Third pathologist calls for autopsy

WASHINGTON – Two ranking military officers are denying claims by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology that they agreed with findings that Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown died as a result of a plane accident.

One of the officers, Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons, for the first time spoke publicly on the matter Saturday. The forensic pathologist joined two other AFIP medical examiners in disputing government claims about Brown’s death after an Air Force jet carrying him and 34 others crashed in Croatia on April 3, 1996.

Last Thursday, the Justice Department and Attorney General Janet Reno announced that her department had found “no credible evidence” of wrongdoing in Brown’s death. The Justice Department noted that it had not conducted its own independent probe, but had reviewed information provided by the Pentagon.

Questions about Brown’s death first caused headlines when the Tribune-Review reported in early December on the allegations of AFIP forensic pathologist Steve Cogswell, an Air Force lieutenant colonel. He alleged that a circular wound found on Brown’s head looked like a gunshot wound and should have prompted an autopsy. In subsequent Tribune-Review reports, his claims were supported by a second AFIP medical examiner, Army Lt. Col. David Hause.

On Friday, Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher wrote that Cogswell’s claims had prompted AFIP to convene an internal panel of its pathologists to review the Brown matter. Fletcher reported that the panel “unanimously backed” the findings of Col. William Gormley, the Air Force pathologist who examined Brown’s body and concluded that he died of blunt force injuries during the plane crash. Gormley also ruled that the circular wound was not caused by a gunshot.

The Post article quoted Gormley as stating that “there is no doubt in anybody’s mind” that Brown died of blunt force injuries and that he had not been shot.

Citing AFIP’s director, Col. Michael Dickerson, Fletcher reported that “the group (of pathologists) issued a report reaffirming the initial Air Force conclusion that Brown’s death was accidental …” Fletcher’s report also indicated that Hause had changed his mind and was now affirming Gormley’s findings.

Contradicting these claims are Hause and Parsons, both of whom participated in AFIP’s internal review. Both officers concluded that Gormley’s findings simply could not be substantiated, that the possibility of a gunshot could not be ruled out, and that an autopsy should have been conducted. None was.

“Fletcher’s article in the Washington Post, in which Colonel Dickerson said I concurred in this `unanimous’ finding, contains a lie,” Hause told the Tribune-Review. The Post report Friday morning left him “fuming,” Hause said, and that evening he prepared a point-by-point statement countering AFIP’s claims.

Hause said he was never informed a report was to be issued on the Brown case, nor did he ever see the report that AFIP claims he signed off on. On Friday he asked the Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Jerry Spencer, for a copy of the report. Spencer said he would not release it, and the decision on whether to release it rested with Dickerson. Neither Spencer nor Dickerson could be reached for comment Saturday.

Hause said on Dec. 16 he and several other pathologists from the office met with Spencer, ostensibly to conduct the internal review. But Hause said the review was not done by the group, because Spencer began the meeting by informing the pathologists that he would not permit any group discussion on the case. Instead, Spencer showed them photographic and X-ray evidence from the Brown case.

Hause was startled that the pathologists were presented with only “blow-ups of Polaroids” of Brown’s body. Hause described the instant photos as “hard to decipher,” and noted that Spencer could have used 35mm photos that would have been “better material” for analysis.

After the presentation, Spencer met individually with each pathologist to discuss findings. During their private meeting, Spencer asked a handful of questions, Hause recalled. One was whether Hause thought the circular hole was caused by a gunshot.

Hause told Spencer he thought it was “probably not” a gunshot, but at no point did he rule out the possibility that it was. Hause said he emphasized to Spencer that the wound was very consistent with an “exotic weapon,” such as a captive-bolt gun. Hause recalls Spencer responded that drug traffickers used such a weapon to kill U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent Enrique Camarena in Mexico in 1985.

Hause noted that a captive-bolt gun, normally used to slaughter livestock, creates a perfectly circular hole in the skull that closely resembles a gunshot.

According to Hause, Spencer asked if he agreed with Gormley’s findings. Hause responded that the death was “probably” accidental, but that there was insufficient evidence to say Brown died of blunt force injuries as a result of the plane crash.

Hause also says he advised Spencer that Gormley should have conducted an autopsy, and that “Secretary Brown’s body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP.”

THIRD PATHOLOGIST

Parsons, another participant in the internal review, told the Tribune-Review that he, too, could not back Gormley’s findings. Reached at his home Saturday, the Air Force major also said he had never reviewed nor signed off on any such report, and had no idea what the report contained. Parsons said the statement in Friday’s Post that all panelists had agreed with Gormley’s findings “was not true.”

According to Parsons, he told Spencer during their private meeting that the circular hole was both suspicious and unusual, and could not reasonably be accounted for by the plane crash. He also said the head wound was just one of many reasons an autopsy should have been performed.

Asked by Spencer if he agreed with Gormley’s main findings – that the manner of death was accidental, and that death was caused by blunt force injuries – Parsons told Spencer that neither finding could be substantiated at the time and that, in his opinion, the manner of death was “undetermined.”

Parsons has been conducting autopsies for approximately eight years. Like Cogswell and Hause, he has significant experience in both plane crash and gunshot wound investigations. He was not present at Dover when Brown’s body was examined.

Hause noted that because of the unusual way the review was conducted, he has no idea whether the other pathologists agreed with Gormley’s findings as AFIP has claimed.

Parson’s statements to the Tribune-Review mean at least three senior AFIP pathologists – he, Hause and Cogswell – have dissented from the official conclusions on Brown’s death.

AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP “stands by” Dickerson’s claim that the findings of the review panel were unanimously supported by AFIP pathologists. Kelly said the panel’s report was “not for public release,” and he had no further information about its contents. Kelly said the Post’s Fletcher was neither shown nor given a copy of the report.

As for Reno’s statement, Hause said it’s no surprise that the Justice Department found no evidence of criminal conduct in Brown’s death. “There’s no evidence because there has been no autopsy. An autopsy which might produce such evidence hasn’t been done,” he said.

Cogswell declined to talk to the Post about the matter. In a written statement, he informed Fletcher, “I do not trust you to accurately and fairly represent what I say.” The Post did not include Cogswell’s statement in its article.

Cogswell told the Tribune-Review that no one from the Pentagon or the Justice Department has interviewed him, Parsons, Hause or other key staffers about the possibility that Brown’s death was mishandled.

Reno’s comment on the matter has sparked a firestorm of criticism from black leaders and some conservative groups. “We expected she wouldn’t do a thing,” civil rights activist Dick Gregory said. He said efforts in the black community would be targeted toward Congress.

Larry Klayman, who heads the legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, called Reno’s statement on the Brown case “her latest abdication of responsibility.” Klayman said the group will be taking unspecified legal action to see the matter is properly investigated.