Parkland - Unravelling the Legalities That Governed the Removal of The Body

[Tony Sarkozi]

Exploring the legal and procedural steps that governed the removal of President Kennedy’s body from Parkland Hospital in November 1963.

Why did Doctor Clark's Death Certificate matter on November 22, 1963.
Who had the full authority to authorise autopsies or not at Parkland on November 22, 1963.
What documentation was needed to lawfully release President Kennedy's body not only from Parkland, but the State of Texas.
What system were Dallas operating under on November 22, 1963, a Justice of the Peace or Medical Examiners system. How this effect autopsy authorisations.

System Transition: Dallas operated under a Justice of the Peace system until 1969, affecting who could authorize autopsies at Parkland on November 22, 1963.

Texas law, specifically Title 13 Inquests Upon Dead Bodies Article 970 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, gave the Justice of the Peace sole authority over autopsy decisions.

Autopsy Authorization: No autopsy was ordered; JP Ward overruled the Medical Examiner Doctor Rose and released the body after confirming legal grounds. Rose had no authority to order an autopsy.

Tenth Amendment: State of Texas exercised sovereignty and authorised the release of the body.

Documentation: Doctor Clark’s death certificate and a burial transfer permit were essential for lawful removal of Kennedy’s body from Texas.

To examine the legalities surrounding the removal of President Kennedy’s body from Parkland Hospital and the State of Texas, one must consider several legal provisions. These include the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 4477 (Rules 34a and 40a, both last amended in 1951), Article 970 concerning inquests, and the Dallas City Code Ordinance, Chapter 11, regarding burial transfer permits (last amended in 1941).

All the above laws were in effect at Parkland on November 22, 1963.

Was the Tenth Amendment violated at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963?

Federal authorities began to move the casket while Justice of the Peace Theran Ward was on the telephone with District Attorney Henry Wade, checking a point of law. However, by the time the call ended – whilst the casket was still being moved - Ward then waived - and authorized the removal of the casket containing President Kennedy’s body.

Did the State of Texas exercise its lawful authority?

The optics suggest federal overreach.

On November 22, 1963, Dallas operated under a Justice of the Peace system, not a Medical Examiner system; the latter would not be adopted until 1969. Dr Earl Rose, the Medical Examiner on duty, had no legal authority to order or conduct an autopsy unless explicitly authorized by Justice Ward.

Under Article 970 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the law in effect at Parkland that day, a Justice of the Peace had the sole authority to determine whether an autopsy was necessary and, if so, to formally order it - JP Ward did not authorize an autopsy - He did ask Dr Earl Rose for his medical opinion but ultimately overruled him.

Dr Rose confirmed this in his 2005 Sixth Floor Oral History, stating that the decision to authorize an autopsy was entirely up to the JP under Article 970. Rose also corroborated that Dallas was still operating under a JP system on November 22, 1963, and that he had been employed as a Medical Examiner to help transition Dallas from the JP system to a Medical Examiners system.

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/26147

Let us examine Article 970 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which governed inquests and was in effect at Parkland on November 22, 1963. It reads:

Article. 970 - Physician called in - Upon an inquest held to ascertain the cause of death, the Justice of the Peace shall in all cases call in the county health officer, or if there be none or if his services are not then obtainable, then a duly licensed and practicing physician, and shall procure their opinions and advice as to the necessity of an autopsy before reaching a determination as to whether or not to order an autopsy to determine the cause of death. If upon his own determination he deems an autopsy necessary the Justice of the Peace shall request the county health officer, or if there be none or if it be impracticable to secure his services, then some duly licensed and practicing physician who is trained in pathology, to make an autopsy in order to determine the cause of death, and whether death was from natural causes or resulted from violence, and the nature and character of either of them. The county in which such inquest and autopsy is held shall pay to the physician making such autopsy a fee of not more than One Hundred Dollars ($100), the amount to be determined by the Commissioners Court after ascertaining the amount and nature of the work performed in making such autopsy. [Acts 1893, p. 155; Acts 1947, 50th Leg., P. 745, ch369, § 3.]

https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/sessionLaws/50-0/HB_217_CH_369.pdf

https://lrl.texas.gov/legis/billsearch/BillDetails.cfm?legsession=50-0&billTypeDetail=HB&billNumberDetail=217&billsuffixDetail=

Key wording of Article 970 - “as to the necessity of an autopsy before reaching a determination as to whether or not to order an autopsy” - “If upon his own determination he deems an autopsy necessary.”

A Justice of the Peace had the authority to decide if an autopsy was necessary even after listening to the opinion and advice from the county health officer – as mentioned, Dr Rose in his 2005 Oral History with 6th Floor Museum stated he did give JP Ward his opinion, but Ward overruled it – the JP had the full authority, not the Medical Examiner.

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/26147

1963 Dallas had not yet transitioned from a Justice of the Peace system to a Medical Examiner system until 1969, therefore the responsibility for conducting Inquests and authorising autopsies remained with the Justices of the Peace on November 22, 1963 - JP Ward had full authority, not Doctor Rose - Rose had to be authorised by a Justice of the Peace - Dallas did not transfer from a Justice of the Peace system to a Medical Examiner’s system until 1969, Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (SWIFS) - if Dallas was operating under a Medical Examiner’s system on November 22, Doctor Rose had full authority - not JP Ward.

The Medical Examiner’s Act came into effect in 1955 for counties with populations of over 250,000 to move to a Medical Examiner’s system but it was not mandatory - in 1961, the Medical Examiner’s Act was amended with the population dropping to counties of over 120,000 or more - Doctor Rose had no authority whilst Dallas was operating under a Justice of the Peace system unless he was authorised by a JP – as mention, Dallas did not transition to a Medical Examiner’s system until 1969.

https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/sessionLaws/54-0/HB_539_CH_159.pdf

https://www.lrl.texas.gov/scanned/sessionLaws/57-0/HB_254_CH_327.pdf

https://www.dallascounty.org/departments/swifs/about-us.php

On May 6th, 1955, an amendment was added to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure concerning autopsies - Article 989a Section 9 - which reads in part:

If in the opinion of the Medical Examiner an autopsy is necessary, or if such is requested by the District Attorney or Criminal District Attorney, or County Attorney where there is no District Attorney or Criminal District Attorney, the autopsy shall be immediately performed by the Medical Examiner or a duly authorised deputy.

The above amendment would not have applied on November 22, 1963, due to Dallas not operating under a Medical Examiner’s system (not until 1969), Dallas in 1955 and 1963 as mentioned was operating a Justice of the Peace system, the authority to authorise an autopsy - or not - fell to a Justice of the Peace on November 22, 1963.

https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/sessionLaws/54-0/HB_539_CH_159.pdf

It is widely acknowledged that JP Ward did speak to District Attorney Henry Wade at Parkland on the telephone to check a point of law, the reality is, JP Ward did not need to discuss anything with D.A. Wade - JP Ward was the only person with the authority to authorise an autopsy - or not - at Parkland on November 22, 1963 - even though D.A. Wade had no objections to the body being released from Parkland – as mentioned – JP Ward a Texas official with legal authority under Article 970 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, made the decision to release President Kennedy’s body.

Under Article 970, if a Justice of the Peace determined that an autopsy was necessary, he would then authorize and secure the services of the Medical Examiner, in this case, Dr Rose, to conduct the autopsy. However, if a JP deemed an autopsy unnecessary, no action would be taken, and the Medical Examiner had no further role.

This distinction is critical – If a JP decided that no autopsy was warranted, at which point legal custody of a body would revert to the family (next of kin) - They would then have the option to request a private autopsy - the State would no longer be involved.

In his oral history interview with the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, Dr Earl F. Rose discusses that there are two types of autopsies:
•   Medicolegal autopsy — Authorized by a Justice of the Peace. Also referred to as a forensic autopsy, it is conducted by a qualified pathologist for legal or investigative purposes.
•   Private autopsy — Authorized by the family (next of kin). This type of autopsy is typically arranged when the family seeks further clarity on the cause of death, outside of legal mandates.

If a medicolegal autopsy is authorized by a JP, it overrides the wishes of the family (next of kin - The autopsy must be conducted in Texas - If no such authorization is given, the body becomes the responsibility of the family, who may then order a private autopsy if desired - In the absence of both state and family authorization, the body is subject to the disposition decisions of the next of kin.

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/26147

Tenth Amendment - Did the State of Texas exercise its lawful authority?

As mentioned, the optics suggest federal overreach.

Let us examine the events at Parkland leading up to the moment the casket began to be moved by federal authorities - drawing on William Manchester’s Death of a President - alongside a step-by-step timeline comparing the Tenth Amendment and Article 970 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (Autopsy Decision) with federal behaviour.

1.   Death occurs in qualifying circumstances.
   Trigger: Article 968 unnatural death.
   Legal effect: JP must open an inquest (Mandatory). JP Ward opened an Inquest, information provided by Doctor Perry.
   10th Amendment connection: Texas, using its reserved powers, mandates the Inquest.

2.   JP says: “There are certain things that have to be carried out.
    Interpretation: Could include an autopsy under Article 970.
   Legal effect: No decision yet, no autopsy question is pending.
   10th Amendment connection: JP is exercising state reserved authority but hasn’t completed the autopsy decision step.

3.   JP says: “I can’t help you; I need to check a point of law.” JP Ward telephones DA Henry Wade to check a point of law.
   Action: JP Ward pauses to confirm legal authority before deciding.
   Legal effect: Article 970 autopsy decision is not yet made.
   10th Amendment connection: The decision still rests with the State, but it’s in suspense until the JP Ward decides.

4.   While a point of law is being checked by JP Ward on the telephone, federal authorities start to move the body.
   Problem: Body begins leaving before Article 970 autopsy decision is made.
   Legal effect: A procedural violation. JP Ward hasn’t decided if autopsy is needed. Article 970 cannot legally be satisfied.
   10th Amendment connection: State authority is undermined; federal officials are acting outside reserved State power.

5.   JP Ward completes his telephone call after verifying a point of law whilst the body is still being moved.
   Action: JP Ward authorises the release of the body. Confirms an autopsy is not required and authorizes release.
   Legal effect: Article 970 decision now satisfied.
   10th Amendment connection: Texas authority upheld, State made the decision, no violation. Removal of body is lawful,     

Key Consequence - If the body had left Parkland Hospital before JP Ward verified the law and granted permission, taking the body was then unlawful - If the body was in the process of being moved but still within reach of State authority when permission was granted, release becomes lawful at that moment – JP Ward could have said “no” at any time.

10th Amendment gave Texas the exclusive authority over autopsy decisions, exercised through Article 970 - If the autopsy decision comes before the body leaves State control and Parkland Hospital, the release is lawful.

If the body leaves Parkland Hospital before the decision is made, taking the body is unlawful - Texas (JP) still had the authority to say “no” at any time - if “no” and the body is taken, then body becomes illegally removed, the Tenth Amendment would arguably have been violated - however Texas (JP Ward) authorised the release of the body after checking a point of law.

The legal reality is that the State of Texas —through JP Ward—made the decision to release the body. JP Ward could have said no to releasing the body at any time.

Timeline of Body Release - Article 970 vs Tenth Amendment:

1. Death Occurs (Article 968)
   Legal Requirement: Justice of the Peace (JP) must hold an inquest.
   Status: ✅ Mandatory.

2. JP: "Certain things must be carried out"
   Legal Basis: Possible autopsy under Article 970.
   Interpretation: JP acknowledges legal procedure must follow.
   Status: ✅ Pending.

3. JP: "I can't help you, I need to check the law"
   Meaning: The JP has not yet made a legal decision.
   Legal Status: JP's decision is pending; no authority given yet.
   Status: ✅ Pending.

4. Casket Begins to Be Moved 🚫
   Issue: No Article 970 decision has been made yet.
   Legal Status: This is unlawful, as the body is still under Texas jurisdiction.
   Tenth Amendment: Potential violation — State authority not yet exercised.
   Status: ❌ Unlawful Action (No Article 970 decision on autopsy)

5. JP Checks Law - Grants Authorisation.
   Decision: Autopsy is not required.
   Result: JP authorizes release of the body.
   Legal Status: Now lawful, state sovereignty exercised.
   Tenth Amendment: ✅ No violation - State made the decision.
   Status: ✅ Lawful Once Permission Authorised.

6. Final Consequences
   Two Scenarios:
   If the body had already left before permission – Unlawful.
   If the body was still present - Release is lawful once authorized.

Under Article 970 Inquests of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in effect at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963, JP Ward had full authority.

Parkland Death Certificate signed by Doctor Clark.

The Parkland Death Certificate signed by Doctor Clark at Parkland on November 22, 1963, was to apply for a Burial Transfer Permit for President Kennedy’s body to be taken out of the State of Texas.

Doctor Malcolm Perry, in his testimony to the Warren Commission confirmed that it was Dr Clark who signed the death certificate at Parkland. This decision was based on the consensus among the attending physicians that the ultimate cause of President Kennedy’s death was a severe brain injury, resulting in the loss of neurological function and massive blood loss.
As a neurosurgeon, Dr Clark was considered the most appropriate physician to certify the cause of death and therefore signed the certificate.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 4477, Rule 40a outlined the legal requirements regarding who may complete a death certificate and reads, in part, as follows:

"A certificate of each death which occurs in this State shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the death occurred.... Except as otherwise provided, the medical certification shall be made by the physician, if any, last in attendance on the deceased."

The key points in the death certificate signed by Dr Clark:

Immediate Cause of Death: Gunshot wound to head due to homicide while riding in motorcade.
Method of Disposal: Burial
Place of Burial: Arlington National Cemetery.

Doctor Clark cited only the immediate cause of death, not the underlying or actual cause and specified the place of burial for the purpose of requesting a burial transfer permit only.

With a death certificate and a burial transfer permit together with JP Ward under Article 970 not authorising an autopsy, the body was free to leave Parkland and the State of Texas. The death certificate was a fact of death for issuance of a burial transfer permit.

Under Article 4477, Rule 40a of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - in effect on November 22, 1963 - Dr. Clark qualified as a competent person having knowledge of the facts and as the physician last in attendance on the deceased.
Therefore, he was legally allowed to issue and sign a death certificate, which allowed for the application of a burial transit permit under Article 4477, Rule 38a ("Dead Bodies"), authorizing the removal of President Kennedy's body from the State of Texas.

This process is further supported by the Dallas Code Ordinances Chapter 11 around Burial Transfer Permits - last amended in 1941 - which also governed such matters at municipal level and in effect at Parkland on November 22, 1963.

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/dallas/latest/dallas_tx/0-0-0-103548

Dallas City Code Ordinance, Section Chapter 11, Section 12, reads:

If a dead body or fetus is to be removed from this state, transported by common carrier within this state, or cremated, or if a disinterred body is to be removed from the cemetery where it was interred, the funeral director, or person acting as funeral director, shall obtain a burial-transit permit from the director of public health. (Code 1941, Art. 15-11; Ord. 14351)

Dallas City Code Ordinance, Section Chapter 11, Section 14 reads:

It shall be unlawful for a person to convey or deliver the body of a deceased person to a cemetery in the city or for a sexton of a cemetery to receive the body of a deceased person, unless the body is accompanied by either a valid state department of health report of death form which has been filed by the funeral director with the local registrar within whose jurisdiction the death occurred or a valid burial-transit permit. (Code 1941, Art. 15-13; Ord. 14351)

Without a completed death certificate certifying fact of death, no burial-transit permit could be authorized to release the body of the President Kennedy out of the State of Texas.

A copy of the Burial Transfer Permit releasing the body of President Kennedy out of the State of Texas can be found in the papers of William Manchester Burial‑Transit Permit: John F. Kennedy (November 22, 1963), Box 49, Folder 40, William Manchester Papers, Special Collections & Archives, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT.
Document #199 - Burial-transit permit, JFK, November 22, 1963 | Welcome to the Wesleyan University Archival Collections

https://archives.wesleyan.edu/repositories/ua/archival_objects/document_199_-_burial-transit_permit_jfk


This Burial-Transit Permit was issued by the Texas State Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics. Below is a detailed analysis of the document:

Document Type: Burial-Transit Permit
Permit Details: Permit Number: 7902
Form Issued By: Texas State Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics
Deceased Information:
Name of Deceased: John F. Kennedy
Sex: Male
Race: White
Age: 46
Date of Death: November 22, 1963
Place of Death: Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas
Death Due to Communicable Disease: No
Disposition Information:
Method of Disposition: Burial (indicated with a checkmark)
Funeral Director: O'Neal’s Inc., 3206 Oak Lawn
Place of Burial: Not specified on the document
Disinterment or Cremation: Not applicable (not checked)
Embalmer: Not specified (blank)
Authorization to Dispose of Body:
Registrar's Signature: Marion Dauren (?)
Date Signed: November 22, 1963
District: Dallas
Other Notes:
Red Handwritten Number in Circle (Top Left): "199" – Likely an internal file or reference number.

Dr Clark’s death certificate was sufficient to secure a burial transit permit in Dallas in November 1963, both under Texas law and Dallas City Code of Ordinance law.

Copy of death certificate signed by Dr Clark below.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md42/html/Image0.htm

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 4477, Rule 40a, required that:

A certificate of each death which occurs in this State shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the death occurred. The medical certification had to be made by “the physician, if any, last in attendance on the deceased.

Dr Kemp Clark, as the attending physician at Parkland Hospital, clearly fit that statutory role.

Even though he listed only the immediate cause of death as gunshot wound to head due to homicide, this satisfied the statutory requirement. The law demanded a cause of death certified (fact of death) by the attending physician, not a detailed pathological chain of causes (autopsy).

The death certificate contained the required disposition information, method of disposal (burial), place of burial (Arlington National Cemetery), and date of burial.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Rule 38a of Article 4477 required a burial transit permit to remove a body from Texas.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 970, no autopsy authorised.

The body was free to leave Parkland and the State of Texas.

All the above laws were in effect on November 22, 1963.

Dr George Burkley, in his report dated November 27, 1963, detailing his participation in the events surrounding the assassination, confirmed that he spoke with Dr. Clark at Parkland Hospital and informed him that the necessary documentation was required for the removal of President Kennedy’s body.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md48.pdf

Charles Jack Price, Administrator of Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas, stated in an interview with F.B.I. Special Agent James W. Swinford on November 25, 1963, that the “death certificate” and “statements of medical treatment” relating to President John F. Kennedy had been taken by Dr Burkley and Secret Service agents from Parkland Memorial Hospital back to Washington.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460989?objectPage=2.

Historical Texas Statutes below:

https://www.sll.texas.gov/library-resources/collections/historical-texas-statutes/#navigation

The Texas Inquest.

Title 13: Inquests Upon Dead Bodies Article 968 regarding Inquests of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
It was last amended and came into effective June 12, 1947. It was in effect on November 22, 1963.

https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/sessionLaws/50-0/HB_217_CH_369.pdf

An Inquest was mandatory under Texas law as I have stated - an autopsy was not mandatory under Texas law - it was a JP’s sole decision only (not mandatory) for autopsies to be authorised Title 13 Inquests Article 970 - and a JP’s mandatory procedure to open a Inquest Article 968 without Jury - in which JP Ward completed.

JP Ward had Doctor Perry also forward information, both JP Ward and Doctor Perry names appear on the official Inquest document.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460960?objectPage=8

A JP could gather information from various sources to determine the manner of death when completing the inquest documentation, citing Title 13: Inquests Upon Dead Bodies - Article 972 Upon what justice may act, reads:
The justice shall act in such cases upon information given him by any credible person or upon facts within his own knowledge.
Doctor Malcolm Perry (who was a credible person) furnished the information to JP Ward when completing the certified copy on Inquest.

Every death in Texas required an Inquest - but an autopsy was not mandatory, just as Texas law dictated on November 22, 1963 - it was a JP’s sole decision to order an autopsy or not in Texas - Doctor Rose collaborated this in his Oral History in 2005 and Texas law dictated Article 970 this that an autopsy was not mandatory.

If a body had to be moved outside Texas in 1963 then a death certificate had to be completed citing only a “fact of death” for a Burial Transfer Permit to be issued - both were completed and the body lawfully removed from Texas - and an Inquest completed in Texas.

Inquests Dead Bodies Article 969 Cremations did not apply because Kennedy was going to be buried, and he did not have any diseases dictated by Texas law at the time that his body had to be cremated because of diseases dictated for cremations under Article 969 that bodies had to be cremated.

JP Ward did not have to hold an Inquest with a Jury - Article 968 dictates that JP Ward could hold an Inquest without a Jury.

Here is the full text for Inquest.

Inquest Dead Bodies Article 968. When held. — Any Justice of the Peace shall be authorized, and it shall be his duty, to hold inquests without a jury within his county, in the following cases:
1. When a person dies in prison or in jail.
2 When any person is killed; or from any cause dies an unnatural death, except under sentence of the law; or dies in the absence of one or more good witnesses.
3 When the body of a human being is found, and the circumstances of his death are unknown.
4 When the circumstances of the death of any person are such as to lead to suspicion that he came to his death by unlawful means.
5 When any person commits suicide, or the circumstances of his death are such as to lead to suspicion that he committed suicide.
6 When a person dies without having been attended by a duly
licensed and practicing physician, and the local health officer or registrar required to report the cause of death under Rule 41a, Sanitary Code of Texas, Article 4477, Revised Civil Statutes, General Laws, Forty-sixth Legislature, 1939, page 343, does not know the cause of death. When the local health officer or registrar of vital statistics whose duty it is to certify the cause of death does not know the cause of death; he shall so notify the Justice of the Peace of the precinct in which the death occurred and request an inquest.
7 When a person dies who has been attended by a duly licensed and practicing physician or physicians, and such physician or physicians are not certain as to the cause of death and are unable to certify with certainty the cause of death as required by Rule 40a, Sanitary Code of Texas, Article 4477, Revised Civil Statutes, Chapter 41, Acts, First Called Session, Fortieth Legislature, 1927, page 116. In case of such uncertainty the attending physician or physicians, or the superintendent or general manager of the hospital or institution in which the deceased shall have died, shall so report to the Justice of the Peace of the precinct in which the death occurred, and request an inquest. The inquests authorized and required by this Article shall be held by the Justice of the Peace of the precinct in which the death occurred, but in event the Justice of the Peace of such precinct is unavailable, or shall fail or refuse to act, then such inquest shall be conducted by the nearest available Justice of the Peace in the county in which the death occurred. [O.C. 851; Acts
1887, p. 31; Acts 1947, 50th Leg., p745, ch.369, § 1.]

https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/sessionLaws/50-0/HB_217_CH_369.pdf

The body was lawfully removed from Parkland Hospital and the State of Texas on November 22, 1963.

Feel free to email for copy of Burial Transfer Permit.

[Royell Storing]

  "TIMELINE of body release"? Seriously? There are NO SPECIFIC CLOCK TIMES assigned to any of the above. By definition, this is what a legitimate "Timeline" must contain.  The above is more in line with a General Sequence Of Events. 

[Tony Sarkozi]

Royell
 
You are absolutely correct in noting that the term “Timeline” – noted.

It typically implies the inclusion of specific clock times “Timeline”, which were not provided in this context. In that regard, the use of “Timeline” may have been a mischaracterization by me.

A more accurate description I should have used should have have been “General Sequence of Events,” which better reflects the nature of the information shared focusing on the order of events rather than precise timestamps.

That said, regardless of terminology, the State acted within its authority in proceeding with the release of the body.

[Michael T. Griffith]

#Missing_the_Point.

The point is that there was no reason Dr. Rose should not have been authorized to do the autopsy at Parkland while the wounds were still fresh. The body could have been flown to DC a few hours later. But the plotters knew that a genuine autopsy would be catastrophic for the cover-up.

The point is that instead of an experienced and competent forensic pathologist, such as Dr. Rose, the military chose two unqualified, inexperienced Navy pathologists, Humes and Boswell, who could be ordered around and placed under a non-disclosure order (which they were).

When Humes and Boswell realized they were in over their heads, they called Finck, who was a forensic pathologist and had some experience with gunshot wounds, and asked him to help with the autopsy. When Finck arrived, he caused considerable trouble but was ordered not to dissect the back wound, was ordered not to examine the clothing, and was told to move on when he started to examine the throat wound. He was also excluded from the first brain exam and had his autopsy notes stolen.

[Tony Sarkozi]

Michael,

The key point concerns the legalities surrounding the removal of the body from Parkland Hospital and the State of Texas.

Under Texas law at the time, jurisdiction over whether an autopsy should be performed in Dallas rested solely with the Justice of the Peace (JP) — as dictated by state law. Dr Earl Rose also confirms this in his 2005 Oral History:

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/26147

If a JP did not authorize an autopsy, custody of the body reverted to the next of kin, who could then pursue a private autopsy.

Dr Rose would have been the forensic pathologist to conduct the autopsy if JP Theran Ward had authorized it. However, no such authorization was given, meaning Texas law was followed, and the body was lawfully released.

Regardless of opinions on what occurred after the body left Parkland, the legal fact remains: Texas law was exercised and upheld at the time.

•   No autopsy was authorized in Dallas (per Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Title 13 – Inquests, Article 970 – Physician Called In).
•   JP Ward released the body — an act of state sovereignty.
•   Dr Clark signed the death certificate at Parkland for the issuance of the Burial-Transit Permit.
•   A Burial-Transit Permit was granted, authorizing the legal removal of the body from Texas.

The body was lawfully released from Parkland and the State of Texas in accordance with Texas law as it stood on November 22, 1963.

[Lance Payette]

Nice work, Tony, from a retired lawyer. Don't be dismayed if your thread doesn't generate a lot of interest. At least in my experience, the more time and effort I put into a thread the less interest it generates. I have resigned myself to doing this stuff for my own amusement and mental exercise. The threads that generate interest tend to be attention grabbers like "Marina was a CIA operative!" or "Let's talk about those curtain rods!"

[Michael T. Griffith]

Michael,

The key point concerns the legalities surrounding the removal of the body from Parkland Hospital and the State of Texas.

Under Texas law at the time, jurisdiction over whether an autopsy should be performed in Dallas rested solely with the Justice of the Peace (JP) — as dictated by state law.

I agree that under Texas law, giving the body to the Secret Service was legal. I did not dispute that in my reply.

My point is that the autopsy could and should have been done at Parkland, where there was a competent and experienced civilian medical examiner who would not have been subject to military orders, where there were several other doctors who had extensive experience treating gunshot wounds, and where there were Texas Rangers and hospital staff who could have prevented the criminal circus that occurred at Bethesda where you had senior military officers preventing standard autopsy procedures from being performed.

Nice work, Tony, from a retired lawyer. Don't be dismayed if your thread doesn't generate a lot of interest. At least in my experience, the more time and effort I put into a thread the less interest it generates. I have resigned myself to doing this stuff for my own amusement and mental exercise. The threads that generate interest tend to be attention grabbers like "Marina was a CIA operative!" or "Let's talk about those curtain rods!"

Your threads don't generate much interest because they tend to be dogmatic, excessively long, and boring, not to mention that they repeatedly show that you don't understand many of the basics of the JFK case.

Few people want to waste time dealing with you when you make such outlandish claims as your recent argument that anyone who disagrees with you must have an "aberrant mindset" and a badly wired brain. That's the kind of juvenile polemic that one would expect from a teenager or a cultist.

Your extreme polemic shows that you believe you are on some kind of holy crusade to cure the world from a viewpoint on the JFK case that you find unacceptable, never mind that that viewpoint is held by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world.