A: At this time I would like to add something. As a pathologist, you put down that you find in a mock-up scene to show the location, the approximate location. There may be variations between drawings and photographs, for example, but the advantage of having those immediate records is to put down the information mentioned -- number of wounds, location of wounds, dimensions taken at the time of autopsy.
Q: Doctor, what you are talking about or commenting about is the fact that the point I am pointing to on this particular autopsy descriptive sheet, the area of the hole in the back being considerably lower and in a different position than the hole you drew on Mr. Wegmann's shirt? Is that what you are referring to, sir?
THE WITNESS: Mr. Wegmann, can you kindly show the mark?
(Whereupon, Mr. William Wegmann arose, removed his coat, and exhibited the marking on his shirt.)
THE WITNESS: I would like to repeat that the mark on the shirt of Mr. Wegmann is on his shirt, whereas the wound I saw was in the skin in the back of the neck, and I would say that the wound I saw was higher than the one I see on the drawing.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: But am I correct in stating, Doctor, that the dot that is on Mr. Wegmann's shirt
corresponds to where you say the wound in the President's back of his neck was? If I drew that dot through his shirt and put it on his skin, Mr. Wegmann's skin, that would be the location that you testified to on direct examination? Am I correct?
A: Well, again I want to call your attention to the fact that we are here arguing about --
Q: I am not arguing.
A: -- the mark on the shirt.
Q: I am not arguing. Answer my question.
MR. EDWARD WEGMANN: He is answering the question.
MR. OSER: Let him answer the question.
THE COURT: Will you both speak to me.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: He doesn't like the answer so he is interrupting the witness.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I object to that statement.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I think the witness has a right to answer, and if Mr. Oser wants to cross-examine him, he can cross-examine him.
THE COURT: One thing I am going to rule is that the witness answer yes or no and then explain it. The witness can't volunteer information every time he wants to volunteer information. That is one thing that should be clarified. From now on ask him to answer yes or no, and if he wishes to explain, then he can explain, but he cannot volunteer every time he wishes to volunteer. If he wants to make an explanation, certainly he can explain.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: But also I think, Your Honor, if we are going to follow the Court's ruling, I think Mr. Oser should make his questions such that they are susceptible of a yes or no answer.
MR. OSER: Read it back.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: In effect what he is doing is arguing with the witness.
THE COURT: Let's clarify this. Ask the question again in a form that can be answered yes or no, and then if the witness wishes to explain, he may explain.
MR. OSER: I wish to have it read back.
THE COURT: No, sir. I am going to ask you to proceed. Rephrase your question and let it be answered.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, before I talked about the ink dot on Mr. Wegmann's shirt in the location that it is. I am asking you whether or not the ink dot on Mr. Wegmann's shirt is the
same area -- if you carried that ink dot through and put it on his skin, would it be the area where you testified that you found the wound in President Kennedy's back of his neck?
THE WITNESS: I would like to ask Mr. Wegmann to --
THE COURT: Answer yes or no and then explain, Doctor. The question is susceptible of a yes or not answer, but you may explain it.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: May I interject myself?
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. WEGMANN: I think what he wants to do is see the shirt again. Isn't that what you wanted, Doctor?
(The witness nodded affirmatively.)
THE COURT: You may stand down if you wish to.
(Whereupon, the witness left the stand and proceeded to a position close to Mr. William Wegmann.)
A: I would say this, in relation to the drawing, the mark I have made on the shirt of Mr. Wegmann is higher than the mark seen on the drawing.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, I don't think you quite understood my question. My question was exclusively
tending toward Mr. Wegmann only right now, the mark on Mr. Wegmann's shirt. Is the mark that you placed on his shirt, if you carried that mark through and put it on his skin rather than on the shirt, would that mark be in the same place that you saw the wound you said you saw on direct examination at the time of the autopsy? That is all I am asking you.
A: (Resuming the stand) But the shirt is moving on the skin.
Q: The general location then, Doctor, of where --
A: The general location of the mark I have made on the shirt of Mr. Wegmann, the general location approximately corresponds to the location on the skin.
Q: Can you tell me whether or not Mr. Wegmann is the same height as President Kennedy was?
THE WITNESS: Can you stand up, Mr. Wegmann?
(Whereupon, Mr. Wegmann complied.)
A: I think President Kennedy was taller.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I believe you said, Doctor, you measured from the tip of the mastoid bone behind the
ear, down, is that correct, in one direction?
A: Well, you have to take several -- I measured a certain distance from the tip of the mastoid, and that certain distance was 14 centimeters as I recall. Let me verify this -- (referring to document) -- 14 centimeters from the right mastoid process, which is (using ruler) approximately five and a half inches.
Q: Now, the measurements, Doctor, that you placed on Mr. Wegmann when Mr. Wegmann was standing erect and facing this way, if Mr. Wegmann had turned his head either to the left or to the right, would this change the position of the mastoid bone in relation to that 13 or 14 centimeters measurement? Yes or no, Doctor, and then you can explain your answer.
A: (Moving head) The movement of the head could have changed slightly the distance between the mastoid and the wound in the back of the neck.
Q: (Exhibiting sketch to witness) Doctor, I show you what the State now marks for purposes of identification as "S-69," and I ask you whether or not you are familiar with what is depicted on this particular photograph, referring you to the previous Defense Exhibit D-27.
MR. OSER: May I have D-27 for the Doctor to compare it?
(Exhibit handed to the witness.) A: Yes, it is.
Q: May I correct it by saying the upper half of Defense Exhibit D-27?
A: Yes, that it is.
MR. OSER: At this time, Your Honor, I offer, introduce and file into evidence the ex- hibit marked "S-69" for purposes of identification.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: It is part of the same exhibit as what?
MR. DYMOND: D-27.
MR. OSER: The upper half of D-27.
(Whereupon, the sketch offered by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "S-69" and received in evidence.)
BY MR. OSER:
Q: (Exhibiting sketch to witness) Doctor, I now show you what the State marks for purposes of identification "S-70," and I ask you if you are familiar with what is depicted in this particular exhibit?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Except, as before, being the same as D-29.
A: Please show me D-29.
THE COURT: Show the witness.
(Exhibit handed to witness.)
A: It is.
MR. OSER: The State wishes to offer, introduce and file in evidence the exhibit which is marked "S-70" for purposes of identification.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
(Whereupon, the sketch offered by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-70" and received in evidence.)
MR. OSER: May I put it on the board, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, referring to State Exhibits 69 and 70 on the large board over there, equivalent to Defense 27 and Defense 29, could you tell us who made those drawings?
A: As far as I know, they were made at the time of the preparation of our testimony before the Warren Commission in March, 1964. They were made under the direction of Dr. Humes at Bethesda Hospital, in a short period of time, as I recall approximately two days, under the supervision of Dr. Humes. As I recall, the name of the Navy enlisted man who did those was Rydberg, R-y-d-b-e-r-g, but this is subject to verification.
Q: Now, Colonel, can you tell me whether or not the person that drew these two diagrams, or the illustrator, had any of the photographs or X-rays of President Kennedy available to him?
THE COURT: He would only be able to answer that, Mr. Oser, if he knows of his own personal knowledge.
MR. OSER: I asked him if he knows, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, this Navy enlisted man did not have the photographs or X-rays available to him. Likewise they were not available to us in March 1964.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, Doctor, referring to State Exhibit 68, the descriptive sheet, and I correct in
stating that the information placed on the descriptive sheet, State-68, was placed there by a qualified pathologist, either Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I think the witness already testified he did not see it made and does not know who made it.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, if the Court please, may the State be heard? The Colonel said that it was made either by Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell at the time of the autopsy, and the Colonel on the witness stand said he was one of the co-authors of the autopsy report, and I am asking him if a qualified pathologist, either Dr. Boswell or Dr. Humes, made the entries that appear on the descriptive sheet attached and concerning the autopsy of President Kennedy.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I think the relevant question is whether Dr. Finck saw these drawings made. If he did, then he can testify who made them.
THE COURT: I don't think that is the legal point. I think the legal point is whether or not Dr. Finck recognizes the autopsy descriptive figures on there, and if he has his notes, he can compare his notes with the exhibit to see if there are any differences. If there are not any differences, then he can confirm or deny whether it was a true report of what should have been made at that time.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, that wasn't the question though. The question was whether State-68 had been made by a qualified pathologist.
THE COURT: It has already been offered and accepted in evidence.
MR. DYMOND: I understand that, but unless the Doctor was there when it was made, how can he know who made it and whether the man was qualified?
MR. OSER: It is part of the report, if Your Honor please, which has been signed.
THE COURT: Let's see. Ask your question again, Mr. Oser, and I will see if we understand what is before us.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, from State Exhibit 68, the descriptive sheet on the autopsy of President Kennedy as it appears before you, can you tell us whether or not the entries made on that particular descriptive sheet were done so by a qualified pathologist?
MR. DYMOND: Now that is what I object to.
THE COURT: Unless he saw it being done, Mr. Oser, he can't answer that.
MR. OSER: Your Honor --
THE COURT: May I ask you, sir, to change the question. Ask if it is incorrect or correct. Then he can answer it.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, may I have an answer to my question?
THE COURT: I will sustain Mr. Dymond's objection. Unless he saw somebody make it, he cannot testify to it, but he can testify to the contents, if he has knowledge, from his notes.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, did such a descriptive sheet make up part of your autopsy report on
President Kennedy that you signed with Commander Humes and Commander Boswell?
A: I have here a copy of the report I signed. Q: Would you like to peruse it? If so, go ahead.
A: (Referring to document) I have with me Xerox copies from Volume XVI of the Warren Commission Hearings, page 978, 979, through page 983, and these are the pages of the autopsy report I signed. As I recall, this is part of the exhibits, and I don't recall the place of this, the page of it. I don't see this drawing between Page 978 and 983 of the autopsy report I signed. Of course I couldn't take copies of all the hearings with me.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, may I have a short delay while I send for that particular volume that the Doctor referred to? It won't take two minutes to get it.
THE COURT: Well, where is it -- in the District Attorney's Office?
MR. OSER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Well, if you are going to pursue that, we won't have time to go into it before the recess. It is four minutes to 12:00.
MR. OSER: Your Honor --
THE COURT: I think this would be a convenient time to recess for lunch. Then you can send and get your picture, and then at 1:30 when we come back you can pursue this line of questioning.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I only have one more question on this particular line, if you can allow it now.
THE COURT: I would prefer -- You think you have one question. (LAUGHTER) It has been my experience when a lawyer says one question it generally lasts a half hour. We are going to recess for lunch because it will give you an opportunity to get your picture and then to pursue this line. Gentlemen, as I have consistently, and will in the future, I must admonish you and instruct you not to discuss the case among yourselves or with any other person. That includes everybody, the Sheriffs, waiters, waitresses. We will now adjourn for lunch, and I will ask the Sheriff to have you back here for 1:30.
(Whereupon, the Jury was excused.)
THE COURT: Do you wish these exhibits to remain in the same position until we come back from lunch?
MR. OSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ask the spectators to be careful not to knock these exhibits down leaving the courtroom. Mr. Shaw, you are released under your same bond, and, Dr. Finck, I will ask you to report back to be on the stand at 1:30. We will be adjourned until 1:30.
. . . . Thereupon, at 11:58 o'clock A.m., a recess was taken until 1:30 1o'clock p.m. . . . .
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, the undersigned, Helen R. Dietrich, do hereby certify:
That the above and foregoing (88 pages of typewritten matter) is a true and correct transcription of the stenographic notes of the proceedings had herein, the same having been taken down by Paul W. Williams and the undersigned, and transcribed under our supervision, on the day and date hereinbefore noted, before the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, in the matter of the State of Louisiana vs. Clay L. Shaw, 198-059 1326 (30) Section C on the 24th day of February, 1969, before the Honorable Edward A. Haggerty, Jr., Judge, Section "C", being the testimony of Pierre A. Finck, M.D.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of February, 1969.
/s/ Helen R. Dietrich,
HELEN R. DIETRICH, REPORTER