Hank, I'm afraid your idea- that the autopsy doctors just left portions of skull bone stuck to the scalp all the way through the brain removal process and even until the torso dissection, and THIS is how Finck saw the entry wound on the back of of the head- is simply wrong, and you cannot sleep at night honestly thinking that is the answer.
I slept just fine, thanks. I normally arise at about 5am. Already had breakfast and heading to the gym at 7am.
This is from Finck's HSCA 3/11/1978 testimony:
Why favor THAT over the earlier testimony by 13 years? Do you think his memory improved in that time?
Dr. PETTY. All right. Now let me recapitulate as I understand what you said here. One, you arrived at about 8:30 in the evening, give or take a little bit. Two, at the time you arrived you believed that the brain had already been removed.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. What was the situation that was verbally presented to you at the time you got there? How many gunshot wounds were there there that had been discovered at that time when you walked in the room? What was your briefing, in other words?
Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I remember what I saw, the wounds I saw.
Dr. PETTY. All right.
Dr. FINCK. I interpreted myself but now to say what was the briefing at the time in detail, I unfortunately cannot do it. I remember, however, that on the phone Dr. Humes told me that he had good X ray films of the head. That I remember. What he told me when I arrived in the autopsy room in addition to that, I don't remember.
Previously, he had remembered what Humes told him. Here's the quote YOU provided:
The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.
Do you remember that quote, or like Finck, do you forget stuff also? In the future, kindly remember what Finck said 13 years prior to discussing this with the HSCA staff. It's pertinent.
Dr. PETTY. All right. What wounds did you see when you. first arrived there? Let me put it that way. I am not trying to drive you into any corner at all, I just want to know what. wounds were there to the best of your knowledge when you got there.
Dr. FINCK. I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry. It had soiled, inverted edges which in non-technical language it means turned inward. I interpreted that wound as a wound of entry. The incision of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas we examined but I did not see a wound of exit along that tracheotomy incision and that was the puzzle, having a wound of entry with no corresponding wound of exit, and that was one of the reasons for asking for additional X ray films which I requested. So that is for the wound of the upper back/ lower neck on the right side. In addition, I saw in the back of the head on the right side a wound corresponding to that wound of the scalp. I observed a hole in the skull. That hole in the skull in the back of the head showed no crater when examined from the outside of the skull but when I examined the inside of the skull at the level of that hole in the bone I saw a crater and to me that was a positive unquestionable finding identifying a wound of entry in the back of the head.
Thanks. That is explained nicely by me. You can, by extending the cuts down the side of the head, as Humes testified, then see both the external wound on the outside of the scalp and the internal wound on the skull with the cratering aspect. Without cutting the scalp as Humes testified, it's more difficult to remove the brain and see all this.
And you conceded these cuts were made:
They said that the area around the large defect had commuted fractures that caused pieces of skull to separate just by moving the scalp around, and that those areas just crumbled in their hands very easily, such that virtually no cutting of the bone was necessary.
So what even if the scalp is the only thing holding all of that together? All the more reason to think that had to be separated to facilitate removal of the brain.
Dr. LOCUVAM. Dr. Finck, is that symmetrical, inward beveled?
Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I don't remember.
Dr. ROSE. Were there fracture lines radiating out from that beveled wound of the back of the skull?
Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. We would have to refer to the autopsy report.
And when we refer to the autopsy report, it does say the fracture lines extended in a stellate fashion from the entry wound in the back of the head.
note: What Finck doesn't remember is significant here. Notice how he doesn't immediately clarify that the area of skull with the entry crater was separated. Once again, he is clearly indicating here that he is talking about the wound still being in the intact, empty cranium.
Because he doesn't mention it either way, suddenly he's talking about the way YOU want it to be? Sorry, you're still assuming what you need to prove. And the autopsy report does say what he doesn't remember. There were fracture lines extending in a stellate fashion from the wound of entrance. Do you understand what that means? It means the e-rays rule out the lower head wound you are arguing for.
Dr. COE. If I understood you, you said that the head post had already been done at the time you arrived.
Dr. FINCK. The brain had been removed.
Dr. COE. How had the skull cap been taken off to remove the brain?
Dr. FINCK. In that respect Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and right side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13 centimeters in diameter, it was a very large one. The fractures were so extensive, there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr. Humes did not have much sawing to do or he may not even have had any sawing to do. [ah! Now he remembers!]
Dr. COE. You mean he did not have to extend around to the left side of the head to remove the brain intact?
Dr. FINCK. He may have had a little sawing to do but as compared to an intact skull where you have to do complete sawing to remove the calvaria, the skull cap. That was not the case because of the extent of the fractures and damage to the skull.
That's exactly what Humes testified to and what Finck said in his earlier statement. That there was little to no sawing necessary to remove the brain. Previously you were arguing for extensive sawing that removed the entry wound from the rest of the head. But with the extensive fracturing present in the enhanced x-ray you presented, cutting was all that was necessary.
Dr. COE. Did you see the wound of entry in a separate piece of bone that was handed to you or was that still hooked on to the body?
Dr. FINCK. It was definitely attached to the body, the wound of entry.
You were previously denying this was possible because of the extensive sawing necessary to remove the brain. You DO remember arguing for that, right?
And Finck even talks about taking photographs of the entry crater in the intact, empty cranium!
Dr. BADEN. Were you present when these color photographs were taken of the head?
Dr. FINCK. I was at least for some of them. I remember positively that a Navy photographer took pictures and I wanted pictures of the crater in particular because this is a positive finding for a wound of entry in the back of the head. So I wanted a picture showing no crater from the outside and a clear-cut crater from the inside, but I don't know.
Dr. COE. You mean some of these pictures were taken after the brain had been removed?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know. The sequence of photographs, I was there when some of the photographs were taken.
Dr. COE. I am a little confused because you said before the brain had been removed before you came.
Dr. FINCK. As far as I remember.
Dr. COE. Then if you were there when photographs were taken of the head, it must have been after the brain had been removed.
Dr. WECHT. What Dr. Coe means is before you stated when you got there the brain had been removed, right?
Dr. FINCK. I think so.
But his recollection of that is hazy, as is clear from the above, where he qualifies everything.
Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup of that same spot. You previously mentioned that your attempt here was to photograph the crater, I think was the word that you used.
Dr. FINCK. In the bone, not in the scalp, because to determine the direction of the projectile the bone is a very good source of information so I emphasize the photographs of the crater seen from inside the skull. What you are showing me is soft tissue wound in the scalp.
Dr. PETTY. I won't comment. I just want to be sure that this is what you feel is the in-shoot wound and that is near the hairline and not the -- I hate to use any term to describe it but not the object near the central portion of the film near the end of the ruler.
Mr. PURDY. The red spot in the cowlick area. Dr. Finck, upon examining these two areas, what opinion do you have as to what, if anything, that red spot in the upper portions?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is.
Note who calls it a 'red spot in the cowlick area' wound... it's not the doctor on the HSCA medical panel. It's an unqualified HSCA non-medical staffer who uses that term. It's clear Dr. Petty sees it as I do, as the object near the center of the photo near the ruler (and which is in focus and which has the hair parted to expose the wound).
Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the scalp off of the bone in order to show this?
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Of course the scalp had to be cut away from the bone to see the internal aspect of the skull. So he first determined there was a scalp wound, noted it corresponded to the crater of entry on the internal aspect of the skull bone, then when the scalp was cut away from the skull bone, noted what the external portion of that bone looked like.
Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?
Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.
Yes, exactly. Thanks for providing that.
Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?
Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.
Dr. BADEN. Yes.
Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.
How's that again? The scalp is adherent to the skull? Do you understand what that means and how it conflicts with what you were claiming in the past?
Dr. PETTY. Did you see the brain?
Dr. FINCK. I saw the brain.
Obviously, outside the cranial vault. Because he stated in 1965 that he arrived after the brain was removed by Humes.
Is that enough, or do I have to keep listing all of the times Finck made this perfectly crystal clear? How many other times has he told the same story? And spare me a diatribe about 15-year-old memory. Finck is saying nothing different from what he told the Warren Commission in 1964, or to General Blumberg in 1965, or at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969. He's just reaffirming the obvious so the Hanks MicahJava's of the world can't distort what happened.
FTFY
And to shy away from your awkward mess you claim to be some kind of victory, you bring up other random things that we've already talked about.
The hair was parted? So what? It's parted in a different way in the back wound photographs. That's all I can say about it. The doctors who were there didn't think parted hair was a big deal.
Exactly. But you called it a COWLICK wound, based on that part, and never could explain how you knew the part was natural, as opposed to being made by the autopsist to better expose that area to show the wound of entry. This is again you assuming what you need to prove. And now we know at least one of those parts is unnatural, as they are different - you admitted that.
And they said that ruler is just there to provide scale, not to measure anything.
Asked and already answered by another poster above.
You think that I claimed Humes or Boswell themselves said the brain stem was severed? No.
I made it clear that there is a differentiation between some damage to the brainstem, as Humes said was probably caused by the bullet, and the even more conspiratorial interpretation of the brain stem being separated on arrival (indicating body alteration or at least some very traumatic activity around the base of the skull).
No? Hilarious.
Denials in the face of facts destroy credibility. You asked, in the post linked below, this:
"If there was no hole right by the EOP, then why was the cerebellum slightly damaged and the brain stem completely severed?"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11497940&postcount=1448
Clearly, you were arguing the brain stem was severed from the bullet wound, and using that supposed "fact" to locate the bullet entry wound low in the head. But your "fact" was wrong, and your conclusion from that "fact" was likewise wrong.
Faced with admitting you were wrong about a "fact" or changing your story, we can all see what you choose to do. You deny you ever said that. It doesn't change the facts any. You did say that.
The torn half dollar bills that Oswald had?
You haven't shown he had any torn bills [plural]. Did you forget you're still assuming what you need to prove?
He had one torn bill, but it is not noted as "half a bill" or" torn in half". A slight tear could be all that is present, and it could have been received as change from a purchase earlier on the day of the assassination. You haven't shown this bill is anything but benign. You've simply assumed it.
Why are you bringing that up like it helps you? A note by the DPD details two "half bills", with three-number digits circled that do not match any markings on a U.S. Dollar bill. It is not mentioned anywhere how or where those two items were found,
Or what connection they have to Oswald, but no matter. You can always assume what you cannot prove... So you do. You again assume these two bills are somehow connected to Oswald.
...but we do know that Oswald's wallet contained another dollar bill that was described as "bears pencil notation "300" - bill torn". What was he doing with a partially torn Dollar bill that day?
Thank you for admitting it was not a bill torn in half with only half a bill present. You just admitted you have nothing.
Who hasn't, at one time or another, received a partially torn bill in change from a purchase? How is this all of a sudden evidence of a conspiracy? You might as well note Oswald owned several billfolds. I have five, at last count, and this being Father's Day, it might be six by the end of the day. Normal stuff like a slightly torn dollar bill (which on average, dollar bills last about two years in circulation) is evidence of conspiracy? Dream on.
Was he going to tear it all the way in half and give it to somebody else?
And then they could cash their half at any bank and Oswald would be out a buck. It's unlikely he would do that, as he was pretty penurious.
And since we have THREE examples of these halved Dollar artifacts, they are almost certainly not some cute heirloom shared with a personal friend.
Two of which you haven't connected to Oswald at all, and clearly aren't connected, as the serial numbers don't match what he was arrested with. Do they? And the third of which is only torn, not torn in half. How is any of this more than your wishful thinking?
Are you going to speculate that this is all some kind of freak coincidence?
You do enough speculating for the entire forum. I'd ask for your evidence, but you have none. It's just your imagination running away with you. Apologies to the Spinners.
I'd rather not spend time on it because the problem speaks for itself.
YOU brought it up! If you don't want to do more than bring up nonsense, and run away from explaining how this is evidence of conspiracy, I can't stop you. I can, however, point out when you're assuming what you need to prove (which is what you're doing most of the time).
The curbstone? Read the study. The patched area contained different color sand grains than the rest of the curb.
And why would that be? What does the study say would cause that? Read the study, quote the study. Tell us.
And since you're on a winning streak, you correct by "wowza" to "yowza". Okay, you got me.
So English is not your primary language? My supposition (admittedly from a small sample size) is correct?
Want me to tell you another dirty secret? Sometimes I copy and paste testimony in plain text from Mcadams' website but then link to Mary Ferrell
I do the same, citing the History-Matters site, after copying the text from McAdams.
Hank
PS: Now I'm late for the gym.
