Q [ALVIN OSER]: Doctor, I now show you what the State marks as "S-71" for the purpose of identification, and ask you if you would view this exhibit and tell the Court whether or not you recognize this exhibit, and, if so, how can you recognize it?
A: I recognize here Exhibit S-71 consisting of Page 978 through 983 as being six pages of the autopsy report we signed in November, 1963.
Q: Doctor, this is the autopsy report you have been referring to that you co-authored with Commander Boswell and Commander Humes, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: When was the first time you saw the Zapruder film, Doctor?
A: As I recall, it was in March, 1964, when I returned from Panama and was told I had to testify before the Warren Commission.
Q: So at the time you signed and co-authored the autopsy report, which has been marked as S-71 for identification, you had not, as of that time, seen the Zapruder film, is that correct?
A: I had not.
Q: Doctor, are you familiar in this particular report, S-71, which you co-authored with Commanders Humes and Boswell, with all the evidence upon which the report was based?
A: Please repeat your question.
Q: Are you familiar with all of the evidence upon which this report was based?
A: In the general sense, yes.
Q: Doctor, I call your attention to Page 2, under the heading of "Clinical Summary," and ask you to tell me the basis for your statement as part of your clinical summary that three shots were heard.
A: Where do you see that, that three shots were heard?
Q: The first sentence in the second paragraph on Page 2, the first four words.
A: This is the information we had by the time we signed that autopsy report.
Q: The information from whom, Doctor.
A: There were a lot of people who were asked, I wouldn't know their names. I couldn't list all the people by name.
Q: Who told you that three shots were heard? Who told you that?
A: As I recall, Admiral Galloway heard from somebody who was present at the scene that three shots had been heard, but I cannot give the details of this.
Q: I ask you, did you have an occasion to interview any of the witnesses that were present in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, you yourself, before you wrote this?
A: During the autopsy of President Kennedy there were Secret Service Agent Kellerman in that autopsy room. I asked him his name Admiral Burkley, the personal physician of President Kennedy was present, and there was a third person whose name I don't recall who said to Admiral Galloway who was there during the autopsy, thatthree shots had been fired. At the time we wrote this we had this information obtained from people who had been at the scene to the best of my recollection.
Q: Did you have any information available. Doctor, from people at the scene who heard four shots?
A: From the assassination on I heard conflicting reports regarding the number of shots.
Q: I am talking about at the time you all prepared and signed this report, Doctor, before you affixed your signature to this, did you talk to anyone or have any reports available from people who heard four shots at Dealey Plaza on November 22?
A: I don't remember any.
Q: Did you have any statements or reports available to you from people who heard two shots in Dealey Plaza on November 22 at the time you made this report?
A: At the time I made the report I don't recall having a report of two shots.
Q: Going further, Doctor, in your autopsy report, it states, "Governor Connally was seriously wounded by this same gunfire." From where did you receive this information?
A: I knew it at the time of the autopsy because of the news media who reported the President had been shot and the Governor of Texas had been wounded, as I recall.
Q: What did you mean, that Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire? What did you mean when you said the same gunfire?
A: This is the information we had at the time of the autopsy -- correction, at the time we signed the autopsy report, and because the information in the autopsy report may be obtained after the autopsy, and again I can't pinpoint the source of that information.
Q: Doctor, I now show you State Exhibit 64, and ask you if you recognize what is depicted in this particular photograph, as being similar to something you have seen before during the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: This black-and-white reproduction is similar to a bullet that, as best I can remember, I saw for the first time in March, 1964.
Q: Doctor, speaking of your statement in the autopsy report that Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire, is it not a fact that when testifying before the Warren Commission you stated that in your opinion it was impossible for Commission Exhibit 399 to do the same damage to President Kennedy as was done to Governor Connally because there were too many fragments in Governor Connally's wrist? Did you not so testify, sir?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that question. Nobody has stated the same damage was done to Governor Connally as was done to President Kennedy, and that is what this question asks.
THE COURT: I think the question was put to the Doctor, did he not make a prior contradictory statement, which is legitimate cross-examination. Let the question be read back.
(Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.)
THE COURT: I am permitting the question. I overrule your objection.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Will you answer yes or no, Doctor, then you can explain.
A: This is a difficult question to answer because there were two bullets striking President Kennedy. I have examined the wounds of President Kennedy and I would say that the bullet seen here is an entire bullet.
Q: Is what?
A: Is an entire bullet. By an entire bullet, I mean a bullet that did not disintegrate into many fragments.
Q: Let me ask you about that in this way --
THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.
MR. OSER: I thought he had finished.
THE COURT: Had you finished your answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, let me ask you this way: Speaking of State Exhibit 64, the bullet, I ask
you whether or not you testified in front of the Warren Commission that that particular bullet could not have done the damage to Governor Connally as there were too many bullet fragments in Governor Connally's wrist. Did you or did you not answer that in front of the Warren Commission in answer to a question by Mr. Specter? It appears on Page 382 of your testimony of the Warren Report about the middle of the page.
A: It reads as follows: "Could that bullet possibly have gone through President Kennedy in 388," Mr. Specter's question. "Through President Kennedy's head --" what is 388?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: The one on the right.
A: (Continuing) "and remain intact in the way you see it now?" "Definitely not." "And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?" "No, for the reason there are too many fragments described in that wrist."
MR. OSER: Thank you, Doctor, that is the point I am talking about.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, referring back to that same paragraph in the clinical summary, in the next
sentence you said, "According to newspaper reports (Washington Post November 23, 1963) Bob Jackson, a Dallas 'Times Herald' photographer, said he looked around as he heard the shots and saw a rifle barrel disappearing into a window on an upper floor of the nearby Texas School Book Depository Building." Can you tell me who called that particular newspaper article to your attention?
A: Are you referring to Page 979 of the Hearing?
Q: No, sir, I am back on your original autopsy report, Page 2.
A: I have it.
Q: The sentence right after you said that Governor Connally was wounded by the same gunfire.
A: What was that sentence?
Q: Right after "gunfire."
A: "Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire." This is part of the autopsy report I signed.
Q: Can you tell me who called that particular newspaper article to your attention, and why?
A: As I recall, it was Dr. Humes who mentioned this article to me.
Q: Colonel, do you customarily take notice of newspaper articles in an autopsy report?
A: At times it is done.
Q: Therefore, Doctor, am I correct in stating that particular autopsy report signed by you was based partially on hearsay evidence, is that correct? By that I mean evidence received by someone other than you having actual personal knowledge of the thing?
A: Having not been at the scene I had to get information from somebody else.
Q: Did you have occasion to read a newspaper article of November 22 or 23, which reported there were four to six shots fired and they came from the grassy knoll, being stated by Miss Jean Hill? Did you read that before you made your report?
A: I don't recall reading that before I made the report. I may have been aware at that time of conflicting reports as regards the number and the difference in the direction of the shots, but I cannot pinpoint the time.
Q: Since you are referring to the Washington Post --
A: Would you repeat that?
THE COURT: Mr. Oser, speak into the microphone, it may help a little bit.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Since you are dealing with the Washington Post article of November 23, 1963 in your
autopsy report, I wondered if you had an occasion to either read the article or have it brought to your attention, that one Charles Brehm, one of the spectators close to the Presidential limousine, saw material which appeared to be a sizeable portion of President Kennedy's skull --
MR. DYMOND: Objection, that is not in evidence.
THE COURT: This is not a prior contradictory statement, Mr. Oser, is it?
MR. OSER: I am asking if he took this into account when he --
THE COURT: Where are you reading from?
MR. OSER: An article taken out of the Washington Post on the same day as the article by Bob Jackson.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, that has no place in this trial at all.
THE COURT: Mr. Oser, I think you are enlarging the scope of the prior contradictory statement unless you can allege it was made in the report.
MR. OSER: I am trying to ascertain what hearsay they used to arrive at their report.
MR. DYMOND: If you permit that you will have to permit Counsel to go through every conflicting report that was reported by every alleged eyewitness to the assassina- tion and ask this witness whether they were taken into account. It certainly has no place in this trial and is completely irrelevant to the issues and irrelevant to the credibility and qualifications of the Doctor and irrelevant to the material on which he is testifying.
THE COURT: I believe that the witness did state a few moments ago that he was not there personally and they did have to accept what Mr. Oser termed as hearsay. I believe the question being put by the District Attorney is to find out what other hearsay evidence they received.
MR. OSER: That's right.
THE COURT: Can't you ask a specific question instead of reading the article?
MR. DYMOND: The thrust of my objection is that we have nothing before the Court to show this was even a bit of hearsay without even asking the Doctor whether he heard it. This is something that is purely out of the files of the District Attorney.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, the State is attempting to ascertain from the Colonel whether or not he based his conclusions or his autopsy report on any type of hearsay other than that type of hearsay that backed up what the Warren Commission wanted it to be, or the Federal Government. Strike Warren Commission and make it Federal Government.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, what I'm trying to impress on the Court is you have nothing before you to even show there is hearsay evidence to the effect of this statement that has been made by the District Attorney. That is completely outside the scope of the evidence in this case. We don't know any such contention was ever made by anybody.
THE COURT: If the witness signed part of a three-man report and you referred to the report without using exact words, I would permit it, which you did previously. I think a general question can be asked, did they interview any other person, without saying what those persons said.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, besides what you referred to in paragraph 2 of the report, were you furnished with any other alleged statements by any of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza, namely the witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22?
MR. DYMOND: Is this question restricted to before he signed the autopsy report?
MR. OSER: I am asking about at the time he signed the report.
THE COURT: It is restricted to that period.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Were you furnished statements by anyone else?
A: We based the statement on the people who had been at the scene.
THE COURT: Let me interrupt you a second. You say "we," I presume you mean you and the other two doctors?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Oser's question is, did you and the other two persons personally inter- view these people or get it from another source?
THE WITNESS: I personally talked to Secret Service Agent Kellerman. I personally talked to Admiral Burkley, the personal physician to President Kennedy. I personally talked to Admiral Galloway, who was referring to a third witness present at the scene. There may have been others leading us to the statement that to the best of our knowledge at that time there were three shots fired.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, speaking of the wound to the throat area of the President as you described it, after this bullet passed through the President's throat in the manner in which you described it, would the President have been able to talk?
A: I don't know.
Q: Do you have an opinion?
A: There are many factors influencing the ability to talk or not to talk after a shot.
Q: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?
A: I did not dissect the track in the neck.
Q: Why?
A: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would as the Court so to direct.
THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: We didn't remove the organs of the neck.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Why not, Doctor?
A: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the --
Q: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?
THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.
THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: You have said they did not, I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?
A: I had the cause of death.
Q: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?
A: As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck.
Q: I didn't hear you.
A: I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.
Q: You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why didn't do this as a pathologist?
A: From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the
bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at
the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A: Right.
Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.
Q: Can you give me approximately how far in this probe went?
A: The first fraction of an inch.
Q: If you had dissected this area, Doctor, wouldn't you have been able to ascertain what the track was, as you have described in this courtroom, without dissecting it?
A: I don't know.
Q: You don't know?
A: I don't know. Wounds are different in one case from another, and I did not dissect --
Q: Let me ask you this, Doctor: Let me ask you whether or not in dealing with this particular back of the neck wound, as you describe it, whether you dissected the skin area, took a cross-section of the skin, submitted that to microscopic examination, to ascertain whether or not there was any singed area or burnt area as a result of a high speed bullet passing through the skin? Did you or did you not do that?
A: I remember removing skin at the entry at the back of the neck, or I was present when this was done, and microscopic examination was made of this wound of entry.
Q: Is the result of that microscopic examination in this autopsy report?
A: No. I think it is part of the supplementary report where Dr. Humes describes the microscopic appearance of the wound of entry. I made a positive identification of entry in the back of the neck based on naked eye examination. I examined that very closely and it had the gross characteristics of the wound of entry.
Q: Isn't it the more accepted pathological procedure at an autopsy to submit a wound area such as this, or a cross-section of it, to microscopic examination to ascertain whether there is a scorch area or burn area of the skin to see if there was a high speed bullet passing through the skin?
MR. DYMOND: I would ask Counsel to confine his questions to one at a time.
THE COURT: Break the question down, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Is it not better pathological practice to dissect a skin wound area and submit this
cross-section to microscopic examination to determine whether or not there was any burn or signed area as a result of a high speed bullet passing through this area as opposed to a naked eye observation?
A: The microscopic examination of a wound is a supplementary examination which I have done many times, but in this case the gross characteristics were sufficient to me to make a positive identification of a wound of entry in the back of the neck. I think I saw microscopic sections. I was in the office of Dr. Humes, but again I don't remember the time of the examination of these microscopic sections.
Q: How about the results?
A: I don't remember the timing of the results of the microscopic sections.
Q: I am not asking you for the timing of the results, I am asking you for the results, Colonel.
A: From what I recall, Dr. Humes described alteration of the tissue at the level of the wound of entry. Do you have that supplementary report?
Q: I don't have it, that is why I am asking you if you have your notes here.
A: I don't have this microscopic report with me.
Q: You didn't burn your notes also, did you?
A: No.
Q: Colonel, you said you remember Agent Kellerman being in the autopsy room. Do you re- member having a conversation with Agent Kellerman at the time you were examining this wound of the President, and talking about that particular wound you said to the Agent that there were no lanes for an outlet of the shoulder wound? Do you remember telling him that, sir?
A: I remember stating that at the time I examined the wound of entry in the back I didn't find an exit corresponding to this entry. I don't remember to whom it was, it may have been Mr. Kellerman, it may have been one of the two FBI Agents.
Q: My question was, do you recall categorizing it as a shoulder wound as opposed to a neck wound to this person in the autopsy room?
A: I don't recall mentioning a shoulder wound. I am referring to a wound in the neck, in, the back of the neck, and a wound in the back of the head.
Q: If I told you, Colonel, that Agent Kellerman in his testimony --
MR. DYMOND: I object to this, Your Honor: "If I told you Agent Kellerman's testimony."
THE COURT: You cannot ask one witness to decide the credibility of another witness. I think you will have to do it a different way. The objection is sustained.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, in talking about the wound in the back of the President, can you tell me
whether or not in hit any bone?
THE COURT: Why don't you identify which wound you are talking about.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: State Exhibit 69, this one right here. Can you tell me whether that hit any bone in his neck?
A: From the X-rays it was determined that this bullet entering in the back of the neck, coming out in the front of the neck, did not strike major bones.
Q: Did it strike any bones?
A: There was no evidence of bone injury from the X-ray, and the X-ray is the basis to refer to to answer such a question.
Q: Now, since I asked you before about whether or not President Kennedy could have spoken, what was your opinion as to whether or not he could have said any words after receiving the wound in his back as described and depicted in S-69?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I think this is repetitious. The Doctor has already testified --
MR. OSER: Your Honor, what I am doing is --
THE COURT: When one person makes an objection will the other person let him finish before he starts speaking.
MR. DYMOND: The Doctor has already testified he does not know whether the President could speak and there are many factors which would have to be considered. This is merely the same question.
MR. OSER: I am asking for his opinion. He has not given me his opinion.
THE COURT: I think, Mr. Dymond, that the State is going into another area, and because of that I will permit the question.
THE WITNESS: To be able to talk you need integrity of the vocal folds or vocal cords, and I didn't see the vocal folds of President Kennedy.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Why didn't you?
A: From what I remember I didn't -- well, from the best of my recollection the wound was outside of the vocal fold area.