From: garyag@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk,alt.conspiracy.jfk Subject: Cyril Wecht - Was the Rockefeller Commission right he endorsed 2, from the rear? Date: 10 Jul 2002 21:24:01 -0400 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 544 Approved: jmcadams@shell.core.com Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1026350642 14954 166.84.1.3 (11 Jul 2002 01:24:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:24:02 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Status: RO Among things that have dribbled out about prior "expert" investigations of JFK's autopsy evidence, there is one that I found particularly fascinating from the Rockefeller Commission: the idea that noted Skeptic, Cyril Wecht, had endorsed "Two Bullets, From the Rear." As we all know, they got that all wrong. But that's not all Rockefeller and Co. got wrong. As I've written: The Rockefeller Commission astonishingly reported that, after a five hour deposition, Wecht, the staunch Warren skeptic, had "testified that the available evidence all points to the President being struck only by two bullets coming from his rear, and that no support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right front of the Presidential car."1 Summing up, the Rockefeller Commission reported that it had tried in vain to find either a shred of medical/autopsy evidence, or a morsel of expert opinion, to support conspiracy. But within days of its June 1975 publication, a crack appeared in the ultra smooth façade of the Commission's report. On June 12th, the New York Times reported that Cyril Wecht had complained that "his views of President Kennedy's murder were distorted by the Rockefeller Commission." In its June 23, 1975 edition, Newsweek Magazine reported that "the flap over the [Rockefeller Commission's] apparent fudging of [Wecht's] views seemed enough to ensure that this report on the JFK assassination, like the ones before it, would fail to lay to rest the suspicions of the conspiratorialists."2 In published interviews, Wecht proposed a simple way for the government to allay the conspiratorialists' suspicions: he called for "the commission to release a transcript of his statements."3 "If that transcript shows in any way I have withdrawn or revised my thoughts of the Warren Report," Wecht challenged, "I'll eat the transcript on the steps of the White House." 4 1) Rockefeller Stonewalls Wecht Thereafter, a fascinating and illuminating story unfolded. The Vice President stonewalled, refusing Wecht's repeated personal requests to him to see his own interview, which scarcely threatened national security. The famed coroner was, however, ultimately vindicated - 23 years later. [Only in 1998 did the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board send Wecht a copy of his testimony, finally eliminating any doubt about the Commission's chicanery.5] With less irony than one would hope, for all the government's preoccupation with keeping Wecht's testimony secret, it made an exception for a Warren Commission defender. It shared parts of it for use by one Jacob Cohen, the author of a harsh anticonspiracy article published in Commentary Magazine in October 1975.6 Not the sort of doctor to take his medicine lying down, Wecht went into action. He and two other well respected forensic authorities7 publicly charged that, "the Commission has set up a panel of governmental sycophants to defend the Warren Report." In a May 5, 1975 press release, Wecht charged that "all the members of the panel appointed by the Rockefeller Commission have strong ties to the federal government and close professional relationship with individuals who have formerly participated in studies defending the Warren Report." Wecht emphasized Belin's Warren Commission roots (The unbiased Belin was one of Rocky's JFK investigators). Wecht also charged that, "The (medical) panel itself is made up of people who have been associated with the Baltimore Medical Examiner's Office, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, three facilities which either supplied the members of the original autopsy team or from which selected members of a previous panel had been appointed by the Justice Department in 1968 to defend the Warren Report."8 Wecht's intemperate claims were not entirely without foundation. Rockefeller appointee Werner U. Spitz, MD, the Detroit Medical Examiner, was a close professional colleague of one of the Clark Panel members, Baltimore Medical Examiner Russell Fisher, MD, under whom Spitz had served for several years.9 Richard Lindenberg, MD, a Baltimore-based, State of Maryland neuropathologist, was described in a once-secret Rockefeller Commission memo as having provided "consultation to the Medical Examiner for the State of Maryland [Russell Fisher] - but is subordinate to him."10 Panelist Fred Hodges, MD, a neuroradiologist, was picked from Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. That institution had contributed Russell Morgan, MD, the radiologist who had made the X-ray mistakes discussed above as a Clark Panel consultant. Pathologist, Lt. Col. Robert R. McMeeken, MC, was appointed from Pierre Finck's alma mater, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The Warren Commission consultant who had failed to note the marked discrepancies between the test skulls he shot up and JFK's skull, Dr. Alfred Olivier, completed Rockefeller's team of independent and impartial consultants. C) A Preordained Outcome? Declassified files show that besides publicizing the medical panel's potential conflicts of interests, Wecht was also instrumental in eliciting evidence the panelists had had a predisposition. On April 15, 1975, Rockefeller counsel Robert Olsen wrote a memo to file concerning a telephone conversation he had had that day with Wecht. In it, he noted that Wecht had asked, "whether the Commission would be getting access to the following items which have not been to date made available for examination since the autopsy." Namely, (1) JFK's brain, (2) Kodachrome slides of the interior of the President's chest, and (3) Microscopic slides of tissue taken from various parts of the President's body, especially those related to wound areas.11 Three days later, David Belin, who had "removed himself" from the Kennedy aspect of the probe, and Robert Olsen sat down with their experts for what an internal memo called a "Panel of Consultants Meeting." The purpose was to review evidence: JFK's autopsy photographs and X-rays, relevant Zapruder film frames, JFK's clothing, the bullet fragments, etc. Belin/Olsen asked the panelists to respond to a list of 14 written questions. Among them, whether examining the missing evidence that Wecht had specified - JFK's brain, tissue slides, and chest photographs - was "necessary to arrive at a reliable judgement concerning the number of shots which hit the President or the angles from which they were fired."12 What is perhaps most remarkable about this is what was left unsaid in both Belin/Olsen's 14 questions about this evidence, and in the panelists's responses. As Cyril Wecht first disclosed in a 1972 New York Times interview, JFK's brain, tissue slides and chest photographs were missing.13 Yet Belin/Olsen were only interested in the value of this missing evidence to expert opinion, not in pursuing the mystery of why this key evidence was missing. The panelists gave responses that lent credence to Wecht's skepticism about their impartiality. Werner U. Spitz's answer was typical of all the responses: "I do not believe that an examination of the President's brain would contribute significantly to a clarification of the circumstances [of the murder];" and, "Microscopic examination of skin slides from the bullet wounds would not, in my opinion, have added pertinent data."14 But was Spitz right there was no significant value, or pertinent data, to be found in JFK's brain or skin slides? Wecht has persuasively argued otherwise. In a New York Times interview, Wecht pointed out that, "Entering bullets burn and soil tissues around the wound of entry but not at the point of exit. Thus, the microscopic slides might have settled the question whether the bullets that passed through the President's head and body had been fired from the rear."15 The Chief Medical Examiner of San Antonio, Texas, Vincent J.M. DiMaio, MD, supports Wecht's position. In his authoritative textbook, "Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques," the forensic expert explained how entrance wounds can be distinguished from exit wounds by the microscopic examination of tissue samples taken from the edges of bullet wounds. "Microscopic sections through a gunshot wound of entrance show a progressive increase in alteration of the epithelium and dermis as one proceeds from the periphery of the abrasion ring to the margin of the zone of compressed, deformed cells ... Exit wounds ... with rare exceptions, do not possess an abrasion ring."16 Besides the abrasion ring, DiMaio says the microscopic presence of gray-colored "tissue wipe" on a specimen - soot deposited on the skin surface - also tags the tissue as coming from an entrance wound.17 One might defend Spitz by noting that even if the slides weren't available for later review, the original autopsy report makes their meaning clear enough. Unfortunately, the autopsy report's description of the skin damage is sketchy. In its entirety, the autopsy report has only this to say about the skin: "Sections through the wounds in the occipital and upper right posterior thoracic regions are essentially similar. In each there is loss of continuity of the epidermis with coagulation necrosis of the tissues at the wound margins. The scalp wound exhibits several small fragments of bone at its margins in the subcutaneous tissue."18 DiMaio emphasized an important point JFK's pathologists ignored: As one progressively scans from the periphery of an entrance wound - the outer edge of the abrasion collar - toward the margin of the bullet hole, one expects to see a progressive increase in the amount of tissue damage in an entrance wound. One might also find "tissue wipe" in tissues near such a wound which, whether present or absent in JFK's, would have been worth documenting. Thus, it's likely the slides would have added data. But that is not the only data the slides might have revealed; they might also have offered additional insight into the quality of the original work. In other words, if Rockefeller's experts had independently determined that the original autopsy team had missed the correct location for the entrance wound by a whopping 10-cm, putting it not only in the wrong part of the head but also in the wrong bone, why would a vague description of tissue samples by the same group of incompetents be satisfactory evidence about whether a wound was an entrance wound or not? Unfortunately, Werner Spitz's position was not unique among Rockefeller's experts. None of them hinted that the tissue slides would have helped resolve questions about the Single Bullet Theory's claim of which wounds were entrance and which exit. Finally, while the available photographs of the brain were undoubtedly helpful, it is hard to imagine that turning the real thing over in one's hands would have offered forensic experts no significant advantages over images. [And that's without considering recent published doubts that have arisen about JFK's brain photographs from the work of the Assassinations Records Review Board. In 1999 the Board reported that there was evidence that two different "JFK" brains had undergone post mortem examinations.19 And that the photographer of record, John Stringer, had rejected the authenticity of the extant brain photographs. Stringer claimed that he shot images of sections of the brain, which are missing, and that the images in the current file were not taken with the type of camera, or the kind of film, he had used in 1963.20] D) Rockefeller's Autopsy Experts: Errors and Omissions This exceptional performance alone was sufficient reason not to scoff at Wecht's charge that, by picking medical experts with such strong ties to individuals involved in prior probes, Rockefeller had put the fix in. A reading of the experts' findings provides additional reasons to suppose the Clark Panel had influenced them: they made some of the exact same mistakes the Clark Panelists had. Moreover, in a transparent effort to buttress the Single Bullet Theory, one of Rockefeller's experts, Richard Lindenberg, MD, grossly misrepresented Governor John Connally's abrupt motions in the Zapruder film. 1) Kennedy's X-rays As previously discussed, the Clark Panel had made three principal errors in reading JFK's X-rays: 1) that there were bullet fragments in JFK's neck, 2) that no bullet fragments were lodged on the left side of JFK's skull, and that, 3) the trail of fragments across the skull lined up between the supposed high entrance wound, 10-cm above the external occipital protuberance, and the supposed high exit wound toward the right front of Kennedy's skull. As discussed, there are no bullet (or bone) fragments in JFK's neck; the opacities were shown by the HSCA's forensic panel to be X-ray artifacts from problems during the exposure or development of one image. Secondly, there indeed are a few fragments on the left side of JFK's skull. Thirdly, the trail of fragments does not line up with the supposed entrance wound - it is approximately 5-cm higher. Nevertheless, Rockefeller panelist, Fred J. Hodges, III, MD, Professor of Neuroradiology, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, repeated the first two of the Clark Panel's errors. He wrote, "Several very small fragments [are] near these fractures [of the transverse process of C7 and T1, in JFK's neck] are thought to be metallic but the exact technical factors are not available and these tiny densities may be fragments of dense bone." He also said, "... there are no metallic fragments or bullets in the left side [of JFK's skull]."21 Richard Lindenberg, MD Rockefeller's neuropathology expert, repeated the third error. Whereas, the Clark Panel wrote that the fragment trail in JFK's skull, "if extended posteriorly, passes through the above-mentioned (presumed high entrance) hole,"22 Lindenberg similarly wrote, "Within the skull a great number of tiny lead particles ... are distributed along an axis extending from the entrance hole to the frontal region ... ."23 Lindenberg's enthusiasm for the official version of Kennedy's death apparently prompted him to venture unsuccessfully into an area in which he had no expertise: the Zapruder film. 2) Neuropathologist Richard Lindenberg uses the Zapruder film and JFK's back wound to validate the Single Bullet Theory To buttress the Single Bullet Theory, Lindenberg wrote that the same bullet struck both JFK and Governor John Connally. He argued that the hit occurred during the interval JFK was behind a sign [Zapruder frames 210 - 225] and thus while he was blocked from the view of Abraham Zapruder who filmed the murder with a home movie camera. As evidence Connally was wounded with the same bullet, Lindenberg declared that "on the Zapruder film ... no abrupt change in their [the limousine occupants'] behavior is noticeable until the President's head was struck (frame 313) (sic), suggesting that no wounding of the President or the Governor occurred during this period (frames 225-312) (sic). This fact," Lindenberg claimed, "signifies that also the Governor was injured while out of sight during frames 210-223."24 If Lindenberg had indeed been right, the Zapruder film would have given a boost to the Single Bullet Theory. But he wasn't. In 1967 Josiah Thompson first described the abrupt change that is quite obvious during these very frames to anyone viewing the movie: between frames 234 and 238, "we see a very definite change indicating the impact of a bullet," Thompson wrote. "[Connally's] right shoulder collapses, his cheeks and face puff, and hair is disarranged."25 Thompson credits the Governor's abrupt change to the landing of a different bullet than the one that hit JFK, a conclusion that the Governor agreed with. Whether it was the same bullet or not is less important here than that Lindenberg wrongly read the film in a way that kept Oswald in the dock. Ironically, in his own report to Rockefeller, Lindenberg's fellow consultant, Werner Spitz, MD, devoted considerable attention explaining why Connally's obvious, yet delayed, reaction in the Zapruder film posed no obstacle to the Single Bullet Theory.26 Lindenberg's weakness was not confined to his obvious and understandable unfamiliarity with the Zapruder film. 3) Dr. Richard Lindenberg, MD: Pattern of skin damage at JFK's back wound proves the bullet came from above and behind JFK The neuropathologist also concluded that, "The hole in the skin also shows the markings of an entrance wound: a discreet zone of dark discoloration of the marginal skin, most prominent at the upper and lateral margin of the wound. This zone is practically absent at the lower margin."27 With the upper and outer rim of the skin showing greater bruising than the lower and inner portion of the wound's edge, Lindenberg's "diagnostic" finding suggests that the bullet must have been traveling in a downward and medial direction, and so from Oswald's perch, when it hit JFK. It is on the basis of "hard" forensic details such as this that cases may be won or lost. The appearance of this wound was one of the planks upon which Lindenberg built his case that JFK had been hit from above. But the expert appears to have been off target here as well. Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, "There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President's back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term 'sharply upward direction' (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body."28 (Author's emphasis.) To explain how a downward sloping bullet had traveled upward through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: "Any small [forward] inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly." In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning at the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK's spine. HSCA forensic consultant Michael Baden, MD later endorsed Spitz's assertion that the bullet had carved an upward path through JFK's neck, although the HSCA's path was not "sharply upward." As the HSCA's Forensic Panel Report put it, "the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward."29 Baden likewise agreed with Spitz's explanation that JFK was leaning forward when he was hit. Unfortunately for both Baden and Spitz, in motion picture images from both the Zapruder film and the Nix film, one never loses sight of the fact that JFK at no point leans forward far enough to allow the upward trajectory. 4) Outward-bent fibers in the front of JFK's shirt proved a bullet exited the front of JFK's body In his report, Dr. Lindenberg wrote that, "In the front of [JFK's] shirt the bullet produced 1.2cm vertical slits in the overlapping parts of the collar just below the collar button. The stumps of torn fibers of the material point to the outside."30 In 1964, J. Edgar Hoover had advised the Warren Commission that the FBI lab had found the same thing: "The hole in the front of the shirt was a ragged, slit-like hole and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a projectile."31 Lindenberg was apparently unaware of what Warren skeptic Harold Weisberg had long since discovered, and what the HSCA later reported: "the FBI laboratory's initial description," which preceded Hoover's letter, "did not offer evidence concerning the direction of the fibers."32 No bent fibers were noted when the FBI lab initially examined JFK's shirt. The first report they were bent outward appeared in the record in Hoover's letter. The FBI report aside, might Lindenberg have independently noted the outward bent of the fibers? Perhaps. But even if he had, the HSCA's forensic experts gave little weight to such evidence. "[T]he panel itself cannot assess evidentiary significance to the fiber direction because of the numerous intervening examinations."33 5) JFK's rearward jolt in the Zapruder film proves he was shot from behind Forensic panelist Robert R. McMeekin, MD, the Chief of the Division of Aerospace Pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, derived one of the Rockefeller panelists' most interesting conclusions: "The motion of the President's head is inconsistent with the shot striking him from any direction other than the rear."34 In other words, and against common sense, McMeekin said that JFK's rearward jolt proves the shot came from behind. McMeekin's view is shared by virtually no one else. Not even McMeekin's fellow consultants agreed. Werner Spitz, for example, concluded that, "It is impossible to conclude from the motion of the President's head and body following the head shot, from which direction the shots came."35 Fred Hodges concluded that, "The motion of the President's head as shown in the Zapruder film does not indicate the direction of the shot in my opinion ... ."36 6) The hardness of forensic conclusions The point to be emphasized is not that Rockefeller's experts were less than perfect. Rather, it is that - whether autopsy evidence was present or suspiciously absent, whether concluding the abrasion collar in JFK's back wound was high or low, whether Zapruder supported the Single Bullet Theory or not, whether JFK's bent shirt fibers, or his head motion, proved a shot from behind - the forensic consultants invariably found that the evidence always pointed to Oswald, or at least shots from behind. While the credentials of the investigators leaves nothing to be desired, unfortunately the product of their labors does. And so it is clear that expert opinion from forensic specialists is not always as hard, or as reliable, as its proponents might argue. E) Hedging bets with Rockefeller With Rockefeller's selection of David Belin and Alfred Olivier from the Warren Commission, and the fascinating performance of the forensic experts who had had ties to previous investigations, it is not too difficult to entertain suspicion that the outcome was a foregone conclusion from the outset. This is perhaps not only true about JFK's medical/autopsy investigation. In their authoritative 1995 book about Nelson Rockefeller, Thy Will Be Done, authors Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett suggest that President Ford put the fix into the CIA probe the day he tapped Rockefeller to head it. When former CIA head William Colby showed up willing to talk, for example, Rockefeller "recommended keeping secret what in some cases even Colby thought unnecessary." The V. P. had good reasons to do so, according to Colby. "As Eisenhower's undersecretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare [HEW] and then as his special assistant on Cold War strategy and psychological warfare, Nelson knew about many of the CIA's covert actions, including the mind-control experiments [which were funded partly through HEW] and assassination plots. Indeed, as chairman of the National Security Council's Special Group, he was briefed on all covert operations and would have had to approve some of the most questionable ones, including coups and assassinations abroad and continuing mind-control experiments at home."37 Too bright a light cast on CIA abuses might have shown Rockefeller standing in the shadows. Therefore, it's not surprising that the medical consultants were not the only Commission investigators who had potential conflicts of interest. So did several of those who were active looking at the CIA. Colby devoted a short appendix to the backgrounds of the Rockefeller Commission members. Five of the members are of particular note: * C. Douglas Dillon, as an Eisenhower undersecretary of state, had participated in deliberations over the fate of Cuba's Fidel Castro and the Congo's Patrice Lumumba, both marked for assassination by the CIA. He was a director of the Institute of International Education, a recipient of CIA funds. * General Lyman Leminitzer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had been active in planning the Bay of Pigs invasion and supported the CIA's desire for direct U.S. military intervention, only to be overruled by Kennedy. * Erwin Griswold, former Harvard Law School dean, argued in 1971 on behalf of the Nixon administration to block the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. In 1972, he argued before the Supreme Court that the U.S. Army's surveillance of citizens opposing the Vietnam War violated neither federal law nor those citizens' First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly or speech. He lost both cases. * John T. Connor was director of David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank. He had also been president of Allied Chemical, in which the Rockefellers held $52 million in stock. * Ronald Reagan, former actor and California governor. Reagan, who would soon be President, had no experience with the CIA. He attended few of the Commission's sessions.38 Gary 1 Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States. Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller, Chairman. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June, 1975, p. 264. 2 Newsweek, June 23, 1975, p. 21. 3 See also AP wire dispatch, 6/11/75. 4 AP wire dispatch, 6/11/75, reprinted in: The Knoxville Journal, Vol. 110:140, June 12, 1975. 5 Letter of transmittal dated February 17, 1998 from federal counsel, T. Jeremy Gunn of the Assassinations Records Review Board, to Cyril Wecht. 6 Jacob Cohen, Conspiracy Fever. Commentary Magazine, 10/75. In a 12/5/75 letter to Professor Josiah Thompson, Jacob Cohen wrote that "(Rockefeller Commission counsel Robert) Olsen talked to me at length about Wecht's testimony." (Copy of letter made available to the authors by Cyril Wecht.) 7 Dr. Robert Joling, then the President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and Herbert L. MacDonnell, Professor of Criminalistics, Elmira College. 8 Press Release, May 5, 1978. Copy supplied to authors by Cyril Wecht. 9 Memorandum for file, from Robert B. Olsen, regarding subject "Telephone Conversation with Cyril Wecht, MD, JD," 4/19/1975. 10 Memorandum for file, from Robert B. Olsen, regarding subject "Panel of Medical Consultants Relating to Investigation of Conspiracy Allegations Concerning Assassination of President Kennedy," April 19, 1975, p. 2. 11 Memorandum for file, from Robert B. Olsen, 4/15/75, regarding subject: "Medical Aspects of the Assassination of President Kennedy - Telephone Call from Dr. Cyril Wecht." Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library 12 Panel of Consultants Meeting, Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States, Friday, April 18, 1975, conducted at the National Archives, Washington, D. C., retrieved from the Gerald Ford Library. 13 Fred P. Graham. Mystery Cloaks Fate of Brain of Kennedy. New York Times, 8/27/72, p. 1. 14 Letter from Werner U. Spitz, MD to Mr. Robert B. Olsen, Senior Counsel, Commission on CIA Activities Within the U.S., 4/24/75, obtained from the Gerald R. Ford Library. 15 Fred P. Graham. Mystery Cloaks Fate of Brain of Kennedy. New York Times, 8/27/72, p. 57. 16 Vincent J. M. DiMaio. Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques. Boca Raton, Ann Arbor, London: CRC Press, 1985, p. 72 - 73. 17 Vincent J. M. DiMaio. Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques. Boca Raton, Ann Arbor, London: CRC Press, 1985, p. 97. 18 Quoted from the autopsy report in the Warren Report. 19 George Lardner. Archives Photos Not of JFK's Brain, Concludes Aide to Review Board. Washington Post, 11/10/98, p. A-3. 20 ARRB deposition of John T. Stringer, July 16, 1996. This subject is discussed in detail by author Aguilar, in: "The Medical Case for Conspiracy," in: Charles Crenshaw. Trauma Room One. New York: Paraview Press, 2001. 21 Report of Fred J. Hodges, III, MD, professor of radiology (Neuroradiology), The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, "prepared after inspecting pertinent evidence at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., on 4/18/75 at the direction of Mr. Robert D. Olsen." Photocopy from the Gerald R. Ford Library, p. 3 and 4. 22 Reproduced in: Post Mortem, p. 590. 23 Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission, signed May 9, 1975. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library, p. 5. Lindendberg was Director of Neuropathology and Legal Medicine for the State of Maryland's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 24 Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission, signed May 9, 1975. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library, p. 10-11. 25 Josiah Thompson. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 71. 26 Report of Werner Spitz, MD to the Rockefeller Commission, dated 4/24/75, p. 2. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library. 27 Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission, signed May 9, 1975, p. 2. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library. 28 Report of Werner Spitz, MD to the Rockefeller Commission, dated 4/24/75, p. 1. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library. 29 See Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel, HSCA, Vol. 7:87. 30 Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission, signed May 9, 1975, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library. 31 Excerpt of letter from Hoover to Warren Commissioner General Counsel J. Lee Rankin reproduced by HSCA in Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:90. 32 HSCA in Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:91. 33 HSCA in Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:91. 34 Letter dated 4/25/75 from Robert R. McMeekin, MD to Mr. Robert Olsen, Senior Counsel, Rockefeller Commission, p. 1. Retrieved from Gerald R. Ford Library. 35 Report of Werner Spitz, MD to the Rockefeller Commission, dated 4/24/75, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library. 36 Report of Fred J. Hodges, III, MD, op. cit, p. 9. 37 Gerard Colby, Charlotte Dennett. Thy Will Be Done - The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. New York: HarperPerrenial, p. 735 - 736. Reference is also made to: Tad Szulc, "Why Rockefeller Tried to Cover up the CIA Probe," New York, September 5, 1977. 38 Gerard Colby, Charlotte Dennett. Thy Will Be Done - The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. New York: HarperPerrenial, p. 833 - 834.