you during
the course of the deposition. The exhibit numbers have been pre-determined to
correspond with a master exhibit list that we have, so that the exhibits will
not be coming to you in any particular numerical order. You shouldn't hesitate
to ask any questions about the exhibits that you might have.
Dr.
Finck, I would like to make one request to you, that you not discuss with anyone
the substance or the issues that are raised in this deposition until the
Assassination Records Review Board is completed with its work on the medical
evidence. It is our current anticipation that that will be completed by the end
of this year, but we would appreciate it if you would not discuss this until
that time. Is that agreeable to you?
A: Very much so.
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:
Q: When you mentioned the Shaw trial, were you referring
to the prosecution by Jim Garrison of Clay Shaw in
A: Yes.
Q: After you made the statements in those prior
examinations, were you given an opportunity to review your testimony?
A: I don't think so.
Q: Have you—
A: Without being sure.
Q: Do you have any recollection of being shown your
testimony, given the opportunity to make changes or corrections in it?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever had the opportunity to review the
testimony that you gave at any point
A: Can you repeat the question?
Q: Sure. Have you ever read the testimony that you gave
to the
A: I don't remember was it submitted to me for corrections, or—I don't
understand the question. I don't recall having the opportunity to review. Maybe
I did and maybe I did not, I don't know.
Q: The
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever go back and read the testimony that was
published?
A: I think I did, but now I don't any more. Oh, you are talking about the
hearings, the several volumes?
Q: Yes.
A: I don't go back to this.
Q: So you don't have any recollection of reading your
testimony and thinking something was inaccurate in it?
A: No.
Q: Did you have the opportunity at any point to
subsequently read the testimony from the House Select committee on
Assassinations?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Dr. Finck, could you describe the position
that you held in 1963, please.
A: I was in charge of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology.
Q: What areas of responsibility did the Wounds Ballistics
Branch have?
A: It was to review cases involving injuries by missiles, projectiles.
Q: Approximately how many persons were in the Wounds
Ballistics Branch in 1963?
A: A secretary and myself.
Q: While you were at the Wounds Ballistics Branch, did
you review autopsies that had been conducted on persons that had been killed by
missiles and projectiles?
A: Yes.
Q: During the time that you were at the Wounds
Ballistics Branch, were you involved in any autopsy, other than the autopsy of
President Kennedy?
A: While I was in charge of the Wounds Ballistics Pathology Branch?
Q: Yes.
A: Was I involved in autopsies?
Q: Did you perform or participate in any autopsies?
A: We performed autopsies at Soldiers Home in Washington, D. C. And we were
called elsewhere to perform autopsies in cases of aircraft accidents. But your
question refers specifically to missile wounds or to aircraft accidents, or
autopsies in general?
Q: Missile wounds while you were at the Wounds
Ballistics Branch.
A: I participated in autopsies involving missile wounds while I was there, yes.
Q: In a very general way, approximately how
many autopsies had you participated in prior to the time you were involved in
the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: When I answered "yes" to your question before it was because we
went to
Q: Do you have even a general idea of the
number of autopsies that you were involved in?
A: In reviewing or—
Q: In participating in, where you were actually
present in the morgue during the autopsy.
A: No. No, no exact number.
Q: Just an approximate number?
A: No.
Q: Is it in the hundreds, or a dozen?
A: In the hundreds.
MR. GUNN: Can we go off the record for just a moment,
please.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. GUNN: We're back on the record.
THE WITNESS: Yes, regarding your question, performing
autopsies at the AFIP on missile wounds.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q: Well, the first time I'd asked questions just about
autopsies that you had performed at AFIP.
A: Yes.
Q: And then subsequently it was any autopsy that you had
participated in prior to the autopsy of President Kennedy wherever in the world.
A: Wherever in the world?
Q: My second set of questions was about any autopsy.
A: Oh, yes. Because I performed autopsies in many places. I performed autopsies
of missile wounds in other places. I thought you were referring specifically to
the AFIP. I had experience in the autopsies of missile wounds, of course.
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: Hundreds?
A: Oh, yes. But you asked the question hundred or a dozen, it was hundreds of
them.
Q: Hundreds of them. And of those, approximately how many
would have been missile wounds prior to 1963?
A: I don't know.
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]
MR. GUNN: We can go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
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.
Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to show you a document which
has been marked MD-28 for this deposition. I should—perhaps I should state
that it appears on its face to be a collection of several documents that may
have been created at different points. We have numbered the pages here in the
bottom right-hand corner as going up to page 25. And I would like you to look at
the documents here and ask you whether you have any recollection of having
previously seen the documents? [Handing documents to witness]
A: [Perusing documents] I certainly agree with pages 1 and 2 of that exhibit
MD-28 that I signed.
Q: Okay.
A: I agree with that. I recognize it.
MR. GUNN: Let me state for the record that the first two
pages appear on their face to be a document dated January 25, 1965,
"Subject: The autopsy of President Kennedy Summary;" signed it appears
by Pierre A. Finck on the second page.
BY MR.GUNN: Dr. Finck, is that your signature on the
second page?
A. Yes, it is.
Q: Do you have a recollection of having written the
document that is the first and second pages of Exhibit 28?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Dr. Finck, when you prepared the document, the first
two pages of this exhibit, did you use any notes or reference material in order
to be able to write the document?
A: Probably so, but that's why I don't remember the details, how many pages,
when did I take the notes, but I agree with those two pages.
Q: Did you ever create a file in any file of records and
materials related to the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: Well, this is an example. I signed that and this is part of the documents.
More details I don't remember.
Q: Do you a have a copy of this document, that is the
first two pages, in your possession in
A: I don't.
Q: Would it have been your standard practice, before
writing a document like the first two pages of Exhibit 28, to refer to notes
before writing the document, or would you typically write something like the
first two pages from memory?
A: I don't know. I can't answer.
Q: Could you look at the document that is page 3 of
Exhibit 28 and tell me whether you previously have seen that page [indicating]?
A: [Perusing document] Yes. I remember that, yes.
Q: Does this document, page 3 of Exhibit 28, help refresh
your recollection as to whether you kept and compiled notes related to the
autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: Yes. But again, without details—
Q: Dr. Finck, let me make it clear, I am not asking you
at all to remember any details of what was in notes. My question now is going
simply to your practice regarding the taking of notes and whether you did in
fact take notes related to the autopsy of President Kennedy? No specifics are
being asked, just the fact of whether there is a written record, or ever was a
written record created by you?
A: I don't remember the details, it's too much time.
Q: Would you please look at pages 4 through 8 of Exhibit
28, please. I won't be asking you any questions on specific information. My
question will be whether you previously have seen the document, pages 4 through
8 of Exhibit 28.
A: [Perusing document]
MR. GUNN: We will go off the record for a minute while
Dr. Finck is looking at that.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. GUNN: Back on the record. BY MR. GUNN:
Q: Dr. Finck, have you had an opportunity to examine the
pages?
A: I am not quite through.
Q: Oh. Please continue. Take as much time as you need.
A: Thank you. [Perusing document]
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. GUNN: Back on the record. BY MR. GUNN:
Q: Dr. Finck, have you now had an opportunity to review
the pages that I have previously identified for you?
A: I read the pages 1 through 8 of MD-28. It refreshes my memory, and I agree on
that.
Q: Does reading pages 1 through 8 refresh your
recollection as to whether you originally took notes related to the autopsy of
President Kennedy?
A: Yes.
Q: You did originally take notes related to the autopsy?
A: That's what I did. I didn't remember details, but now this shows me that I
had taken—I remember taking measurements and I agree with everything mentioned
in those eight pages.
Q: Okay. Do you now recall having given some notes to Dr.
Humes after the autopsy?
A: I don't recall now. This refreshes my memory after more than—30 years.
Q: Sure. Again, the questions that I am interested in now
go to your recollection of having taken notes and how you might have filed or
organized those notes. Do you have any better recollection now as to whether you
did compile notes near the time of the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: I recognize now what I have written then.
Q: Well, once again, Dr. Finck, I'm not asking you to
remember any details from the autopsy. My questions now are simply to the
question of whether you took notes during the autopsy and whether you collected
notes subsequent to the autopsy?
A: I don't know how to answer that question.
Q: Could you please look at pages 9 through 25 of Exhibit
28 and, again, I am not going to be asking you any detailed questions related to
the contents of the document, but I am just going to ask you whether you have
previously seen the document or documents before, on pages 9 through 25.
MR. GUNN: We will go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. GUNN: Back on the record. BY MR.GUNN:
Q: Dr. Finck, have you had an opportunity to look at the
remaining pages of Exhibit 28?
A: I have.
Q: And do you recognize those documents?
A: I do.
Q: Is that your signature that appears on pages 24 and 25
of the documents?
A: 24—
Q: The last two pages of the document.
A: 24, that's my signature, yes. And that's my signature, yes.
Q: Did you write those documents?
A: I wrote those documents, but I don't recognize a sentence handwritten, this
is not my handwriting on page 23, the lines crossed out and someone wrote by
hand. I don't recognize my handwriting here.
Q: Let me read those lines to you that are
handwritten. “One officer who outranked me told me that my request was only of
academic interest. The same officer did not agree to state in the autopsy report
that the autopsy was incomplete, as I had suggested to indicate." Do you
now recall whether those are your words, even though that is not your
handwriting?
A: That could be my words. I don't recognize my handwriting. I don't know what
happened.
Q: Have you ever seen the document or seen page 23 in the
form that you now have it in front of you before?
A: I don't remember seeing that in this form.
Q: Do you have a copy of any of the documents
that appear in MD-28 in your personal possession?
A: I don't know.
Q: Do you have any files, either in the
A: I did everything whenever I was asked, I sent those. I don't know if I have
copies of everything.
Q: Question is whether you have any records currently in
your possession or custody related to the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: I don't know after all these years.
Q: Dr. Finck, did you do anything to prepare for this
deposition today?
A: I did. I went through a box containing the article of the Journal of the
American Medical Association, and I have sent you copies of that article.
Q: Did you do anything other than look at the article
from the Journal of the American Medical Association?
A: I looked in the box and that's the pertinent material I found.
Q: Was there anything else in the box that related in any
way to the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: I don't remember.
Q: How long ago did you look through the box?
A: Oh, since you asked me in your letters, you asked to send documents.
Q: So that would be sometime in the last two or three
months, you looked through the box?
A: I would say I returned in April, so I must have looked during the month of
April. And that's when I wrote to you, answering your letters, and sent you the
material.
Q: So as you are sitting here today, you do not
remember whether there was anything else in the box that related to President
Kennedy's autopsy?
A: That's right.
Q: So even though your examination of the box
was just last month, you don't remember any?
A: That's right.
Q: In the article for the Journal of the American Medical
Association, did you prepare any written answers to questions that they put to
you?
A: Can you repeat the question?
Q: Sure. Let me rephrase the question. Did the Journal of
the American Medical Association send you any written questions related to the
autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you provide written answers to JAMA?
A: I did.
Q: When you prepared those answers, did you make
reference to any other written material, or did you answer the questions from
memory?
A: Oh, I must have referred to other materials.
Q: What other materials did you refer to when you brought
the answers?
A: I don't remember. I
answered at the time. Now I don't remember.
Q: Did YOU keep a copy of your written answers to the
Journal of the American Medical Association?
A: I did.
Q: Where are those documents or where is that document,
your written answer to the Journal of American Medical Association?
A: In
Q: Are they in the box that you previously made reference
to?
A: Yes.
Q: Are there any other documents in that box that relate
to the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: No.
Q: Dr. Finck, prior to the deposition today, did you
discuss the fact that you would be coming to the
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
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
Q: Your office.
A: "And through the
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—
A: No.
Q:—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.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q: Dr. Finck, are you aware of any type of
autopsy manual or autopsy rules that would govern autopsies in the military, in
the area of 1963?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell me what kinds of materials or
rules, or regulations or manuals you are aware of?
A: Oh, there was an autopsy manual for example, there were several autopsy
manuals, besides the autopsy manual of the Army.
Q: I would like to show you a document that is marked
Exhibit 7 and ask you if this is the autopsy manual you are referring to?
[Handing document to witness]
A: Oh, I have seen that autopsy manual. Yes, I recognize that.
Q: When you were involved in performing autopsies, did
you do your best to conform to the standards of the autopsy manual?
A: Yes.
Q: Were there any other regulations or standards that you
followed in the course of your performing autopsies in the 1960's?
A: Besides the autopsy manual? I can't answer that specifically.
Q: What was your understanding of the purpose of the
autopsy manual? What was it supposed to do as best you understand it?
A: To find the cause of death, the purpose of an autopsy is to find the cause of
death.
Q: Okay. And what is the purpose of the autopsy
manual?
A: To list the procedures of an autopsy.
Q: Is it your understanding that an autopsy manual
provides certain forms of standard guidelines for the performance of autopsies?
A: Yes.
Q: Then the autopsy manual would create at least minimal
requirements that should be performed in the course of conducting an autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you familiar with the term
"medical/legal autopsy"?
A: Yes.
Q: What is your understanding of what
medical/legal autopsy means?
A: An autopsy in relation to the law.
Q: And what—
A: To find the cause of death, and based on the autopsy and other
investigations, the manner of death. For example, in the clothing of someone
dead, there is a suicide note indicating that the person wishes to commit
suicide. The autopsy itself doesn't indicate a suicide. In poisoning a
toxicologic analysis is necessary. These are investigations related to the
autopsy, but not necessarily answered at the time of autopsy. You may have to
wait a few hours or few days for an answer, and you put all the pieces together
in reaching a conclusion in medical/legal autopsy, based on the autopsy and
other investigations. That's my understanding of a medical/legal autopsy.
Q: Would it be fair to say that medical/legal autopsies
are performed in order to determine evidence that would be legally important?
A: Yes. For example, if you perform an autopsy and you find a bullet, you turn
that bullet over to the police for examination.
Q: In a medical/legal autopsy would the goal be in part
to determine whether there was, for example, more than one person who shot at a
victim?
A: Based on the autopsy itself, you can find projectiles in the body, but that
doesn't tell you necessarily about the number of people involved. What you find
in the body is what counts, the evidence.
Q: Sure. And one of the goals, would it not be fair to
say, would be to determine what the cause of death is, would that be correct?
A: The purpose of an autopsy to determine what the cause of death is?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: And would it be also important to determine whether
there was more than one injury to a body?
A: More than one injury? Oh, yes. The autopsy shows that.
Q: And it could be that two people are both shooting at
one person at the same time and one of them may have killed the victim and one
of them may have just caused superficial damage. Would it be fair to say that in
a medical/legal autopsy, part of the goal is to determine as best one can what
injuries have been received by what causes, by the victim?
A: What kind of injury and the causes of those injuries, yes.
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]
BY MR. GUNN:
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—
A: Yes.
Q:—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: In the course of—
A: No.
Q:—of a standard autopsy conducted during the 1960's,
would there be more of a written record from the time of the autopsy than is
present in Exhibit 1?
A: I don't know.
Q: In terms of the autopsies that you yourself
performed up until the autopsy of President Kennedy, was it your practice to
have more detailed notes than appear in Exhibit 1?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you able to identify any reason why the autopsy of
the President of the
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.
Q:—to you? Would it have been useful to have the
clothing available for examination?
A: Yes.
Q: Who told you that the clothing was not available?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you remember whether it was a person in uniform or
a person in civilian clothes?
A: I don't know.
Q: Did you ask that any further efforts be undertaken to
obtain the clothing President Kennedy was wearing? Or just one question then you
dropped it?
A: I don't remember. I am positive that I asked to see the clothing.
Q: Dr. Finck, was it standard practice in autopsies for
prosectors to speak with treating physicians of a victim?
A: Can you please repeat?
Q: Sure. During the 1960's, was it standard
procedure for doctors performing an autopsy to attempt to speak with doctors who
may have treated the victim before the death?
A: Yes. You need information at the time of the autopsy regarding the
circumstances preceding death.
Q: And it would have been standard practice in the 1960's
for autopsy physicians to attempt to contact the doctor who treated the patient
before he died, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Was there any attempt made to contact any of the
treating physicians of President Kennedy during the course of the autopsy?
A: I don't know.
Q: Should someone have attempted to contact one
of the treating physicians of President Kennedy during the course of the
autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you aware during the time of the autopsy that one
or more physicians who had treated President Kennedy had appeared in a press
conference and described the wounds?
A: I don't know.
Q: Were you aware that during the time that you
performed the autopsy of President Kennedy, the doctors who had treated
President Kennedy in
A: I'm not aware.
Q: Should in the ordinary course, if doctors
have prepared statements regarding treatment of a victim, should those
statements have been made available to doctors performing an autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: That would have been standard procedure—
A: Yes.
Q:—in 1963? But as far as you are aware, that
was not done in the case of President Kennedy?
A: As far as I know.
Q: Were you aware at the time that you performed the
autopsy that there had been a motion picture camera that had filmed the
assassination of President Kennedy? During the time that you were performing the
autopsy; were you aware of that?
A: No.
Q: In the ordinary course, if you had had available for
your inspection a motion picture of an injury; would that have been useful or
helpful in the course of performing an autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: But no one told you that there was a motion picture
available of the assassination?
A: No one.
Q: Are you aware of anyone in the autopsy room having
called
A: I am not.
Q: Were you aware of any calls that came to the autopsy
room during the course of the autopsy from
A: No.
Q: Were you ever informed, prior to the time that you
signed the autopsy protocol, that the motion picture depicting the assassination
of President Kennedy showed his body moving backwards after he was hit by the
bullets?
A: At the time of the autopsy?
Q: Prior to the time that you signed the autopsy
protocol, not during the autopsy but by the time you signed the autopsy
protocol, had you ever been told that the motion picture showing the
assassination of President Kennedy also depicted President Kennedy's body moving
backwards after he was hit by a bullet?
A: No.
Q: Would such information have been relevant to you in
making and preparing the autopsy protocol?
A: A motion picture showing the movement from front to back?
Q: Yes.
A: Would it have been useful? That still does not indicate the position of the
wounds, so that is why I don't think it would have been useful. The movement
shown on the motion picture does not identify anterior exit. Is that your
question?
Q: No, that was not my question. My question was whether
knowing that the President moved backwards after being hit, would that
information have been useful in the preparation of the autopsy protocol?
A: I don't think so.
Q: Is it relevant in determining cause of death in a
gunshot case knowing whether the victim moved forwards or backwards after having
been hit?
A: It's very difficult to answer a question like that, because the movement does
not indicate necessarily the direction of the bullet path. That's my answer if I
answer your question correctly.
Q: My question is not whether the direction of the
movement necessarily shows anything. My question is whether the movement of the
body is a relevant factor that should be taken into consideration when
attempting to determine cause of death?
A: No.
Q: No relevance whatsoever?
A: A movement seen on a motion picture does not specify a cause of death.
Q: Again, my question is not whether it specifies a cause
of death, but whether that is information that is relevant along with other
information in helping to determine circumstances surrounding a death.
A: By itself, no.
Q: Again, my question is not by itself. My question is
whether that is one piece of evidence that is relevant and should be considered
along with other evidence in helping to determine the nature of injuries?
A: I can't answer that. I don't know how relevant it can be.
Q: A few moments ago I was referring to the autopsy
protocol. I would like to show to you the document I was referring to. [Handing
document to witness]
A: [Perusing document]
MR. GUNN: I have handed Dr. Finck a document that has
been marked MD-3 for the purposes of this deposition. This was Commission
Exhibit Number 387 to the
BY MR. GUNN:
Q: My first question to you, Dr. Finck, will be whether
you previously have seen the document that is now marked Exhibit 3 to this
deposition?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you turn to the last page of Exhibit Number 3
and tell me whether that is a reproduction of your signature that appears at the
bottom right-hand corner?
A: Yes.
Q: I would like to draw your attention to the second page
of the autopsy protocol. I would like to read for you the first lines of the
second paragraph where it says: "Three shots were heard and the President
fell forward bleeding from the head." Did I read that correctly?
A: "Three shots were heard and the President fell forward bleeding from the
head."
Q: Those are the words that are in the autopsy
protocol. Can you tell me why in an autopsy protocol it would be written that a
victim fell forward? What relevance does that have to an autopsy protocol?
A: "Fell forward, bleeding from the head." Well, this is part of the
clinical summary, the information given, and it's part of the information
provided, "fell forward." See, this is not the words of the
pathologist. It is information provided to them.
Q: And so the pathologists at the time that
they wrote the autopsy protocol were under the impression that President Kennedy
had fallen forward after being shot, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: That's all for that. Dr. Finck, I would like to shift
to another topic now and ask you about something of which there has been a great
deal of controversy and I hope that you can help clarify some of the issues.
Could you please tell us what your understanding is of who was in charge of the
autopsy?
A: Of the autopsy itself? I would say Dr. Humes, who was the chief of the
laboratory.
Q: Was there anyone during the course of the autopsy who
gave Dr. Humes instructions regarding the scope of the autopsy?
A: Throughout the autopsy, we were told about the wishes of the family to limit
the autopsy to the head, and then it was extended to the chest, but—
Q: Does that mean that Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell
and yourself were not free to perform a complete medical/legal autopsy on
President Kennedy?
A: That's right.
Q: Who, to the best of your understanding,
was the person who gave the instructions to Dr. Humes that limited the scope of
the autopsy?
A: Well, there were several people around us, and that may have been recorded, I
don't know, who relayed the wishes of the Kennedy family to us.
Q: Did you or any of the other prosectors
respond that you believed that you needed to conduct a full medical/legal
autopsy on President Kennedy?
A: Well, it would have been desirable to have a full autopsy. We were limited in
our doing by the family.
Q: On what information do you base your
understanding that it was the family, rather than somebody else, who was
limiting the scope of the autopsy?
A: We were told during the autopsy about the wishes of the family.
Q: Would it be fair to say that you had no
independent knowledge yourself of what the family's wishes were, other than what
you had been told?
A: Can you repeat that, please?
Q: Sure. Let me try a different kind of
question. I assume that you did not, you or Dr. Humes did not talk to the
Attorney General, Robert Kennedy?
A: We did not.
Q: I assume that you did not personally speak
to Jackie Kennedy?
A: We did not.
Q: Your understanding during the course of the
autopsy about their wishes came from somebody else?
A: Right.
Q: Is that fair? Approximately how many people were in
the autopsy room during the course of the autopsy?
A: I have a figure of 26. Because someone took notes in the autopsy room asking
the people present who they were, and I found that out after the autopsy, that
so many people were there. I know there were too many people at the time, but at
the time, if I had been asked the question, I wouldn't have been able to answer.
And now it's from printed documents that I have read after the autopsy that
there were those 26 people. Correct me if I am wrong. Is it the number, 26?
Q: There are different numbers that have been given, and
that is one of the numbers.
A: And that list is available, there was someone in the autopsy room, an
official, who took those names and titles.
Q: During the course of the autopsy, did anyone in the
room ask any questions about what was occurring during the autopsy? Just as an
example, did somebody say, "Why are you doing that procedure?" Did you
get any questions from anyone in the room?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you recall whether anyone in the room expressed any
interest in the angle in which the bullets hit President Kennedy?
A: I don't.
Q: Did anyone in the room give any orders or instructions
limiting what you could be doing regarding the autopsy other than what you have
already mentioned?
A: No.
Q: For the people who were present in the autopsy room,
the observers, were they generally quiet during the autopsy, or were they
talking? What were the conditions like?
A: I remember a large number of people. Quiet or not quiet, I can't answer that.
Q: Do you recall whether the room during the autopsy was
noisy or somber? What was the—
A: No, I don't remember excessive noise.
MR. GUNN: Can we go off the record a minute. [Discussion
off the record.]
MR. GUNN: We will go back on the record.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to turn to some circumstances
immediately surrounding the autopsy. And what I would like to do is to go
through some of the events with you in chronological order. So if we could start
from the time that you first heard that you would be involved in the autopsy of
President Kennedy, how did you first hear that you would be involved?
A: In the afternoon of the twenty-second of November, I was alerted that I may
be called.
Q: Who was it who first alerted you that you might be
called?
A: I think it was Dr. Helwig. The Chief of Pathology of the AFIP.
Q: What did you do after hearing that you might be
involved in the autopsy?
A: I worked downtown, went home, and was called during dinner. I was having
dinner with my wife. I was called to go to
Q: Do you recall approximately what time you first heard
from
A: Oh, it was at dinner time, 1930 hours or so.
Q: Some of the records we have seen suggest the time was
1930 and some suggest that it was 2000 hours. Do you have a recollection of
which of those?
A: Oh, one of the two. It is close enough—1930.
Q: Approximately—who was it who called you?
A: Dr. Humes.
Q: From
A: Yes.
Q: What did he say to you during that telephone call?
A: That I was to come to the autopsy room of the
Q: Had you been to the autopsy room there before? At
A: I don't remember. I don't think so.
Q: Approximately how long did it take you from the time
that you heard from Dr. Humes until the time that you arrived at the autopsy
room?
A: Oh, I left almost immediately from home. The exact time it took me I don't
recall.
Q: Do you recall whether it would have been more or less
than an hour to get—
A: About, about an hour or so.
Q: Could you describe what
A: I may have written that somewhere. But now when asked the question, I don't
know how to answer.
Q: Do you remember, for example, whether it was crowded
around the hospital or whether security people were keeping people away? Any
recollection?
A: No.
Q: I would like to show you again Exhibit 28.
I would like to draw your attention to page 4 and the first, or the second
paragraph [indicating].
A: Yes.
Q: If you could read that, the first two
sentences to yourself, while I read them out loud. "I arrived at the
A: No.
Q:—
A: No. I have written this. It's right. I recognize the document. But now when
asked the question, I don't remember.
Q: Do you have any idea why you would have
written down that "there was a helicopter on the ground at
A: No. Why did I write that? I don't know.
Q: Other than with your telephone call with Dr. Humes,
had you heard any other information about the nature of President Kennedy's
wounds prior to the time that you arrived in the autopsy room?
A: I don't remember details about this.
Q: Just a question of whether you heard anything at all
about the nature of the wounds, not any details.
A: I don't.
Q: So, for example, had you heard on the radio what
anybody had said about wounds?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Dr. Finck, I am going to show you a
document that we have marked as Exhibit 22 to this deposition, which is a
portion of the May 27th, 1992, issue of JAMA. I would like to show you one
particular passage from that. Turn to page 2798. It's part of a conversation
with Dr. Humes. I would like for you to read to yourself the portion starting
with the word "Still" in the center column, and I will read it out
loud. According to the JAMA article, it says: "Still, he says"—and
it's quoting Dr. Humes—that the scene in the autopsy room was 'something like
trying to do delicate neurosurgery in a three-ring circus.'" Dr. Finck,
did—
A: Who said that?
Q: According to the JAMA article, that was
Dr. Humes.
A: Oh. Humes emphasizes there was a lot of commotion. [Perusing document]
"- somewhat like trying to do delicate neurosurgery in a three-ring
circus."
Q: Is it your recollection now that the scene in the
autopsy room was one where there was a great deal of commotion, and would it be
fair to say that it was something like a three-ring circus?
A: Well, there were a lot of people and—I remember it was crowded. That's all
I can say.
Q: Was there a great deal of commotion in the autopsy
room?
A: Commotion in what respect, commotion?
Q: People coming and going, noise.
A: Yes.
Q: During the course—for standard medical/legal
autopsies, is there any guidelines for observers present in an autopsy room?
A: I don't know.
Q: Do you believe that in a medical/legal
autopsy, there should be observers in the room other than doctors or medical
students?
A: Yes. For example, police officers in charge of a case. In the cases for which
I was responsible, I always made an effort to ask to have the investigator of
the case present in the autopsy room. If I removed a bullet, for example, I
turned it over to him. I could ask him questions about the circumstances of
death, the scene. It was my habit to do so.
Q: In the autopsy of President Kennedy, is it
your present opinion that there were more people present in the autopsy room
than should have been present for the purposes of performing a thorough and
comprehensive autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you or either of the other prosectors make any
suggestions to anyone that people be asked to leave the room during the autopsy?
A: I don't recall that.
Q: Could you please describe what President Kennedy's
body looked like, in just a general description, at the first time that you saw
him when you arrived in the autopsy room?
A: He was on his back with no clothing.
Q: Had there been any incisions in the thorax?
A: Oh, the autopsy had been in progress before my arrival. I cannot give you
details.
Q: Do you recall whether the brain had been removed at
the time that you arrived?
A: I think it had been.
Q: When you first arrived at the morgue, what did you do
in conjunction with the autopsy?
A: I was one of the three prosectors taking measurements, participating in the
autopsy.
Q: Did you start participating in the autopsy immediately
upon arrival?
A: I would say so.
Q: Was there something that you first paid attention to
or focused on in terms of your own work?
A: I looked at the wounds.
Q: When did you first identify there being a
wound in the upper back?
A: I don't remember the details as to when.
Q: Do you recall whether it was shortly after
your arrival or much later in the autopsy?
A: I don't.
Q: I would like to show you a passage from
Exhibit 28 which you have seen previously. I am going to ask it helps to refresh
your recollection on the condition of President Kennedy's body at the time that
you arrived. [Handing document to witness] I draw your attention to—
A: Oh, it is.
Q:—the middle of page 4.
A: The brain, the heart and lungs had been removed before my arrival. So now
that I read this, I recognize this. But when asked those questions you are
asking me, many of them, I say I don't recall, now I recall because I read
something I have written and signed. The brain, the heart and the lungs had been
removed before my arrival. Very plain.
Q: Does that help you recall what the first things were
that you yourself did at the time you arrived in the morgue? Does that help put
a context in it that helps jog your memory?
A: No.
Q: Did you leave the autopsy room at any time prior to
the completion of the autopsy?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you recall whether Drs. Humes or Boswell left the
room at any time during the autopsy?
A: I don't.
Q: When you first saw the body of President Kennedy, had
the scalp been reflected at all?
A: Well, the scalp must have been reflected for the reason that the brain had
been removed before my arrival, which means the scalp must have been reflected
in order to be able to remove the brain.
Q: Do you have any recollection now yourself as to what
the cranium looked like when you first saw the body, as to whether the scalp was
back or not?
A: No.
Q: Were you involved in any examination of
the brain at all?
A: Yes. We examined the formalin-fixed brain, but at a later date. You have to
wait a few days until the brain is fixed, as the pathologist says, which means
it becomes harder. At the time of the autopsy it was severely lacerated,
damaged, but it was examined a few days later. This is in the record somewhere,
when I went to
Q: Do you have any recollection in examining the brain at
the time of the autopsy itself? Not the supplementary examination, but during
the autopsy?
A: It had been removed before my arrival. I don't remember seeing it at the time
of the autopsy.
Q: You don't remember seeing the brain at all?
A: I can't answer the question. It is too far back. I have to refer to written
records, because—
Q: Would it have been standard practice in 1963 to
conduct any form of examination of a brain that had suffered from a gunshot
wound at the time of the autopsy?
A: Well, this would depend, so I can't answer that question about standard
practice. It depends upon the case.
Q: In your own practice when there had been a gunshot
wound to the head, would you normally have examined the brain at the time of the
autopsy?
A: In the fresh state, I would say yes. And then place it in formalin for
further examination.
Q: Sure. I don't mean the complete examination—
A: Yes.
Q:—but the first time. Can you tell anything about
direction of wounds in a brain by looking at the brain in its fresh state?
A: Direction of the bullet path?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: Why is it that you would not be able to tell anything
about bullet path by looking at a brain?
A: I don't know. Can you repeat your question?
Q: Sure. It's just, the question is—let me try a
different question. What I am interested in knowing is what kind of information
a competent prosector can determine by looking at a fresh brain when that brain
has been subjected to a missile?
A: Well, it would depend upon the case and the degree of destruction of the
brain, and I can't answer yes or no.
Q: Sure. I just want to know what kinds of information
and how you would be able to tell information by looking at the fresh brain.
A: That would depend upon the case really. I can't answer by yes or no.
Q: I'm not asking you to answer yes or no, so it
shouldn't be any question about that. But just what kind of information can be
gained by looking at the fresh brain?
A: The extent of brain damage, that would be my answer.
Q: That's the only thing you would be able to tell us,
the gross damage?
A: But again, it depends upon the case.
Q: Well, and I'm just—all kinds of cases, what other
kinds of things might you be able to determine? What's the range of
possibilities?
A: I don't know about the range of possibilities.
Q: I would like to show you a document that
we have marked as Exhibit 29, and this is volume 2 of testimony that you offered
in the Clay Shaw trial that there has been previous reference to. I would like
to show you question and answer on page 196 of your testimony from Monday,
February 24, 1969. And the question states—I'll read this for the record,
starting on line 12, question to you: "I thought you said, Colonel, you
didn't section the brain." Your answer was: "We took x-rays of this
brain, as far as I remember someone did, to determine the presence of metallic
fragments after it was removed as I can remember, but I don't recall making
sections of that brain. I believe Dr. Humes did section that brain."
A: I can't answer that.
Q: In standard autopsy practice, is it a
common occurrence to x-ray a fresh brain when that brain has been subjected to a
missile?
A: That can be helpful, yes.
Q: So would it be a standard practice to
conduct an x-ray of a fresh brain in order to determine missile fragments in the
brain?
A: I don't know if it is standard practice.
Q: Is it a practice that you yourself would
recommend when there is a gunshot wound to the head to perform an x-ray on a
fresh brain?
A: It would depend upon the case.
Q: What kind of case would you recommend that
there be an x-ray of the fresh brain?
A: If you suspect the presence of metallic fragments.
Q: In the case of President Kennedy, did you
suspect the presence of metallic fragments in the fresh brain?
A: Yes, because there were metallic fragments on the x-ray film of the head.
Q: So then would it have been part of your
standard practice to have requested that x-rays be taken of the fresh brain?
A: Maybe so.
Q: When you testified in the Clay Shaw trial
were you doing the best that you could to testify truthfully and accurately?
A: Yes.
Q: Dr. Finck, during the autopsy, did you ever see one or
more photographers in the morgue?
A: I saw one photographer. If I saw more, I don't remember.
Q: Do you know who that photographer was?
A: No. His name was recorded. I don't remember now who he was.
Q: Do you recall whether that photographer was taking
flash photographs or what kind of photographs were being taken?
A: No.
Q: Did you request that the photographer take
any particular photographs to assist you in your work? Dr. Finck, let me show
you a portion of Exhibit 28, page 6. I am going to draw your attention to a
sentence in the first paragraph, the sentence beginning with the word
"I." Do you see that sentence, which I will read for the record:
"I helped the Navy photographer to take photographs of the occipital wound,
external and internal aspects as well as the wound in the back."
A: Now that I read this, I remember. But when you asked me the question before,
it's hard for me to answer. But now I see that I helped the Navy photographer to
take photographs of the occipital wound. So that's what happened.
Q: Do you now recall any suggestion that you made to the
photographer in terms of placement or angle of the shot or any such thing?
A: Angle of?
Q: Let me withdraw, let me withdraw the question. What I
am interested in now is whether you currently have a recollection of this event
or whether you are just confirming what has been written here?
A: I'm confirming what is written.
Q: But you have no independent recollection yourself?
A: That's too far back.
Q: Do you have any recollection of photographs being
taken with probes inserted into the wounds?
A: I don't.
Q: Dr. Finck, do you recall having seen any x-rays at the
time of the autopsy?
A: X-ray films of the head, yes. And I recall asking for more x-ray films and I
don't remember when I saw them, probably during the autopsy. There was a
radiologist present, and it was his job to interpret the x-ray films. But I am
the one who asked for more x-ray films in addition to the ones of the head. That
I recall.
Q: Why did you ask that additional x-rays be
taken?
A: To detect the possibility of presence of projectiles in the body outside of
the head,. The head had been x-rayed, and I wanted to have a more complete
survey.
Q: Is this because you were attempting to
locate the path of the bullet that entered in the upper thoracic?
A: Yes.
Q: And when you looked for the bullet, where
was it that you were looking in the body?
A: Well, there was no bullet in the body, in addition to the fragments in the
head, we did not see a bullet in other parts of the body and that was the reason
for asking for more x-ray films, having an entrance and no exit at the time of
the autopsy.
Q: At the time you concluded the autopsy, on the night of
November 22nd-23rd, did you have any conclusion in your own mind about what had
happened to the bullet that entered the upper thoracic cavity?
A: No. And that was the reason for the phone call of Dr. Humes the following
morning, and he found out there was a wound of exit in the front of the neck.
But at the time of the autopsy, we were not aware of that exit wound in the
front of the neck.
Q: Can you explain to me why there was no prosector who
apparently had believed that the thoracic wound would have exited from the
throat? Why was it that that was not being considered as an option?
A: I don't know.
Q: Did you insert a probe into the wound in the back?
A: From what I remember, we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful.
Q: Did the angle of the probe show that the bullet, at
least of what you were aware of at the time, went down into the thoracic cavity
rather than out the throat?
A: Can you repeat that?
Q: Sure. Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the
probe into the wound, begin in a direction that pointed down into the thoracic
cavity rather than out the throat?
A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing was
unsuccessful. So how can I determine an angle if the probing was unsuccessful?
Q: How far into the wound did the probe go?
A: I don't know. We said it was unsuccessful from what I remember, and not how
far it would go.
Q: Do you recall whether any fragments, bullet fragments,
were removed from President Kennedy's body during the autopsy?
A: Somewhere we recorded that metallic fragments were removed, but this is in
the record. I can't recall the details now when you ask the question.
Q: So you don't have any current recollection right now
of whether there were fragments removed or not? Recollections from the night of
the twenty-second.
A: There were metallic fragments, but how many and from where in the head, I
don't know. I remember that many metallic fragments were seen on the x-ray of
the head, and metallic fragments being removed.
Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to show you a document that is
marked Exhibit 44 to this deposition, which on its face appears to be an
attachment to another document. The title of it is "Autopsy of President
John Fitzgerald Kennedy," and on the last page, it appears to be—not on
the last page, toward the end it appears to have been written by James Sibert
and Francis O'Neill, dated 11/27/63. My first question to you, Dr. Finck, will
be—is that previously in this deposition you referred to somebody having made
a list of people who attended the autopsy. My question to you is whether this
document, now marked Exhibit 44, is the document you were referring to?
A: Ah. [Perusing document]
Q: I will draw your attention particularly to page 2.
A: Ah, here is the list of people. The following individuals attended the
autopsy—[counting] Twenty-six. So the people present in the autopsy room could
be counted from the document, am I right?
Q: That is one way, yes. So this is the document that you
were referring to earlier?
A: Oh, I don't know. I remember seeing a document regarding the number of
people. Is it that one or not I don't know. I would have to read everything.
Q: Could you turn to page 4 of the document.
A: Excuse me?
Q: I will draw your attention to the paragraph beginning
"This opening was probed." If you could read that to yourself, please.
A: Yes. What kind of opening is this? This opening was—[Perusing document]
Q: Dr. Finck, does reading that paragraph on page 4 of
Exhibit 44 help refresh your recollection as to whether there was any angle
determined or hypothesized for the entrance wound in the back?
A: I really don't remember that. I can't answer.
Q: Okay. Dr. Finck, I show you a document that
has been marked Exhibit 19, which is a memorandum prepared by an attorney for
the House Select committee on Assassinations, and it contains in it an interview
with Dr. Humes. I would like to draw your attention to one paragraph in
particular, but you can read as much of this as you would like. The paragraph I
would like to draw your attention to is on page 8. I will read for the record.
It says: "Dr. Humes said that no major blood vessels were struck by the
bullet passing through the President's neck. Regarding his assertion in the
A: [Perusing document] I can't comment on this. I don't know what to say about
this paragraph.
Q: It just doesn't help refresh your
recollection?
A: No.
Q: Okay. Dr. Finck, do you recall that during the course
of the autopsy, some skull fragments arrived later in the autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: What is your recollection regarding the arrival of
those skull fragments?
A: In what respect?
Q: For example, who brought them in, do you recall?
A: I don't.
Q: How many fragments were there?
A: This is recorded, but by memory I cannot give you details.
Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to draw your attention to page
5 of Exhibit 28, which again are your notes. Could you please refer to the first
full paragraph on page 5. [Handing document to witness]
A: [Perusing document]
Q: Have you had an opportunity to read that now?
A: I have read the first paragraph.
Q: Okay. I would like to discuss the nature of the wounds
in the skull of President Kennedy. Now, first, you identified, I believe, there
being an entrance wound in the back of the head?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: In the autopsy protocol, copy of which I have shown
you before, that wound is identified as being 2-1/2 centimeters to the right and
slightly above the external occipital protuberance.
A: Yes.
Q: Is that your recollection of where the entrance wound
was?
A: From the record, yes.
Q: In addition to that entrance wound, there was also an
exit wound. Do you recall that?
A: [Perusing document] Close to midnight, portions of cranial vault—portions
of cranial vault are received from
Q: Okay. We have just discussed, or identified two
separate holes that were in the President's head. Were there any other holes
besides the exit wound and the entrance wound?
A: No.
Q: Three holes or just two?
A: Two.
Q: And which bone was the entrance wound located in?
A: The occipital bone. It was recorded as occipital. We should refer to the
record for that.
Q: Was the entrance wound a hole that perforated the
occipital bone, or is it one that split the occipital bone such that there would
be, for example, a half circle with part of—
A: No, it perforated, I was able to see a crater from the inside. I said that
right here [indicating].
Q: You are referring to Exhibit 28.
A: Right occipital, lacerated occipital corresponds to the wound. "The
skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the
internal aspect of the bone. On that basis I told the prosectors and Admiral
Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound of entrance." This is
unquestionable.
Q: And so just so I am clear, I understand that you have
identified as being beveled but I want to know whether the wound is a circular
wound in the sense that the shell, the skull all around the wound is intact, or
is part of the adjacent skull blown away from the portion of the entrance wound?
A: It was a perforation of the occipital bone.
Q: In his testimony before the Assassination Records
Review Board, Dr. Boswell stated that—and his words will speak for themselves,
so this is my recharacterization of them—he said that you needed to place a
loose piece of fragment back onto the skull before you could identify the full
circle for the entrance wound. Is it your current recollection that Dr. Boswell
would be mistaken in that regard?
A: You are referring to the wound of entrance?
Q: Wound of entrance.
A: I don't remember. I don't know what you are saying. I have a clear picture of
that wound of entrance. I don't understand what you said about the wound of
entrance. I have to do what with the wound of entrance?
Q: That in order to see the full circle of the wound of
entrance, you would need to put a piece of skull fragment back into place in
order to identify the full circle for the entrance.
A: I don't remember that.
Q: At the time that you observed the skull wounds, prior
to the time that any additional skull fragments came, approximately how large
was the larger one to the skull?
A: The wound of exit?
Q: The wound of exit.
A: Well, because it says here 130 millimeters, 13 centimeters. I agree with
that. 130 millimeters. It was a large diameter for the wound of exit.
Q: I'm going to show you a circle that is 13 cm in
diameter. [Handing document to witness]
A: 13 centimeters. Yes, it is.
Q: Okay. What I would like to do is to hand you a plastic
skull marked Exhibit 77—it doesn't have markings on it—and have you place it
approximately where that wound was.
A: [Complying with request]
Q: Did the large exit wound cover any part of the
occipital bone?
A: This is in the record.
Q: You don't have any current recollection?
A: No. This is in the record. The bones involved in that very large wound of
exit, it is in the record.
Q: During the course of the autopsy, did you make any
conclusion about the direction of the bullet that hit the cranium at the time
that it hit the cranium? Let me say that again. At the time the bullet struck
the skull, did you reach any conclusion about the direction it was moving at the
time it struck the skull?
A: About an angle?
Q: About the angle, yes. Did you attempt to identify
that?
A: I don't remember.
Q: You have previously testified that the bullet struck
the President at an area 2-1/2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the
external occipital protuberance. What is the portion of the brain that is on the
inside of the skull at approximately the portion where—position where the
brain was hit, where the skull was hit?
A: One would have to look at it.
Q: Is the portion of the brain on the inside of the skull
near the external occipital protuberance the cerebellum or the cerebrum?
A: Yes.
Q: Was the cerebellum of President Kennedy's brain
disrupted or lacerated by the entrance wound?
A: Well, it was—there was extensive damage. I can't answer that.
Q: To the cerebellum?
A: I can't answer that.
Q: During the course of the autopsy, did you attempt to
identify whether any cerebellum was disrupted from the bullet wound that entered
in the back of the skull?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you at any time attempt to reconstruct this skull
with the fragments that had come later in the autopsy?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you remember at all attempting to determine which
part of the bone that arrived would have fit into which part of the cranium?
A: I don't know.
Q: Would that have been standard practice during the
course of an autopsy to attempt to reconstruct the skull to determine which
parts of the cranium had been blown out?
A: Yes.
Q: So to the extent that the autopsy was performed
properly, that is a procedure that you assume you did attempt to do?
A: I think I did what I could.
Q: Do you recall whether there was any skull that was
missing by the time the autopsy was concluded? Was there still missing skull?
A: I don't remember details.
Q: Do you remember ever hearing about skull fragments
being found in
A: It is during the course of the autopsy that we received bone fragments from
AFTERNOON SESSION [2:15 p.m.]
MR. GUNN: We are back on the record now.
Whereupon, PIERRE A. FINCK, M.D., resumed the stand, and
having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as
follows:
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR ARRB [Resumed] BY MR. GUNN:
Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to ask you if you could tell
me about the types of ammunition that typically were used in rifles during the
early 1960's, the kinds of ammunition that would be used in homicide cases, and
I have given to you a copy of your testimony from the Warren Commission where
you mentioned several different types of ammunition on page 384. The document
that I have shown you is Exhibit MD-27. Let me try a question to you. Dr. Finck,
what types of ammunition were used in rifles in the early 1960's? Just in a very
general way.
A: Well, military ammunition?
Q: As one type, one possibility, jacketed?
A: Jacketed bullet I would say for military ammunition.
Q: Okay.
A: Fully jacketed bullets.
Q: What other kind of ammunition would be common in the
early 1960's?
A: You can't answer that, in a general way, what kind of ammunition in the
1960's.
Q: Well, Dr. Finck, if you can refer to your testimony,
even to the
A: Yes, I see that. There are many types of bullets—jacketed, not jacketed,
pointed, hollow nose, hollow points, flat nose, round nose, all different.
shapes will have a different influence on the pattern of the wound and the
degree of fragmentation. It would be on a case-to-case basis.
Q: Sure. In the wounds that existed in President
Kennedy's head, were the wounds typical for jacketed or soft nosed bullets? Were
you able to make any determination at the time of the autopsy?
A: The bullet that disintegrated was probably a jacketed bullet.
Q: Are jacketed bullets more or less likely to
disintegrate than, say, a hollow point bullet in your experience?
A: The question is for a fire arms unit expert more than for a pathologist, who
gets his knowledge from others. To get the specific answer, the experts should
be asked.
Q: When you conduct autopsies on victims of gunshot
wounds, do you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to make any determination about
the kinds of ammunition that was used in the murder?
A: Well, again, where the evidence is removed, it should be turned over to
firearms examiners.
Q: Sure. And I'm sure that's the case.
A: Yes.
Q: But do you as a ballistics pathologist
attempt to make any determination of that sort during the course of an autopsy?
Or put in another way, is that kind of information relevant to a medical/legal
autopsy?
A: Well, for the sake of completeness, you want to know as much as possible.
That's all I can say.
Q: For the wounds that were in President
Kennedy's head, were those wounds more indicative of a jacketed or an unjacketed
bullet from your experience?
A: Well, there were two different wounds. In the wound involving the upper back
and the neck, the bullet did not disintegrate, which is very possible. In the
case of the wound in the head, the bullet struck bone and did disintegrate.
Q: Based upon that evidence alone, can one make any
inference regarding whether the bullets that struck the skull and struck the
upper back were different bullets, or would one even know?
A: They could be the same type of bullet hitting different structures. When it
strikes bones, it will disintegrate more than when it does not strike bones.
Q: Is an unjacketed bullet more likely to disintegrate
than a jacketed bullet?
A: Well, it would depend.
Q: I'm sure it does depend, but is it more likely than a
jacketed bullet would disintegrate or that an unjacketed bullet would
disintegrate?
A: It depends upon the structure hit. I can't say more likely or less likely.
Two identical bullets may disintegrate or not disintegrate depending upon the
structures hit.
Q: Again, I'm sure that is true, but the question is, is
an unjacketed bullet more likely to disintegrate than is a jacketed bullet, all
other things being equal?
A: I don't understand how I can answer that. I really don't know. It is
perfectly possible that these two wounds came from the same type of bullet, that
one hit bony structures and the other one did not, and that explains the
difference between the patterns of these wounds. I think this answers the
question.
Q: You are reading from your testimony to the
A: Yes.
Q:—is that correct? Now, I notice that in your
statement, you said it is perfectly possible.
A: Yes.
Q: And again, I'm not questioning the possibility. My
question relates more to the probability or the likelihood. So although I'm not
questioning the testimony of the
A: I have nothing to add or modify in relation to what I said there. Honestly.
Q: Okay. Let me try one last question. If you
were to try to find out the answer to that question by consulting some source,
where would you go to find out the answer to the question whether a jacketed
bullet was more or less likely to disintegrate than an unjacketed bullet?
A: The firearms examiner.
Q: Is there any written source that you would go to?
Standard treatise or standards work?
A: No.
Q: Dr. Finck, earlier in the deposition you made
reference to a supplementary examination of the brain. Do you recall having made
that reference earlier in the deposition?
A: Examination of the brain?
Q: Yes. That is, after it had been set in formalin and
you examined the brain again, do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: Approximately how long after the autopsy did
you conduct the supplementary examination of the brain?
A: This is in the records somewhere. I don't recall.
Q: Do you recall whether it was within one or
two days afterwards, such as over the weekend? Or was it a week or two later? Do
you have any recollection at all?
A: I don't recall exactly when it was examined and the extent of the
examination.
Q: Again, I am not asking you to tell me
exactly, but I'm just asking whether you remember whether it was within a day or
two or whether it was within a week or two?
A: Oh, it was not a day or two. That's too short.
Q: Who else was present when you were at the
supplementary examination?
A: Oh, I would say Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell probably. Who else I don't know.
Q: Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, when they
testified to the Review Board, had an initial recollection that they had done a
supplementary examination within two or three days after the autopsy. There is
no evidence that you were present as far as I am aware in a supplementary
examination within two or three days after the autopsy. Do you have any
knowledge whether there was more than one supplementary examination of the
brain?
A: No.
Q: When you first saw the brain at the
supplementary examination, do you recall having any reaction that the brain
appeared differently from what you would have expected?
A: No.
Q: I would like to—first, do you have a
recollection as to approximately what percentage of the fresh brain had been
destroyed or had been blasted out in the attack on President Kennedy?
A: A large portion. How large I can't be more precise.
Q: I would like to show you Exhibit 4, which
appears on its face, and has previously been identified as being the
supplementary report of autopsy on President Kennedy. It is marked as Exhibit
MD-4. I would like for you to look at the very first—I'm going to ask you one
question first, do you recall having previously seen the document that is now
marked Exhibit 4 to this deposition? [Handing document to witness]
A: [Perusing document]
Q: Again, Dr. Finck, my question was do you
recall having previously seen the document that is now marked Exhibit 4?
A: I don't—I am not sure.
Q: Could you look at the first sentence of
Exhibit 4 where it makes reference to the weight of the brain, and I'll read
that for the record: "Following formalin fixation, the brain weighs 1500
grams." Do you yourself have any recollection as to the weight of the brain
after it had been fixed in formalin?
A: I think so. 1500 grams sounds right.
Q: Is 1500 grams for a brain that is fixed in
formalin a large brain or small brain on average?
A: Well, in that case, there were portions oft he brain missing, so the weight
of the brain doesn't tell you everything for the reason that there was
mutilation, destruction of part of the brain.
Q: Do you recall we previously looked at the
autopsy manual, Exhibit 7 to this deposition? [Handing document to witness] Do
you recall that?
A: I saw that, yes. "Average weights and measurements."
Q: We are now looking at Appendix Number 3—
A: Yes.
Q:—to our Exhibit Number 7. Can you tell me
what it says for the average weight of a male brain?
A: It says 1400.
Q: So now, with President Kennedy, with a
large portion of his brain having been blasted away, it is still above weight
for an average brain? Is that correct?
A: Well, not necessarily so, because it was formalin fixed, which doesn't give
you the weight of the brain in the fresh state, so I cannot answer with
precision.
Q: Approximately how much weight does
formalin fixation add to the weight of a brain?
A: I wouldn't know.
Q: Is there anything that strikes you as
being odd between the weight of the brain as measured in the supplementary
report and the brain of President Kennedy as described as having a significant
portion blasted away?
A: No. Again, it was formalin fixed, so I can't elaborate on this.
Q: In the original autopsy face sheet, the
weight of the brain was not recorded, isn't that correct?
A: That's right.
Q: Do you recall any other person in addition
to Drs. Boswell and Humes being present when you attended a supplementary
examination of the brain?
A: No.
Q: For example, was there anyone else there from the
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you know the name Dick Davis as being affiliated
with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology?
A: I know a pathologist, Richard Davis?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, I have known Richard Davis, a neuropathologist.
Q: If he had been present at the supplementary brain
examination, would you have recalled that do you think?
A: Probably so.
Q: But you don't recall—
A: No.
Q:—his having been present?
A: No.
Q: Do you recall whether there were any photographers
present at the supplementary brain examination?
A: I don't.
MR. GUNN: Go off the record for a moment.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. GUNN: Back on the record.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to show you one of the prints
from the original autopsy photographs of President Kennedy. The one that you are
being shown now is Exhibit Number 42. I would like to ask you whether you have
seen that photograph previously? [Photograph exhibited to witness] For the
record—
A: I don't remember for the reason that I still see the gap, the scalp on this
one. When I arrived, from what I read here, the brain had been removed, so that
photograph must have been taken before I arrived. Have I seen it or not, I don't
know. Probably so. Too much time has elapsed.
Q: So it is your current recollection that you never
would have seen President Kennedy in the condition as he is shown here in the
sense that this was taken before your arrival and before the brain was removed?
A: In the record that we read today, the brain had been removed before my
arrival, so that shows that this photograph was taken before my arrival. That's
my understanding.
Q: Dr. Finck, this is the photograph that I understand
was shown to you by the House Select Committee on Assassinations when they spoke
to you on the record. Does that help refresh your recollection as to whether you
have seen this photograph before, or is that not helpful?
A: If you tell me that I saw it then, I have no reason to say I did not.
Q: Now, there was a question raised during the time of
the House Select Committee on Assassinations whether the entrance wound in the
back of President Kennedy's head was near the red spot that appears very
generally close to the cowlick, or whether the entrance wound was down
approximately in the area where there is a piece of matter or some artifact of
some sort [indicating]. Do you have any recollection now as to the approximate
location of the entrance wound in relationship to the markings on the photograph
in front of you?
A: What markings?
Q: Just the two things I made reference to, the red spot
near the cowlick area and then the piece of tissue or whatever that is down
towards the hairline.
A: I don't understand your question.
Q: You identified the location of the entrance wound
during the course of the autopsy?
A: Yes.
Q: If you were to attempt to determine where that
entrance wound is in relationship to the photograph in front of you, where would
you place that entrance wound, approximately?
A: In the occipital region.
Q: So relatively closer to the hairline than to that
piece of tissue?
A: To the right. I don't know how to answer that.
Q: Is there anything in the photograph that
would make you question or wonder whether that is a true and accurate photograph
of President Kennedy?
A: What is the question?
Q: Is there anything that you see in this
photograph that would make you question whether this is an authentic photograph
that was taken at the autopsy of President Kennedy? For example—
A: That makes me doubt?
Q: Yes.
A: I don't have any reason to doubt.
X
Q: Okay.
A: That is your question?
Q: Yes. Okay.
MR. GUNN: For the record, the photograph that we looked
at was described previously as a "Wound of entrance in right posterior
occipital region."
BY MR.GUNN:
Q: Dr. Finck, you are now being shown a photograph,
Number 44, that has been described as "Missile wound of entrance in
posterior skull following reflection of scalp." I would like to ask you,
Dr. Finck, whether you recall ever having previously seen the photograph that's
before you now? [Photograph exhibited to witness]
A: Can you describe that photograph, in the text?
Q: It was described at one point as
"Missile wound of entrance in posterior skull following reflection of
scalp."
A: I don't understand.
Q: Let me say for the record, it was defined as
such in a report of inspection by Naval Medical Staff on November 1st, 1966, at
National Archives, of x-rays and photographs of autopsy of President John F.
Kennedy, copy of which I am showing to you now, Exhibit 13 to this deposition,
signed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Mr. Stringer—not signed by you,
sir.
A: I see.
Q: And it is described in—
A: November `66.
Q: Right.
A: November `66 I was in
Q: Then we should say, so there isn't any question in
your mind, that the orientation of this particular photograph is controversial
and the fact that this describes it as "posterior skull" doesn't mean
that that's necessarily what it is. The words that I used are just description
given here, but this is not necessarily accurate. But now, if you could turn to
the photograph yourself, are you able to yourself orient what that photograph
depicts? And let me just put it in the simplest way, can you identify whether
that is in posterior portion of the scalp—or the skull, frontal portion of the
skull, or not even possible to tell?
A: I cannot say much about this.
Q: And why is it that you can't say very much about it?
A: I have difficulties to orient this.
Q: I would like to point out to you towards the center of
the photograph, there is a roundish segment from the skull. do you see that
point—
A: Yes.
Q:—that I am pointing to [indicating]?
A: Yes.
Q: Towards the center, a semicircle. Does that help you
identify whether you have seen part of this fragment from President Kennedy's
brain, or is it not helpful for you? Your answer? Does that semicircular notch
help you orient the photograph or help refresh your recollection as to what the
photograph depicts?
A: No.
Q: Okay. I would like to show you a color transparency
that is from color photograph number 38, which is described in this same report
as "The posterior view of wound of entrance of missile high in
shoulder." You can go over to the transparency. [Transparency shown on
light box.]
A: Yes, I see a wound here.
Q: Could you describe the wound that you see?
A: It is an oval wound in the upper back, base of the neck.
Q: You are referring to the wound that has been
previously described as the upper back, is that—
A: Yes.
Q:—fair? And do you see that there is a small, a
smaller object that is lower on the back?
A: A spot, yes, below the wound?
Q: Yes. Is that any kind of bullet entry wound or exit
wound?
A: Not that I can see. It's a spot.
Q: Okay.
A: There was only one wound of entry in the upper back, the base of the neck.
There were not two wounds.
Q: Okay. Could you look at the skull in the photograph,
particularly the portion at the top of the skull, and could you describe what
you see at the top of the photograph?
A: Very close to the margin—
Q: Yes.
A:—of the photograph?
Q: Yes.
A: There is part of the scalp and, above that, red tissue, yes.
Q: Did you ever see President Kennedy's body in a
condition such as you can observe it here now in this photograph, or had the
body already been changed before you arrived at the autopsy?
A: I can't answer.
Q: It appears to me that there is something like a
straight line that goes onto the right side of President Kennedy's head, quite
straight. Can you tell me what that depicts from your own observations?
A: Parallel to the upper edge of the transparency?
Q: Yes.
A: The edge of the scalp.
Q: So, for example, were you able to tell whether that is
a laceration from a bullet wound, or whether that would have been a surgical
incision, for example?
A: You are referring to this edge of the scalp [indicating]?
Q: Yes.
A: That is not the bullet wound. It is the edge of the scalp. The bullet wound's
much lower.
Q: Does it appear to you as well that there is a straight
line in the scalp, or line that appears somewhat straight in the scalp, on the
right of the mid to the right of the midline?
A: Yes. Not made by a bullet though.
Q: Can you tell me how it would be, how it would come to
be?
A: It is an incision.
Q: Did you yourself see an incision during the time of
the autopsy that would have resulted in that sort of cut?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Dr. Finck, if I could ask you to look just once more
to see if you can see any evidence in this photograph of where the bullet entry
wound was in the head of President Kennedy, if you can see any evidence of that
in this photograph?
A: It is very difficult to do with preciseness in a photograph. I examined the
wounds themselves. To look at a photograph is not like the examination of the
wound itself.
Q: Okay. Could we see that first x-ray, please. This
x-ray has been described as "An anterior posterior view of skull, slightly
heat damaged." Do you recall having seen this x-ray at the time of the
autopsy? [Transparency in light box]
A: I remember seeing an x-ray film at the time of the autopsy, but I can't say
that it is this very x-ray film.
Q: Are you able to determine yourself right now whether
this x-ray is an x-ray of President Kennedy?
A: No.
Q: I would like to draw your attention to a portion, to
an object that is on the right hemisphere that is circular in shape, reasonably
prominent there [indicating]. Do you know what that object is?
A: I don't. It's a radiopaque object, opaque to x-rays.
Q: Do you recall at the time of President Kennedy's
autopsy being made aware of an object, radiopaque object in his head that would
be commensurate with the dimensions of that object as it appears in the x-ray?
A: Can you repeat the question?
Q: Sure. Do you remember during the time of President
Kennedy's autopsy seeing an x-ray of an object of those dimensions?
A: X-ray of an object. Separate from this x-ray film?
Q: Within—
A: An x-ray of an object?
Q: Just putting aside whether it's this x-ray or another
x-ray, any object appearing in an x-ray film that was approximately that size?
A: If I remember an object being of approximately that size?
Q: Yes.
A: I don't.
Q: Does that object as it appears seem to you to be
larger or no different from the types of bullet fragments that were removed from
President Kennedy?
A: I don't understand that question.
Q: All right.
A: I see fragments on that x-ray film and do they look like fragments I have
seen removed from the body?
Q: The large one is what I am referring to. Do you
remember one of that dimension being removed from President Kennedy's body?
A: I don't. But that doesn't mean I didn't see it. It means I don't recall.
Q: Okay. Could we see the final x-ray, Number 2. Dr.
Finck, I would like you to take a look at x-ray Exhibit Number 2, which is a
right lateral view of the skull with two angle lines overdrawn. [Transparency on
light box] First, do you recall this x-ray as having been an x-ray taken at the
autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: I don't.
Q: Do you recall in any x-rays of President Kennedy there
being a radiopaque snow trail that crossed from the x-ray left to right?
A: No, I don't recall.
Q: From this x-ray of President Kennedy, are you able to
identify the approximate location of an entrance wound in the skull?
A: I don't.
Q: Is it surprising to you at all that you would not be
able to identify an entrance wound in the skull?
A: No, because it is a different type of evidence. I have looked at wounds. I
was able to identify entry and exit when looking at wounds. Now we're looking at
this x-ray. I can't elaborate on this.
Q: So it wouldn't be unusual not to be able to identify
an entrance wound from an x-ray of the skull? Is that a fair statement?
A: Yes.
Q: That it is often not possible to identify an entrance
wound in the skull from an x-ray of the skull?
A: It would depend upon the case. It is not always possible I would say.
Q: But in your judgment, there is nothing unusual about
not being able to identify the entrance wound from this x-ray?
A: It depends upon the type of x-rays. The type of information they give. The
answer is yes or no based on a specific x-ray film. I cannot answer that in a
general way.
Q: Are you able to identify from this x-ray the external
occipital protuberance?
A: Can it be moved a little bit to the right? To your side? I don't want to
touch it. This is a lateral view and there are protuberances in the occipital
area. There is a protuberance here [indicating], but on one x-ray film only, I
can't say much.
Q: All right. Dr. Finck, if you would take one last look
at the x-ray and tell me whether the snow trail of radiopaque objects is in the
location that you would expect it to be for a bullet entrance wound that is
slightly above the external occipital protuberance?
A: Possible so.
Q: When there is a snow trail of radiopaque objects for a
skull wound to the head, would it be typical for the radiopaque trail to track
the direction of the bullet?
A: Yes.
Q: Wouldn't that be the ordinary—
A: Only on a case-by-case basis.
Q: Okay. Dr. Finck, I would like to show you one last
document.
A: Oh.
Q: If you would take a look at it, it is marked Exhibit
14 to this deposition. It's handwritten date on the top right-hand corner
l/26/67. And I will draw your attention to the last page of the document that
appears to have your signature on it. [Handing document to witness] If you would
just take a look at the document and tell me whether you previously have seen
it?
A: [Perusing document] So I read MD-14.
Q: And with the exception of the very last page of the
document, which is just a record identification form, have you previously seen
the document marked Exhibit 14?
A: I don't know when, but I think I did.
Q: Did you sign the document? Is that your signature on
that [indicating]?
A: I recognize my signature. Now I remember the date, 26 January of `67, I was
recalled from
Q: Previously when we were looking at Exhibit Number 13,
you mentioned the fact that you were in
A: That is correct. I was called on the phone, told to go to
Q: Who called you on the phone?
A: I don't remember the name of the person who called me. From what I remember,
it must have been two o'clock in the morning. The man calling me did not realize
there were 11 or 12 hours of difference between Saigon and
Q: When you arrived in
A: I don't remember. It was January `67, but to give you hours with precision, I
can't.
Q: Okay. the document it makes reference to the fact that
you saw the photographs—
A: For the first time in January `67.
Q:—on January 20th of 1967.
A: I recall it was the first time I saw the photographs, in January `67. We met
on January 20. I know no way to challenge that date, so I signed it.
Q: I would like to show you the date of the signature
here, which is—
A: Later on, 26 January `67.
Q:—six days later.
A: I cannot explain.
Q: Do you recall anything that happened during this week
between the time you saw the photographs and the time that you signed the
document?
A: No.
Q: Do you know who wrote the document that is in front of
you right now?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Do you know whether it was written by any of the
doctors who signed it, or whether it was written by someone at the Department of
Justice? Do you have any recollection?
A: Oh, I wouldn't have signed this if it had been written by somebody else. I am
pretty sure I participated in this.
Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to ask you one last short set
of questions about your testimony in the Shaw case. When you were in
A: I don't remember names specifically, but I must have met government
attorneys.
Q: I would like to show you a document marked Exhibit 36
to the deposition and ask you first whether you recognize the document? [Handing
document to witness] And you are welcome to read it, but you don't need to read
it for this purpose. The question is whether you recognize the document itself.
A: [Perusing document]
Q: Dr. Finck, I am not going to ask you about any of the
substance here .The one portion I am going to be asking you about is this
portion on page 4 [indicating].
A: "At 0855 hours I arrived in the court with Connick and Olson"?
Q: Yes. The first question, the one pending right now, is
do you recognize this document as having been a document that you prepared
yourself?
A: I recognize my signature at the end of it.
Q: Now turning—
A: It is a trip report. That is what we were required to do at the Institute
when returning.
Q: Do you have any recollection at all of any discussions
that you had with the persons identified on page 4 of the document?
A: You asked me if I remember those names, Connick and Olson?
Q: No, just if you have any recollection whatsoever about
having met with anybody in the
A: I think so, yes.
Q: What was the purpose of your meeting with the
attorneys? And just your best recollection.
A: He was there to help me during my stay in
Q: Did they help prepare you for the trial?
A: I don't—
Q: Talk to you—
A:—remember that, no.
Q:—about what was going to be happening at the trial?
A: I don't remember that.
Q: Dr. Finck, I would now like to give you the
opportunity if you are interested in making any statement that you think might
help clarify the record, either about today's testimony or about the
assassination of President Kennedy or the autopsy. You should feel free to say
what you believe should be said, or do not make a statement if you would prefer
not to.
A: I would like to remind you that I am 72 years old, that there are things I
remember, others I don't. I am often embarrassed to have to answer "I don't
know" and if I hesitate to answer, I am embarrassed. And one thing I did
not do is to lie or hide something. And to me, it is a real burden to have to
repeatedly answer questions, being asked "Do you remember this, do you
remember that," and quite often I have to answer, "Well, I don't'
remember," or I cannot answer that question with precision. Even if my
hesitations give the impression that I am reluctant to do something, I try to
cooperate, but quite often for me it is impossible to answer by yes or no.
MR. GUNN: Thank you very much, Dr. Finck, for coming. The
deposition is concluded.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the taking of the deposition
was concluded.]
END OF DR. PIERRE FINCK DEPOSITION
Contact Information tomnln@cox.net
Page Visited
Times
by
tomnln