Lone Nutters: Let's keep it real, why do you think there was no EOP wound?

[Gary Craig]

WC

HSCA

[Gary Craig]

[Micah Mileto]

From Dr. Pierre Finck's 2/24/1969 Clay Shaw trial testimony:


A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the eck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence.

[...]

Q: Colonel, could you tell me, using myself as an example, approximately what the loca- tion in my head would be 100 millimeters above my external occipital protuberance?

A: 100 millimeters is approximately 4 inches. This is the external occipital protuberance. My finger is approximately 4 inches and at a place here which is approximately the location here.

Q: About right here, Colonel, 'cause I can't see you.

A: Approximately here, Mr. Oser.

Q: Now, Colonel, I believe you said that you are familiar with the report of Drs. Carns, Fisher, Morgan, and Moritz, as having reviewed and returned in 1968, I ask you whether or not you disagree with their findings, Colonel, that after viewing the X-rays of the President they found a hole in the President's head 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance?

A: I can't say I agree or disagree with this for the following reasons: This measurement refers to X-ray films. On of this Panel Review -- what is the exhibit number of this?

Q: I now mark it as State-73 -- 72, I am sorry.

A: On of this Panel Review of 1968, which I read for the first time in 1969, I read: "One of the lateral films of the skull" -- and this refers to a general section heading you will find on "Examination of X-ray Films" on Page 9, as I read this, I interpret this statement of as a measurement based on X-ray films. So there was a difference between measurements made on X-ray films and photographs or photograph ual measurements on the cadaver.

Q: Do you disagree with the fact that these four doctors are qualified in the field of Pathology?

A: They are definitely, three of them, three of them are qualified pathologists, and the fourth doctor is a radiologist.

Q: Radiology is in what field of medicine?

A: Radiology is the study of X-rays for diagnostic reasons or for the reasons of treating with radiation.

Q: Would you say, Colonel, that a radiologist is the best qualified person in the field of medicine to read an X-ray?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you find in reading that report any mention by these four gentlemen, or these four doctors, of any hole in the President's head being one inch slightly above the occipital protuberance bone?

A: I do not find the measurement as one inch to the right of the external occipital protuberance in this State-72.

Q: Colonel, could you step down, and using State Exhibit 70, show me the approximate location in correlation to the size of the diagram, or the illustration, where 100 millimeters would be above the occipital protuberance bone.

A: On which one?

Q: I will repeat my question. Using State Exhibit 70, Colonel, would you show me the approximate location of 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone in relation to the size of this particular illustration as it appears in this exhibit.

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, this exhibit does not purport to be a scale exhibit and as I said before, it is not a three- dimensional photograph. I doubt if the Doctor could locate this bone, and if he could, any estimate of distance would be useless because it does not purport to be to scale.

MR. OSER: If the Court please, the Doctor used this exhibit saying this is the approximate location he found, and I am now asking him the approximate location that four doctors examining X-rays said it was 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone, and I think he can tell the approximate location of that.

THE COURT: Mr. Dymond's objection is that it is not a picture of the rear of the base of the skull, and for that one reason Mr. Dymond doesn't see how the witness could put it any relation with respect to the rear of the skull and moving laterally across the skull.

MR. DYMOND: He has already done this on Mr. Oser's head, which is three dimensional.

MR. OSER: Still and all he used this exhibit showing at least a portion of the back of the skull and a line going over the top of the skull which would indicate at least to me the approximate mid-part of the head, and I fail to see why the Colonel cannot indicate the approximate location 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone. I know it is not drawn to scale, but I am only asking him for the approximate location.

THE COURT: Could he not do it better in the figure in your autopsy sheet there?

MR. OSER: But, Your Honor, that may well be, but since the Doctor has used this exhibit and said this is where he found a hole, I think the State has a right also to show as a result of the testimony where approximately 100 millimeters was.

THE COURT: You understand the question?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, but I can't see how I can be asked to place a wound that was measured on X-rays, I don't understand how I can be asked to put on a illustrative drawing showing the location of the wound as we approximately saw it and not based on measurements on X-rays. Those 100 millimeters --

BY MR. OSER:
Q: Tell me how did the illustrator do it if he didn't have the X-rays and photographs?

A: He did not.

Q: Then how did he do it?

A: Because he was told by Dr. Humes about the approximate location of that wound in the back of the head on the right side and approximately one inch from the external occipital protuberance and slightly above it.

Q: He was told by Commander Humes that?

A: To my knowledge the illustrator making those drawings made them according to the data provided by Dr. Humes.

Q: Let me ask you this then, Colonel: Am I correct in stating that you said that the area I am pointing to right now is the approximate location where four inches above my protuberance bone is?


A: On your head I agree but the measurement of 100 millimeters was made on an X-ray and that is why I am reluctant to say.

Q: Made by a radiologist, one was a member of the American Board of Radiology?

A: I don't know that. That report is signed by four people, there were four to sign it.

Q: Didn't you say one was a radiologist?

A: To my knowledge.

Q: And a radiologist deals in X-rays?

A: A radiologist deals with X-rays and the interpretation of them.

MR. OSER: Again I call for the witness to put the approximate location because there has been testimony on direct examination as well as cross-examination, and because the Defense introduced a picture of Exhibit 388 in Defense Exhibit 67 and I think the State has a right to use this for further witnesses and further cross-examination of the Doctor. I call for this location.

MR. DYMOND: The Doctor has said that he can't do it.

THE COURT: He already testified that the or that there is somewhat of a difference between locations on there and in X-rays and I am not going to force him to do it.

MR. OSER: Then I ask that he mark it on State-68.

THE COURT: If he can do it.

MR. OSER: Four inches above the external occipital protuberance on the descriptive sheet, State-68, and I, this is the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet, and I presume you have used it before for autopsies and I ask that it be so marked there.

THE COURT: If the Doctor can do it.

THE WITNESS: I don't think I can put a wound on a drawing whereas the distance of that wound on an X-ray was given as 100 millimeters I can't do that on something that is different.

MR. OSER: Your Honor, may I ask the witness --

THE COURT: Let's see if I can clarify it. Dr. Finck, on the drawing of the rear of a human being, male, can you place with some kind of a pen or what have you the correction, if one was made, as a result of the four-man panel, as to what you all originally determined. If you can do it and if you can't, you can't do it.

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, may I submit the Doctor is trying to explain that the distances --

MR. OSER: I don't want Mr. Dymond to testify.

MR. DYMOND: This is in support of my objection.

THE COURT: I will listen.

MR. DYMOND: That the distances on an X-ray measurement is not compatible at all with the distances on this drawing and would be impossible to transpose.

THE COURT: I will accept that. Take the witness stand.

BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, you are familiar with an autopsy descriptive sheet, have you seen something similar to this before and have you ever used something like this before in an autopsy?

A: It is quite common to use worksheets in autopsies.

Q: I ask you again, that wasn't my question, have you used them before?

A: I have used worksheets in autopsies.

Q: And you are telling the Court that you can't mark 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone on that descriptive sheet that you have used before?

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, it is repetitious. Your Honor has ruled on the question.

THE COURT: I will let the Doctor answer one more time. The question is -- Please read it, Mr. Reporter.

THE REPORTER: Question: "And you are telling the Court that you can't mark 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone on that descriptive sheet that you say you have used before?"

MR. OSER: What is your answer?

THE WITNESS: I could place a wound higher on that drawing but again I don't understand why I am asked to do that.

MR. OSER: I don't think it is for the witness to determine that.

MR. WEGMANN: Let the witness answer.

THE COURT: If you say you can place it, I suggest you leave the witness stand, step down and go place it.

THE WITNESS: That would not be placed on X-rays, that would be a wound higher and approximately in this location.

MR. OSER: These are approximate and we can cover the matter.

BY MR. OSER:
Q: Initial that, please. Thank you, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, at this time I would like to make a comment for the record.

THE COURT: No, sir, you are not running the show. You either answer the question and give an explanation and don't comment.

MR. DYMOND: May we see whether this comment is in the form of an explanation of his answer, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is the statement that you wish to make in further explanation of your answer to this question?

THE WITNESS: Definitely.

THE COURT: You may do so.

THE WITNESS: The mark I have made --

THE COURT: You can't volunteer information just because you wish to tell us about it. You can only give us answers to a question and then an explanation. There is a difference from what you want to volunteer and what you want to explain. If you want to explain you may do it but you can't volunteer a comment and that is the legal situation of the Court. If this is in further explanation, then I will permit it.

THE WITNESS: The mark I just made on -- what is the exhibit number?

MR. OSER: 68.

THE WITNESS: On Exhibit 68 does not correspond to the wound I have seen at the time of the autopsy. The wound as seen at the time of the autopsy was not as high as that. I did so because repeatedly I am asked to show on this drawing what would the position be of a wound approximately four inches or 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, but I don't endorse the 100 millimeters for this drawing. Again the measurement was made on X-rays. I was more or less forced to put that on this exhibit.

MR. OSER: I want the record to reflect the witness was not forced.

THE WITNESS: I was asked to show on this drawing a wound four inches from the external occipital protuberance.

THE COURT: Let's go on to another area.

[...]

Q: Now, Doctor, referring to State Exhibit-68, and more particularly the sketch on the lower portion of this, and the red dot which you placed on the right-hand figure of that sketch, does that purport to represent accurately the location of the back head wound as described in the reviewing pathological report of 1968?

A: It does not, and let me explain this. I was asked yesterday by Mr. Oser to place a wound 4 inches or 100 millimeters, approximately, above the external occipital protuberance. The reason for doing so was that in the 1968 panel, P-A-N-E-L, in the chapter entitled "X-rays," this is S-72 on , you will find this figure of 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, but in the first line of that paragraph you see the word "films" on one of the lateral films of the skull, a hole measuring approximately 8 millimeters in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 millimeters on the external surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, so this measurement of 100 millimeters or 4 inches refers to a measurement made on X-ray film and not on the photographs or skull itself. I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it, so I was asked to put on the drawing a measurement coming from the X-ray measurement.

[...]

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, in referring to State Exhibit-68, the autopsy descriptive sheet, can you tell me whether or not the mark placed on the rear portion or the rear diagram of a body which is indicated with the arrow and marked ragged, slating 15 x 6 millimeter, can you tell me whether or not this spot on this diagram corresponds to a position on the head of 1 inch, approximately 1 inches above the external occipital protuberand or does it apply to 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance?

A: It refers to an approximate location on this drawing and it refers to the wound I saw at 1 inch from the external occipital protuberance.

Q: All right.

A: It was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm

[Micah Mileto]

Would it be fair to say that the EOP wound is the ultimate irrefutable problem in the medical evidence area?

[Tim Nickerson]

And yet you are a single-assassin theorist?

That is correct.

[Tim Nickerson]

Would it be fair to say that the EOP wound is the ultimate irrefutable problem in the medical evidence area?

What is problematic about the EOP wound?

[Micah Mileto]

What is problematic about the EOP wound?

That wouln't exit the face if it were a high-powered round from the Depository?



Tracking Oswald part 5? No?