John F Kennedy - mordet - 22 November 1963

Mr Oser: Doctor, speaking of the wound to the throat area of the President as you described it, after this bullet passed through the President’s throat in the manner in which you described it, would the President have been able to talk?
Col. Finck: I don’t know.
Mr Oser: Do you have an opinion?
Col. Finck: There are many factors influencing the ability to talk or not to talk after a shot.
Mr Oser: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?
Col. Finck: I did not dissect the track in the neck.
Mr Oser: Why?
Col. Finck: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records. (1)
Mr Oser: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask The Court so to direct.
Judge: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.
Col. Finck: We didn’t remove the organs of the neck. (2)
Mr Oser: Why not, Doctor?
Col. Finck: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the — (3)
Mr Oser: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?
Judge: Let him finish his answer.
Col. Finck: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and the chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn’t remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection. (4)
Mr Oser: You have said that they did not. I want to know why didn’t you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?
Col. Finck: I had the cause of death. (5)
Mr Oser: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?
Col. Finck: As I recall I didn’t remove these organs from the neck. (6)
Mr Oser: I didn’t hear you.
Col. Finck: I examined the wounds but I didn’t remove the organs of the neck. (7)
Mr Oser: You said you didn’t do this; I am asking you why didn’t [you] do this as a pathologist?
Col. Finck: From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn’t dissect or remove these organs. (8)
Mr Oser: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
Col. Finck: As I recall I was told not to, but I don’t remember by whom.
Mr Oser: You were told not to but you don’t remember by whom?
Col. Finck: Right.
Mr Oser: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
Col. Finck: I don’t recall.
Mr Oser: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
Col. Finck: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn’t include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Mr Oser: You are one of the three autopsy specialists and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
Col. Finck: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.
Mr Oser: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?
Col. Finck: From what I recall, yes, but I don’t remember by whom.

(83) This evidence indicates that:

1. Commander Humes had full authority to perform a complete
autopsy, and indeed, that Admiral Galloway told him to do
so;

2. Commander Humes, not anyone else, made any decision that
resulted in a deviation from a complete forensic autopsy;
and

3. The remarks of others to expedite the autopsy were
probably the reason for the decision to perform a less than
complete autopsy.

The panel concludes that the backward movement of the head
following its forward movement occurred after the missile had al-
ready exited from the body and had created a large exit defect in the
skull, and that it was most probably due to a reverse jet effect,* or a
neuromuscular reaction, or a combination of the two.The short inter-
val between the two motions supports this explanation.