Reclaiming History

by Vincent Bugliosi

  ‡At an April 11, 1977, press conference after he left the HSCA, Sprague described Gonzalez’s conduct as “McCarthyism,” but added that he had also begun to have friction with Gonzalez’s successor, Stokes, before he left, though he did not elaborate (New York Times, April 12, 1977, p.18).

  *The mandate of the final HSCA had been set forth in the earlier, September 1976 House resolution, as well as House Resolution 222 on February 2, 1977, which authorized the HSCA to “conduct a full and complete investigation” of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, each crime the province of a separate subcommittee. The eventual, permanent Kennedy subcommittee was chaired by Representative Richardson Preyer of North Carolina, the King subcommittee by Walter Fauntroy. Each subcommittee had its own task force, each headed by a deputy chief counsel: Gary T. Cornwell for the Kennedy investigation, Gene R. Johnson for the King investigation. Each task force comprised a dozen or so senior and junior staff counsels, investigators, researchers, and administrative personnel. (HSCA Report, pp.9–10, 514) On April 28, the funding of the committee for 1977 was cut drastically to $2.5 million (Blakey and Billings, Plot to Kill the President, p.67).

  *Although Blakey and his staff brought in many highly qualified experts in various fields to answer these questions (which applied equally to the King assassination), no one on the HSCA legal staff could compare with Sprague and Tanenbaum in the area of experience in handling major criminal murder investigations and prosecutions.

  *Compare that to the report of the Warren Commission, which was unanimously agreed upon by all seven members.

  *Although Blakey, as chief counsel for the HSCA, had much influence on the direction of the investigation toward organized crime more than any other alleged conspiratorial group, he turned out to have little, if any, influence on the committee’s ultimate conclusion. The HSCA said the same thing about individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups as it did about organized crime, and no one was pushing the HSCA toward its conclusion about the anti-Castro Cubans.

  †Blakey’s conclusion of the mob being behind the assassination is quite surprising given his background, inasmuch as the murder of Kennedy bore none of the indications of a mob hit. And with the mob’s history of never going after public figures, starting out with the most powerful man on earth is more than improbable. It’s completely far-fetched. (See organized-crime section for full discussion of issue.) And here we had Blakey—who had worked in the organized-crime section of the Justice Department under RFK, was considered one of the country’s top experts in the field of organized crime, and was a fixture at organized-crime seminars, having personal contacts with detectives in the organized-crime section of every major police department in the country—reaching that precise conclusion.

  It must be noted that other than the acoustical fourth-shot conclusion of the HSCA, which, as indicated, has been completely discredited, the HSCA in large part did an excellent job of reinvestigating the assassination of President Kennedy, and much of the credit for this has to go to Blakey, who shepherded the investigation. This is why it is further surprising to me that someone of Blakey’s stature could say “the mob did it,” and then proceed to write a book (Blakey and Billings, Plot to Kill the President) that doesn’t offer one piece of credible evidence to support his conclusion.

  *There was one other “investigation” of the assassination. Though under the auspices of the federal government, it was an unauthorized one. On October 26, 1992, Congress enacted “The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992,” popularly referred to as the “JFK Act,” to release to the American public all previously classified documents relating to the assassination. Pursuant to the JFK Act, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created to implement the objective of the act, and the board was in operation from October 1, 1994, to September 30, 1998, a period of exactly four years. Among the documents released, not one remotely resembling a smoking gun was found that would call into question the findings and conclusion of the Warren Commission. As the reader will see, particularly in the section on the president’s autopsy, certain overzealous members of the ARRB staff took it upon themselves to go beyond the ARRB’s limited mandate to release assassination-related documents, and decided to investigate what they perceived to be certain acts of conspiracy in the assassination. For those readers who want to know all about the ARRB and what it achieved, see endnote to this section.

  *Though the autopsy surgeons should have used the more conventional technique of setting forth distances from the top of the head (or soles of the feet for lower wounds) and the midline of the body, the HSCA’s language here is loose and very misleading. The autopsy report did say that the entrance wound in the back was “situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula…This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromium process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.” The autopsy report said that the exit wound in the throat was “situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third and fourth tracheal rings.” And with respect to the head wound, the autopsy report said it was “situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.” (CE 387, 16 H 980–981) What person reading the HSCA’s harsh criticism would imagine that the above words appeared in the autopsy report?

  †Normally, a medicolegal autopsy is part of a criminal investigation by a forensic pathologist—a pathologist who has a thorough understanding of death by so-called unnatural causes (homicide, suicide, and accidents)—who evaluates the circumstances of the death, including anticipating and answering questions that might arise later in legal proceedings. Forensic pathology, per Dr. Baden, is an “untaught speciality, a stepchild of the medical profession.” The only way to learn the specialization is to serve, after graduation from medical school, in a medical examiner’s office. (Baden with Hennessee, Unnatural Death, pp.ix–x) The medicolegal autopsy is often a multidisciplinary effort that requires the cooperation of and continuing communication with other scientific disciplines like toxicology, anthropology, and odontology. And in a criminal case, the pathologist works closely with the prosecutor and chief detective on the case as well as representatives from the crime laboratory of the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction.

  *When Dr. Michael Baden of the HSCA’s forensic panel asked Dr. John Ebersole, the assistant chief of radiology at Bethesda who was present at the autopsy, if he had any impression “that somebody in the room was in any way giving orders” to Humes “as to how the autopsy should be done,” Ebersole responded, “Absolutely not” (Transcript of hearings before HSCA medical panel, March 11, 1978, p.15).

  *Perhaps one of the best indicators that Humes was not out of his depth during the autopsy is a reading of his testimony before the Warren Commission in 1964, or better yet, before the HSCA forensic pathology panel on September 16, 1977, when he was, in effect, grilled by some of the top medical examiners in the land (e.g., Drs. Baden, Petty, John Coe, Joseph Davis, etc.) not only on the president’s autopsy but also on the extremely complex interpretation of the autopsy photos and X-rays taken under Humes’s direction at the time of the autopsy (2 H 347–376, WCT Dr. James J. Humes; 7 HSCA 243–265, Transcript of Dr. Humes’s testimony before the HSCA). I didn’t get the slightest impression from the give-and-take that major leaguers (the forensic panel) were talking to a minor leaguer, or, if we’re to believe Dr. Helpern, a sandlotter. It couldn’t be more obvious that Humes spoke knowledgeably and confidently about all aspects of the autopsy.

  *That may have been his main mission, but Finck acknowledged that “although to start with I was there as a consultant” to study the wounds, he very definitely became “a part of the autopsy team,” signing, with Boswell and Humes, the autopsy report as one of the three autopsy surgeons (HSCA Record 180-10102-10409, p. 71; CE 387, 16 H 983). Indeed, FBI agent Francis X. O’Neill,
who was present throughout the autopsy, told the HSCA that Finck seemed to “take over the autopsy when he arrived” (JFK Document 006185, HSCA staff interview of O’Neill on January 10, 1978, p.6).

  *In addition to the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy, just who were all of these other pathologists who agreed 100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons? Were they qualified experts? You be the judge. Dr. Wecht estimates that the following pathologists had collectively conducted “around 100,000 autopsies” by the time of their work on the Kennedy case. As of 1978, when he was on the HSCA forensic pathology panel, he alone had conducted “around 6,000” autopsies. (Telephone interview of Dr. Cyril Wecht by author on October 22, 2002) HSCA: Dr. Michael M. Baden, chief medical examiner (coroner) of New York City; Dr. John I. Coe, chief medical examiner of Hennepin County, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Dr. Joseph Davis, chief medical examiner of Dade County, Miami, Florida; Dr. George S. Loquvam, director of the Institute of Forensic Science, Oakland, California; Dr. Charles S. Petty, chief medical examiner, Dallas County, Dallas, Texas; Dr. Earl Rose, professor of pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; Dr. Werner V. Spitz, chief medical examiner, Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan; Dr. James T. Weston, chief medical investigator, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, coroner of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Clark Panel: Dr. William H. Carnes, professor of pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Dr. Russell S. Fisher, professor of forensic pathology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; and Dr. Alan R. Moritz, professor of pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and former professor of forensic medicine, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dr. Wecht said that between them, Fisher and Moritz, two of the most experienced forensic pathologists in the field, would have conducted “upwards of 30,000 autopsies” at the time. (The panel also included Dr. Russell H. Morgan, professor of radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.) Rockefeller Commission: Lieutenant Colonel Robert R. McMeekin, chief, division of aerospace pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Werner V. Spitz (see HSCA above); and Dr. Richard Lindenberg, director of neuropathology and legal medicine, state of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. (The commission also included Dr. Fred J. Hodges, professor of radiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Alfred G. Olivier, chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch at the U.S. Army’s Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland.)

  *Much has been made in the assassination literature of the fact that the autopsy surgeons were wrong on the location of the entrance wound. But is there any real significance to the head entrance wound being 3 inches higher than the autopsy surgeons said it was other than as a reflection on the alleged incompetence of the surgeons? “No, not really,” Dr. Werner Spitz, the German-born member of the HSCA’s forensic pathology panel and the Rockefeller Commission, said. “It’s just a red herring. We know from the autopsy photos and X-rays that there was only one entrance wound to the back of the president’s head. The only significance this matter has is academic. If the bullet had entered where the autopsy surgeons said it did—and we know from the photos and X-rays they were wrong—it would have been an unusual deflection for the bullet to have exited where it did. This was a military-type bullet and it is unlikely that it would be deflected so sharply upwards” (Telephone interview of Dr. Werner Spitz by author on March 26, 2005).

  *Ten centimeters, which is close to 4 inches, was bandied loosely about, including by the HSCA (7 HSCA107), ever since the Clark Panel said the wound was “100 millimeters” (10 centimeters) above the external occipital protuberance. But as indicated, the more precise measurement was 9 centimeters.

  *The outwardly exploding bullet in the parietal area lifted “a large plate of [parietal] bone upward,” causing it to “protrude from the wound” (Sullivan, Faccio, Levy, and Grossman, “Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Neuroforensic Analysis—Part 1,” p.1023).

  †Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch at the U.S. Army’s Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, supervised experiments in 1964 in which Western Cartridge 6.5-millimeter bullets were fired from Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (at the appropriate distance, simulating that from the sixth-floor window to the point on Elm Street where Kennedy was struck in the head) at reconstructed and inert human skulls filled with a 20 percent gelatin substance to see whether the president’s exit head wound could have been caused by the subject rifle and bullets. In one skull that was struck at a point closely approximating the wound of entry to the backside of Kennedy’s head, the bullet “blew out the right side of the reconstructed skull in a manner very similar to the head wound of the president.” (WR, p.87; CE 861–862, 17 H 854; 5 H 75–77, 87, 89, WCT Dr. Alfred G. Olivier)

  ‡As can be seen, the autopsy surgeons saw the X-rays they took of the president’s body. “We had to see those right then as part of our examination,” Dr. Humes said, and “the X-rays were developed in our X-ray department right on the spot.” However, the photos taken of the president during the autopsy were not seen by them that night or before the autopsy report was prepared. “They were turned over to the Secret Service in their cassettes unexposed [that night], and I have not seen any of them since,” Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission. (2 H 372, WCT Dr. James J. Humes; ARRB Transcript of Proceedings, Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes, February 13, 1996, pp.96–98) The first time Humes saw the autopsy photos was at the National Archives, and Boswell at the National Archives, on November 1, 1966 (ARRB Transcript of Proceedings, Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes, February 13, 1996, p.96; HSCA Record 180-10093-10429, HSCA interview of James Humes on August 17, 1977, p.7); HSCA Record 180-10097-10151, p.1, January 26, 1967). Dr. Pierre Finck didn’t see the photographs at the archives until January 20, 1967 (HSCA Record 180-10097-10151).

  *Though Ernest Hemingway once opined that the only difference between the rich and the poor is that the rich have more money, it has been said that old wealth comes through, regardless of the raiments worn by their possessors; that there is a well-scrubbed aspect to those born to the manor; and that the wealth is even heard in their voices. But President Kennedy, a Brahmin by birth and rearing, though dressing in an understated fashion—as is the usual custom of the privileged class—was clothed in the finest of garments and accessories on November 22, 1963. Though the FBI didn’t note the make of Kennedy’s gray suit, it was well known that he bought his suits at Brooks Brothers, the oldest haberdashers in America dating back to 1818, and in 1963 a more exclusive store than it is today. His black leather belt, size 34, was made by Farnsworth-Reed. The blue-and-white striped shirt he wore was custom made by Charles Dillon shirtmakers at 444 Park Avenue, New York. His white shorts were made for Brooks Brothers by D. & G. Anderson, Scotland. His size 10½ shoes were black mocassin, no make given. He had a white linen handkerchief, and a tortoiseshell comb by Kent of London. (HSCA Record 180-10087-10096, Report of FBI agent Robert L. Bouck, November 23, 1963) He was wearing a gold Cartier wristwatch with a black leather band (HSCA Record 180-10087-10095, December 2, 1963). His blue silk tie was labeled “Monsieur” Christian Dior.

  *Dr. Finck reported that the tie worn by Kennedy showed “a tear of the cloth to the left side of the knot and corresponding to the two anterior holes in the shirt. The tie knot was not perforated but glanced by the bullet, which is indicated by the fact that the white padding of the tie is visible and…the blue cloth on the internal aspect of the knot is intact, which indicates a tangential path of the left side in relation to the knot.” (AFIP Record 205-10001-10002, Memorandum, Finck to Blumberg, p.7; also ARRB MD 28) The tear to the tie was described by the FBI laboratory as a “small elongated nick” on the “left side of the knot of the tie” (CD 205, p.154; 5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89). An FBI examination found no metallic residue on this nick in the tie, and unlike the shirt, the FBI could not find any characteristic disturbance in the fabric around
the tie hole that “would permit any conclusion” as to the direction of the missile (5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89–90; FBI Record 124-10024-10173; Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, 20 H 2).

  †Warren Commission critics have pointed out that Dr. Perry told Dr. Humes that the wound in the throat was 3 to 5 millimeters in size (CE 397, 17 H 29), and a 6.5-millimeter bullet that did not fragment (as we know Commission Exhibit No. 399, as opposed to the later bullet that struck the president in the head, did not) could not exit through a hole “between 3 and 5 millimeters in diameter” (Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p.51). But clearly, Perry had to be wrong in his estimate of the size of the wound, since there is no evidence the bullet that entered the president’s back exited anywhere else, and no bullet was found inside the president’s body. Moreover, Perry, who later told the Warren Commission that the wound was “perhaps 5 millimeters in diameter,” admitted that he “did not examine [the wound] minutely,” giving it and the head exit wound a “cursory examination” (6 H 15, 3 H 368, 375). The critics never mention, naturally, that Dr. James Carrico, the first Parkland doctor to see the president, estimated the throat wound to be “5 to 8 millimeters in size” (3 H 361), which would be consistent with the exit wound of a 6.5-millimeter bullet.