I want to make one correction to myself: The problem is not whether a probe was used, but rather if the back wound was the only wound probed.
Sorry, that's still just an assumption on your part. You don't get to assume part of your argument is true and label it a correction. You're still assuming what you need to prove.
May I ask what you're actually attempting to prove by this?
Finck admitted this as early as 1969 at the trial of Clay Shaw (claiming the shallowness could have been contractions of the muscles),
Finck described the standard autopsy probe as non-metallic to the ARRB.
Q: What kind of probe did you use?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Is there a standard type of probe that is used in autopsies?
A: A non-metallic probe.
And since you're talking about his Clay Shaw testimony, is it not true this is what he also testified to?
Q: You were puzzled by what you found in the back, is that right?
A: I was not puzzled by what I found in the back, I was puzzled by having a definite entry in the back, a bruise in the plural region, that is the region of the cavity of the chest, which was bruised, between the entry in the back and the exit in the front, and the three of us, the prosectors, we saw that bruise, and the following day knowing that a small wound had been seen in the front of the neck that made very much sense to me, an entry in the back, a wound in the front and a bruise in between due to the passage of that bullet.
Is his testimony here accurate, do you think? If not, why not?
Boswell to the HSCA in 1978, and I think Humes to the ARRB in 1996. What I'm saying is that the throat wound and small head wound was probed. Besides Humes, Boswell, and Finck, the witness statements unanimously say there was more extensive probing.
Manwhile, Boswell described the probe in his ARRB statement as metallic, contrary to Finck's recollection.
A. It's a little soft metal instrument that looks like a needle with a blunt end on one end and a flattened end on the other, like a needle that you would knit with or something. And it's, I would say, eight inches long, blunt on one end and sort of has a sharp point on the other end.
And contrary to those who remember a probe going through the President, isn't it true that Boswell said those attempts were unsuccessful, but that upon learning of the throat wound, the autopsists then had a straight path from the neck wound to the throat wound here:
A. Yes. When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.
But when we opened the chest and we got at--the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. And so if I can move this up to here--it's shown better on the front, actually. The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.
Meanwhile, Humes said this to the ARRB:
Q. Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?
A. Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.
Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path--
A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
And if there's a standard protocol, I don't know where you'd find it, to tell you the truth.
But he also said this, which conflicts entirely with your scenario:
A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy.
So one thing all the doctors at the autopsy agreed on was that there was confusion on the night of the autopsy concerning the bullet that struck the President in the upper back/neck region; in that they had an entry, but no wound of exit and yet no bullet was seen in the body in the x-rays. And they all said they concluded the wound in the upper back/neck exited the throat, and they all said that was their conclusion by Saturday, 11/23/63, the day after the assassination, after learning that the trache was made through an existing bullet wound, did they not?
I am wondering if you agree with the good doctors' recollections there, concerning the path of the bullet that caused the throat wound. And if not, why not?
Hank
