November 16, 1993 The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Chairman Legislation and National Security Subcommittee Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives Congress of the United States 2157 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-6143 Attention: James Turner, Esquire Legal Counsel Dear Congressman Conyers: I write to convey a difficult message arising from my examination at the National Archives of the recently released records of the former House Select Committee on Assassinations. It is urgent to the national security and the protection of the President of the United States that Congress act at once to amend the United States Criminal Code so as to incorporate into the section federalizing the crime of presidential assassination specific provisions relating to perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation of such crimes. Furthermore, these amendments should expressly disclaim any statute of limitations period that may be applicable to the more general provisions found elsewhere in the Code governing similar offenses. Finally, these amendments should include heavy penalties in terms of both fines and imprisonment. It is my considered opinion that this is the essential remedial legislation that the former House Select Committee on Assassinations negligently failed to recommend to the Congress fifteen years ago. That failure was both reckless and reprehensible. You may well ask, "Why not go to the Judiciary Committee of either the House or Senate with this?" My response is that, while we now know a great deal more about this case than we did fifteen years ago, we must root out all of the information still being withheld in order to complete the picture. This goal must be accomplished with all deliberate speed. The national interest and the protection of the current and all future Presidents of the United States require it. An obstruction of justice occurred on the night and weekend of the assassination with respect to the formation of the medicolegal evidentiary presentation against Lee Harvey Oswald as the alleged assassin of President Kennedy. My friend and colleague, Dr. Randolph H. Robertson, M.D., will appear before your subcommittee to explain certain aspects as relate to the fatal head wounds sustained by President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. For that reason, I primarily discuss here some hitherto unknown aspects of the official handling of the nonfatal wounds in the President's back and throat. Together, these two perspectives, which have been greatly augmented by the documents thus far released, will converge to afford you a coherent portrayal of the mind and purpose of the conspiracy to conceal the true medical facts of President Kennedy's death. I beg you to consider, however, the gravity of your watchdog activities. You have the unique, and perhaps unrecoverable opportunity to give the impetus to a final cleansing of our national honor and integrity that will finally close the deep scars that this tragedy left upon our country. Since the Warren Report appeared in 1964, both its critics and defenders have unanimously agreed upon one of its key assertions, "the throat wound ignorance story." The Report held that, on the night of November 22-23, 1963, the pathologists who examined President Kennedy's body at Bethesda Naval Medical Center did not know of a bullet wound in the President's throat until after his body left their hands because a Dallas physician, while attempting to save the President's life, had used the site of the wound for a tracheotomy, thereby "obscuring" the wound's appearance. Therefore, they were unable to directly trace a path through the wound. The day after the assassination, the official story continues, the senior pathologist at Bethesda called the Dallas doctor and, upon learning of the throat wound, deduced that it was the exit for a bullet that had entered the President's upper back. (Cf. Warren Report, pp. 88-89; and see, Interview with Arlen Specter, U.S. News & World Report, October 10, 1966) The Parkland Doctors did not turn the President over on his back. This point was emphasized by the Warren Report at pages 4 and 55, and derived support from the testimony of the Parkland Hospital treating physi- cians (See, e.g., Dr. Carrico at 6H3, 3H363; Dr. Perry at 6H9, 3H 382; Dr. Clark at 6H25) Neither the Parkland nor Bethesda physicians observed all of the President's wounds in their original state. Interposing this speculative medical conclusion in place of scientific fact not only laid the basis for the Warren Commission's much-disputed "single-bullet theory," but also opened the door to criticism of the autopsy that continues today. In all the years of controversy, no one has paused to ask, "Is the throat wound ignorance story false and, if so, what are the implications?" Early critics of the Warren Report accepted impressive evidence that the throat wound ignorance story was true. This included the testimony of the chief pathologist, Navy Comdr. James J. Humes; the official autopsy report; the testimony of two Secret Service agents who attended the proceedings; and an FBI eyewitness account. In recent years, however, sufficient evidence has emerged to cast grave doubt on the truthfulness of the two Navy pathologists and the Secret Service witnesses. The pathologists have offered self-contradictory versions of the manner in which they arrived at their official findings. Eyewitnesses to the autopsy maintain that the pathologists learned about the throat wound that night, during their examinations. A member of the casket team reported that the President's personal physician, Admiral George G. Burkley, related his knowledge of the throat wound that night. An Army pathologist on loan to the Navy has sworn that he was prevented from performing a complete examination of the President's neck. And a dramatic, yet undisclosed lead received by CBS News in 1967 revealed Dr. Humes' private revelations to a friend that an X-ray taken on the night of the autopsy portrayed the insertion of a soft metal probe through the track of the President's nonfatal wounds. The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, has never revealed to investigators that this procedure was performed, and he has deflected questions about his determination of the path by implying that he had not learned about the throat wound until the body was out of his hands because it had been obscured by a tracheotomy incision. The "throat wound-ignorance" story thus became a cover for what had actually occurred. In place of the probe X-ray, Humes presented to the Warren Commission a schematic drawing of the path which he knew to be materially false: The drawing depicted a straightline downward slope between the back of the President's neck and his throat. Humes later admitted to his friend that the actual path was erratic. Documents from the files of the HSCA now confirm that both photographs and X-rays of the probe insertion procedure were taken. Those materials, as well as other photographic evidence known to have existed, is not part of the official evidence held by the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The evidence proves, despite Humes' sworn testimony that the autopsy ended at eleven o'clock on the night of the assassination, that he and his assistant examined the President until three o'clock the following morning, long after the departure of two FBI witnesses who presumed the autopsy done. The Dallas physician, Dr. Malcolm Perry of Parkland Hospital, complained to a member of his staff the morning after the assassination that he had been awakened several times in the middle of the night by calls from Bethesda urging him to retract the opinion he gave to reporters shortly after the President's death, that the wound in his throat was a wound of bullet entry. Bethesda witnesses confirm telephone contact with Dallas. A photograph or an X-ray of a metal probe properly inserted through soft tissue to illustrate the track of a missile would prove its course, whether within or through the President's body. What could possibly explain, then, the reluctance of military authorities to reveal the results or even the fact of such a probe; their refusal to permit a complete autopsy; and their preference for explaining one of their principal conclusions as the "deduction" of a path between an entrance wound in Kennedy's back and an exit wound in his throat? I have concluded that the late Admiral George Burkley and others were involved in the fabrication of a medical theory that bolstered the case for Lee Harvey Oswald's sole culpability, and the concealment of medical evidence that may have weakened it. No matter who devised this plan (and I do not mean to suggest here that it was Humes), it was deft, cunning, and even brilliant in its conception. It did not require plastic surgery or decoy maneuvers, as others have theorized. Simply by abandoning the strongest, most direct medical and documentary evidence of a transiting missile wound, and relying instead upon weaker, more circumstantial evidence to buttress the inference of a transit, the authorities apparently believed that they would be better able to make the medical facts fit their case against Oswald; in other words, a speculative solution supplanted absented facts. JFK had sustained such massive injury to his head that early investigators, using contemporary techniques, could not have established the precise trajectory of the rear head wound other than generally concluding that it had originated from a point behind the presidential vehicle. Since the nonfatal wounds provided the only clear opportunity to demonstrate a trajectory back to a firing point, the actual path was concealed and a false presumptive path was fabricated. The two FBI agents who attended the Bethesda morgue were unaware of the successful probe procedure because it was performed after they had left the hospital to take two recovered bullet fragments to FBI headquarters. The reports which they filed, and upon which many previous assassination writers have relied, left the erroneous impression that they had witnessed the entire autopsy when, in fact,they had departed the hospital prematurely Two of the Secret Service agents present at the autopsy gave false testimony which made it appear as though the FBI agents had remained at the morgue throughout the entire autopsy and embalming. The testimony of the Secret Service agents (both of whom are now dead) may have been intended in part to assist in the concealment of the probe photography. The impetus for their original testimony remains unknown. Indeed, all the forensic pathologists who have examined the set of photos and X-rays in the National Archives have been hamstrung by the resultant shortcoming in the medical evidence in that, the derivation of a path of a bullet entering the President's upper back and exiting his throat has depended upon inference and interpretation, rather than the direct medical proof which was concealed. Such proof may have provided the experts with an illustration of how the body was positioned to make possible the successful probe; the direction of the shot; the angle of trajectory; and even the type of ammunition capable of causing such a path. The key information presented here has never been published or otherwise brought to public light. Whether or how it would have altered the ultimate conclusions of the FBI and the Warren Commission must, unfortunately, remain a matter of speculation unless and until the evidence is recovered and properly evaluated. It undoubtedly would have had a direct bearing upon their investigations, however, and the doctrine of spoliation may well obtain to cast very serious doubt on the government's official explanation for this tragedy. There is, however, an equally disturbing aspect to this "probe" story that you should understand: It was known to CBS News, a Division of CBS Inc. in January 1967, several months before that organization broadcast a major four-part investigative report on the Warren Commission controversy. Instead of disclosing this information, CBS not only concealed it from the American people, but promptly advised former Warren Commission member John J. McCloy, who was at that time an envoy for President Johnson. Within a few days after McCloy received that advice from CBS, the original autopsy pathologists were ordered to go into the National Archives to review the X-rays and photographs and sign a report that was prepared for them by the Department of Justice verifying their original findings. Lt. Col. Pierre Finck of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who participated in the autopsy, was suddenly flown back to the United States from Vietnam for this specific purpose. At that time, January 21, 1967, none of the pathologists said anything about the missing probe photographs or X-rays. When CBS obtained an exclusive broadcast interview with Dr. Humes in June 1967 through the personal intervention of former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, he was not asked a single question about the probe evidence by his interviewer, Correspondent Dan Rather. Although CBS has taken several opportunities since then to examine the assassination controversy, it has continued to conceal this essential information from the public and our duly constituted law enforcement authorities. I have attached to this letter a true and correct copy of a confidential internal CBS Memorandum dated January 10, 1967, through which CBS learned of the probe photography, as well as a true copy of a letter sent by Executive Producer Leslie Midgley to John J. McCloy the same day he received the information. In 1976, I personally interviewed the memorandum's author, Robert Richter, who specifically recalled this incident and con- firmed the memorandum's accuracy. In 1987, I tracked down Jim Snyder and interviewed him. Snyder confirmed all of the personal details he derived from his friendship with Humes as related in the Richter memo. When it came to the probe story, however, he attempted to disclaim that he had ever said anything of the kind to Richter. Because of that denial, I was unable to make use of this material until I discovered the corroborating information contained in the files of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Neither Richter nor Snyder were ever contacted by their superiors at CBS News in the aftermath of the memorandum, and neither of them ever knew what had become of the information. A fully documented evidentiary exposition of this affair would consume over two-hundred single-spaced pages. My research and counsel are available to any duly consti- tuted committee of the Congress or law enforcement agency of paramount concern. In the interests of time and space, I present herein only a few pertinent excerpts of the relevant testimony and documents. The throat wound ignorance story appears to have been planted early in the investigation of President Kennedy's assassination. The New York Herald Tribune reported on November 24, 1963 : "An authoritative White House source said one bullet entered Mr. Kennedy's head and another penetrated the 'neck and chest'. The source said White House officials did not know until yesterday morning about the second wound.... "Another White House source said the first bullet hit Mr. Kennedy in the neck and shoulder area. As he turned from the impact, he was struck in the head by the second bullet." (UPI Account) Until recently, the direct and circumstantial evidence in support of the throat wound ignorance story appeared to be overwhelming and unequivocal. Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Humes: Mr. McCloy. I am not clear what induced you to come to that conclusion if you couldn't find the actual exit wound by reason of the tracheotomy. Commander Humes. The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation. The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir. . . . . . Mr. McCloy. May I ask this: In spite of the incision made by the tracheotomy, was there any evidence left of the exit aperture? Commander Humes. Unfortunately not that we could ascertain, sir." (2H368) Statements of Drs. Humes and Boswell to Forensic Pathology Panel of HSCA: Humes tells the panel that, at the time of the autopsy, "we were at a loss because we hadn't appreciated the exit wound in the neck." (7 HSCA 256) He continues, relating the phone call to Perry: " Dr. Humes. The day after, within 6 or 8 hours of having completed the examination, assisting Waller's [sic] and so forth for the preparation of the President's remains. We got together and discussed our problem. We said we've got to talk to the people in Dallas. We should have talked to them the night before, but there was no way we could get out of the room.... So I called Dr. Perry. Took me a little while to reach him. We had a very nice conversation on the phone in which he described a missile wound, what he interpreted as a missile wound, in the midline of thee neck through which he had created a very quick emergency, as you can see from the photographs, tracheotomy incision. In effect destroying its value to us and obscuring it very gorgeously for us. Well, of course, the minute he said that to me, lights went on, and we said ah, we have some place for our missile to have gone." ( 7 HSCA 257) In describing the autopsy room, both FBI Agent Francis X. O'Neill, Jr. (HSCA Doc. No. 006185, page 4) and medical technician James Curtis Jenkins (HSCA Doc. No. 002193, page 10) stated that a telephone was present in the room. Captain Robert Karnei, then Operations Director for the NNMC Medical School and another witness to the autopsy, noted that the telephone was between three-to-four feet away from the head of the autopsy table, and that there was an additional telephone in an anteroom to the morgue. (HSCA Doc. No. 002198, page 3) Bootleg copies of the autopsy photographs confirm these statements. Testimony of Dr. Humes before the Warren Commission: Mr. Specter. When did you have that conversation with him, Dr. Humes? Commander Humes. I had that conversation early on Saturday morning, sir. Mr. Specter. On Saturday morning, November 23d? Commander Humes. That is correct, sir. (2H361- 363) Warren Commission testimony of Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman: The overall thrust of Kellerman's testimony about the autopsy seems to be his puzzlement and consternation at the autopsy report's conclusion of a through-and-through set of nonfatal wounds. Mr. Kellerman. There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel Finck--during the examination of the President, from the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go?" He said, "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's shoulder." Mr. Specter. Did you say anything in response to that? Mr. Kellerman. I said, "Colonel, would it have been possible that while he was on the stretcher in Dallas that it works itself out?" And he said, "Yes." (2H93) Further testimony of Roy Kellerman: "Mr. Specter.. Now, with respect to the time you were present at the autopsy, was there any conversation of any sort concerning the possibility of a point of entry from the front of the President's body.? Mr. Kellerman. No." Mr. Specter. You have testified about the impression you had as to the source of the first shot, which sounded to you like a firecracker. Did you have any impression as to the source of the other shots, which you described as being a flurry? Mr. Kellerman. If you will excuse me just a minute. I was trying to elaborate on the last question. Mr. Specter. Pardon me. Go ahead. Mr. Kellerman. Just for the record, I wish to have this down. While the President is in the morgue, he is lying flat. And with the part of the skull removed, and the hole in the throat, nobody was aware until they lifted him up that there was a hole in his shoulder. That was the first concrete evidence that they knew that the man was hit in the back first. Mr. Specter. When did they lift him up and first observe the hole in the shoulder? Mr. Kellerman. They had been working on him for quite some time, Mr. Specter--through the photos and other things they do through an autopsy. And I believe it was this Colonel Finck who raised him and there was a clean hole. Mr. Specter. What was said, if anything, by those present at the autopsy concerning the wound in the throat? Mr. Kellerman. To go back just a little further, the reason for the hole in the throat, the tracheotomy; I am thinking they were of the opinion that when the--when he was shot in the head, and they had found this piece remaining above the eye underneath; I am sure there was some concern as to where the outlet was, and whether they considered-- this is all an assumption now; whether they considered this--that there was a hole here in the throat prior to the tracheotomy, I don't know.But to complete the examination, they lifted him up by the shoulders, and there was this hole. Now, I think you asked me a question. Could you repeat it, please?" (2H103) From the Autopsy Report: "The missile path through the fascia and the musculature cannot be easily probed." (WCR 541; 16H981) From the Testimony of Dr. James J. Humes, Chief Autopsy Pathologist: Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage. Mr. Specter. What do you mean by that, Doctor? Commander Humes. Well, the defect in the fascia was quite similar, which is the first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point." (2H361) From the files of the House Select Committee: Dr. Boswell indicated that regarding the tracheostomy, the doctors"thought it was a wound." (HSCA Doc. No. 002071, page 3). Dr. Boswell said he remembered seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck. (Ibid., page 6) (Years earlier, Boswell had told a reporter that, "the pathologists had already been told of the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by physicians in Dallas." The Baltimore Sun, November 25, 1966, pp A1, A8. (But compare: "The wound in the throat was not immediately evident at the autopsy, Dr. Boswell said, because of the trachotomy [sic] performed in Dallas." (Id.) And the further statement: ""We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered in the back of the neck, traversed the neck and exited anteriorly," Dr. Boswell said. (Id.)) Humes told the HSCA staff that, the bullet wound in the back was found right away and not discovered in the "later stages of the autopsy." This was discovered during the complete examination that was made of the body before the autopsy work began. (HSCA Doc. No. 002070, page 7) (To the same effect, see the deposition of radiologist John Ebersole, HSCA Doc. No. 013617, page 47, line 1) Note that Lt. Col. Finck reports seeing the back wound when he arrived, but is careful not to impute knowledge of the back wound to others when asked if they had already discovered it. Nevertheless he says emphatically that the wound was discovered early in the autopsy. (HSCA Doc. No. 013617, page 80, line 4) Photographer John Stringer recalled conversation about the pathway through the neck and specifically discussion about air in the throat. He remembered a great deal of dis- cussion and concern as the doctor searched for a missing bullet. He believed Humes instituted the call to Dallas. (HSCA Doc. No. 002070, page 13) Stringer recalled that during the autopsy someone was asked to call Parkland. (Ibid., page 17) Dr. Ebersole testified, "I believe by ten or ten thirty approximately a communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned that there had been a wound of exit in the lower neck that had been surgically repaired. I don't know if this was premortem or postmortem but at that point the confusion as far as we were concerned stopped." (HSCA Doc. No. 013617, page 4, line 25). Richard A. Lipsey was an aide to General Wehle who was the Commanding General of the Military District of Washington. The MDW, part of the U.S. Army, was responsible for all the funeral arrangements of JFK. Lipsey said that he witnessed the majority of the autopsy. (HSCA Doc. No. 014469, page 1) He recapitulated his understanding of the wounds as follows: (1) One bullet entered the back of the head and exited resulting in part of the face and head being blown away; (2) another bullet entered the top of the neck (rear) which exited in the front portion of the neck; and (3) another bullet entered at the bottom of the neck (rear) or high in the back which did not exit. (Ibid., page 4) Lipsey said that the doctors first examined the entire body and he believes that they discovered all of the wounds during this preliminary examination. (Ibid., page 6) Lipsey stated that he could not recall the doctors specifically saying that the wound in the throat was caused by a bullet but he does feel the doctors were convinced that a bullet exited from the front of the neck. (Ibid., page 6) Lipsey said that the doctors were using the angle from the entrance in the rear of the head to the throat to look for the other bullet that entered high in the back. He said that both entrances looked the same. (Ibid., page 7) Lipsey mentioned that the doctors spent more time looking for the bullet that entered high in the back than anything else. He recalls that he said that the bullet could have gone anywhere. The doctors were also firmly convinced that this bullet did not exit in the front of the neck. (Id.) Lipsey said the doctors followed the path of the bullet for a short distance until they lost the track at which point they removed the organs in an attempt to locate it. In discussing Lipsey's testimony in a footnote to its medical appendix, the staff of the HSCA lied outright when it stated that his identification of a wound in the throat that night was not supported by any other evidence: "He also concluded that the entrance in the rear of the head corre- sponded to an exit in the neck. This conclusion could not have originated with the doctors because during the autopsy they believed the neck defect only represented a tracheostomy incision. Lipsey did properly relate the preliminary conclusion of the doctors during the autopsy that the entrance wound in the upper back had no exit. The doctors later determined that this missile had exited through the throat. Thus, although Lipsey's recollection of the number of defects to the body and the corresponding locations are correct, his conclusions are wrong and are not supported by any other evidence." (7HSCA20, ref. no. 95) While it is correct that Lipsey's understandings did not comport with the official autopsy protocol, his observations of the physical appearance of the wounds jibe fairly well with the analysis of Dr. Robertson regarding two wounds to the rear of the President's skull, one high and the other low. George A. Barnum was a Coast Guard Yeoman and a member of the military casket bearing team assigned to President Kennedy throughout the entire weekend of the assassination. His superior at Coast Guard Headquarters directed him to write a report for the historical record of his unit. Barnum did so on November 29, 1963. The contemporary nature of this account should carry considerable weight. In that memorandum, Barnum related that, as he and his fellow bearers were having sandwiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in [to the cafeteria] and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck: "The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...." [Source: David Lifton, Best Evidence, Dell paperback (1981) pp 835.] Although Barnum's report on the head shot not exiting conflicts with the official autopsy results, it is in perfect agreement with the "real time" account of the autopsy written by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill, who related that for most of the evening the doctors believed that the shot that entered the skull from behind fragmented extensively within and did not exit. Dr. Karnei said he was present when probing of the back wound was attempted ("...when they were putting the probes through the body"). Dr. Karnei said he was "...not exactly sure..." how successful they were with the probing. (HSCA Doc. No. 002198, page 5) He recalled them putting the probe in and taking pictures (the body was on the side at the time). He said they felt the hole in the back was a wound of entrance and they were "...trying to figure out where the bullet came out." (Ibid., page 7) Dr. Ebersole remembered the back wound being probed, but not with a finger. (HSCA Doc. No. 013617, page 58, line 13) Dr. Ebersole, in his deposition, stated, "Dr. Humes in probing the wound of entrance found it to extend perhaps over the apex of the right lung bruising the pleura and appeared to go toward or near the midline of the lower neck." (Ibid., page 4, line 21) "After the dissection had started I saw the area that Dr. Humes was very interested in. He pointed out to us that this was a track running over the apex of the lung -- I think he used the term bruising the apex of the lung and pointed to the middle line. I remember the area was open and he was pointing this out to us." (Ibid., page 52, line 11) When he saw the area Humes pointed out, he was looking from the anterior aspect into the chest after the viscera had been removed and a probe had been passed from the wound of entrance and one could see the bruising of the parietal pleura. (Ibid., page 53, line 11) Jenkins recalled that the doctors extensively attempted to probe the back wound. He said the probe they used was a metal one, approximately eight inches long. He said that "most of the probe went in ... between the skin" and not into the chest cavity. He said Humes could probe the bottom of the wound with his little finger and he said that the metal probe went in 2 - 4 inches. (HSCA Doc. No. 002193, page 13) He said that around the time of the probing they repeatedly took #X- rays# of the area. (Ibid., page 8) Jenkins also said that, according to his recollection of the location of the back wound, the bullet would have been going upward through the body to have exited in the front of the neck. He said he is basing his impression of the direction of the bullet on the fact that the probe did not enter the body cavity. (Ibid, page 15) Navy Corpsman Chester Boyers also concluded that night that, from the path of the bullet that entered the upper back that it seemed to indicate that the bullet exited through the tracheotomy. (HSCA Doc. No. 13614, page 3) Captain John Stover, Commanding Officer of the NNMC Medical School, said that, from the missile track in the upper back, he had the impression that the bullet had passed through the neck area. (HSCA Doc. No. 13615, page 2) Kellerman recalled Finck probing the wound about 4 to 5 inches as he was trying the "get the probe to come out." (Kellerman said the doctor didn't probe the wound with his finger first, saying it was "not that big.) (HSCA Doc. No. 002190, page 5) Clearly, a record was created on the night of November 22-23, 1963 that portrayed the path of the missile that entered President Kennedy's back. That record is missing. Modern techniques, such as the holographic adaptation of X- rays recently developed by General Electric Corporation's research and development operation, and other companies, could conceivably be applied to these materials to reconstruct the precise trajectory of the missile that entered the President's back. Just as the suspected assassin was denied his fair measure of justice, however, we have been denied this evidence for three decades. A thor- ough search of government facilities, including but not limited to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Dr. Burkley's medical records at both the Kennedy and Johnson presidential libraries, and the records of the Potomac River Naval Command, under whose military jurisdiction the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Md., fell, should be undertaken. Again, in an effort to contain the length of this letter, I cannot fully explore an apparent pattern of deception perpetrated upon the two FBI agents present at the autopsy by the Secret Service and military authorities. This pertains in particular to the extent of the latter's early knowledge of the President's emergency treatment at Parkland; of the discovery of a bullet on a stretcher at that hospital; and of the President's back wound, all of which were apparently kept from the FBI until the authorities in charge of the proceedings were confident that they could counteract the initial diagnosis of the Parkland physicians that had been publicized that afternoon in the news media. That diagnosis implied a conspiracy to kill the President. The behavior of the Secret Service and senior military personnel does not, however, bespeak an objective and impartial medicolegal, scientific inquiry into the death of President Kennedy or any degree of concern with the rights of the suspect then in custody and expected to stand trial. On the contrary, the indicia of concealment and deception with regard to the President's non-fatal wounds is now paralleled by Dr. Robertson's diagnosis of the situation in the area of the fatal head wounds, thus comprising a coherent pattern of evidence as to the conduct of this autopsy and the subsequent disposition of the medical evidence. We can be confident of this analysis. We cannot ignore its necessary import. I respectfully urge that the Congress act with dispatch to erect a structure of deterrence that may serve as a prophylactic for such outrageous conduct as apparently occurred at the time of President Kennedy's assassination. Very truly yours, Roger Bruce Feinman RBF:msw attachment