Q: [ALVIN OSER] Isn't it a fact, Doctor, at the time you were performing the autopsy, or assisting in performing the autopsy, you were of the opinion the wound in the back of the President was not a through-and-through gunshot wound?
A: At the time of the autopsy on that night?
Q: Right.
A: Having a wound of entry and no wound of exit, and negative X-rays showing no bullets in the cadaver at that time, the time of the autopsy, I was puzzled by the fact of having an entry and no exit. However, this cleared up after the conversation between Dr. Humes and the surgeons at Dallas who stated that included a small wound in the front of the neck in their incision of tracheotomy to keep the breathing of the President up.
Q: On the night of the 22nd of November you did have occasion to see the wound in the area of the throat?
A: On the skin?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I examined the surgical incision, but I don't recall seeing the small wound de- scribed by the Dallas surgeons. It was part of the surgical incision and I didn't see it.
Q: You saw the incision.
A: In the front of the neck, definitely.
Q: You were puzzled by what you found in the back, is that right?
A: I was not puzzled by what I found in the back, I was puzzled by having a definite entry in the back, a bruise in the plural region, that is the region of the cavity of the chest, which was bruised, between the entry in the back and the exit in the front, and the three of us, the prosectors, we saw that bruise, and the following day knowing that a small wound had been seen in the front of the neck that made very much sense to me, an entry in the back, a wound in the front and a bruise in between due to the passage of that bullet.
Q: On the night you had the President's body on the autopsy table, if you had dissected that particular area would you not have been able to ascertain it was a through-and-through gunshot wound?
A: I could have, but it is a difficult question to answer for the reason you deal with many anatomical structures. Tissues are very tight, firm.
Q: You were a pathologist on that night, were you not?
A: Yes, I was, and still am.
Q: How was the President's body on the autopsy table? Can you give me the position it was in, if you remember?
A: He was on his back and I examined all external areas of the cadaver. While on the table I asked to have the cadaver turned over so as to make an examination of the skin of the entire cadaver.
Q: What position was the body in, or cadaver in, when you measured from the mastoid tip and from the tip of the acromion in, was it on its face, forward or back at the time?
A: I remember taking the measurements but the exact position of the cadaver I don't recall for the reason we removed the cadaver to examine it. To take measurements it had to be held to take those measurements.
Q: I will ask you, Colonel, if the cadaver had been lying on an autopsy table with its head facing to the right and the left side or its head on the table and you measured from the acromion down, from that position wouldn't the measurement be different than if the body had been lying on its right side with the mastoid turned more to the left? Wouldn't the measurements differ in a good number of centimeters?
A: There would be some variation depending on the movement of the head. From what I recall we had the measurements made with the head turned in a generally forward direction.
Q: You can't recall whether or not the President's body was on its back or stomach at the time?
A: No. The body was moved. It was not remaining in the same position all the time during the course of the autopsy.
Q: Can you define rigor mortis for me?
THE COURT: I cannot hear you, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Can you define rigor mortis for me?
A: Rigor mortis, that is r-i-g-o-r, one word and m-o-r-t-i-s is a separate word, rigor mortis means literally stiffness of death in Latin. It is a normal process that occurs after death. The degree of rigor mortis, the time of onset of rigor mortis, varies from one case to the other.
Q: In the case of President Kennedy in your autopsy report signed by you, can you tell me why the degree of rigor mortis or any mention of rigor mortis is not contained in this autopsy report?
A: There is beginning rigor mortis on of the autopsy report, and that is the only reference I find regarding rigor mortis.
Q: My question now is, would varying degrees of rigor mortis have anything to do with the measuring of wounds in the skin area of a particular body as opposed to when the body was alive?
A: Rigor mortis may make measurements difficult because of the stiffness of certain anatomic structures and you have difficulties in measuring due to that resistance of the cadaver to movement.
Q: Colonel, in speaking of State Exhibit 69, can you give me the angle of entry into the back of President Kennedy as depicted in the photograph, or as you saw it rather?
A: Does Exhibit 69 show the right side of the head and right side of the upper chest with an arrow in the back of the neck and an arrow in the front of the back?
Q: That is correct. I am pointing to it. This one here. What is this angle?
A: This shows that the wound of entry in the back of the neck is higher than the wound of exit in the front of the neck.
Q: Did you calculate what the angle was in degrees?
A: This can't be made with great precision because of variables.
Q: Did you calculate it, Colonel, was the question?
A: I remember a figure which was somewhere in the records within 45 degrees.
Q: Within 45 degrees?
A: To give a general impression this may be much less. What I am saying is that it was not beyond 45 degrees in relation to the horizontal. It may be much less than that.
Q: In referring to State Exhibit 68, and using the body form diagram in the right-hand side showing the back of an individual, if I were to draw a perpendicular line through the individual, through the mid-line, can you tell me, Doctor, what the lateral angle from right to left that this particular projectile took going through the neck as it described in S-69?
A: Mr. Oser, you have shown the neck wound on one exhibit and the head wound on another.
Q: I will restate my question. Taking this back view of an individual human, draw your line down the mid-line of this individual, can you tell me whether or not you all calculated the angle at which this bullet proceeded through this back wound area that you described in the neck, how much of an angle from right to left did this bullet go in?
A: Well --
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object to that on the ground it is a question which is impossible to answer. You couldn't have an angle between a perpendicular line and a line going in from above and behind. If you wanted to figure an angle on that you would have to have it passing between the path of the bullet and a line drawn through the center of the subject. That is the only way you can answer a question of that kind.
THE COURT: I understand it. In other words, your horizontal line down from the head through the mid-line, a fictitious mid-line, would be the straight line. You have a horizontal line so you have a right angle, and you have to have an entrance and an exit. Unless he knows where the exit is he cannot give an angle, and he hasn't testified he knows where the exit was.
MR. OSER: He testified it went out through the front.
THE COURT: He didn't tell you what part of the front it came out.
MR. OSER: His testimony was it exited where the arrow is on -69.
THE COURT: I don't recall him testifying to that. Rephrase your question. Doctor, can you give us the angle from your autopsy examination of the neck, as far as you did go, can you give us the angle of the entrance and exit of this bullet from the neck of the President, unless you knew where it came out?
THE WITNESS: In relation to the horizontal plane or in relation to the right and left?
BY MR. OSER:
Q: In relation to right and left. My original question was, did he calculate such an
angle?
A: From what I recall at the angle I was referring to, it was within 45 degrees, was in relation to the horizontal as far as the difference of level between the entry in the back of the neck and the exit in the front of the neck. I don't recall angles in relation to a right and left direction.
Q: Doctor, for a bullet to pass through this particular part of the body as described in S-69, and not hit any bone, would you say that was an extremely small corridor for such a bullet to go through and not hit a bone?
A: It is possible this bullet produced an entry and exit, as I testified, without producing gross evidence of bone damage.
Q: I think you testified before, Doctor, there was no bone damage in the area of the neck?
A: Yes.
Q: Could you tell me, Colonel, from viewing the autopsy X-rays, whether or not there were any metallic fragments or deposits in the area of the wound described in S-69?
A: I don't remember seeing fragments in the area of the neck. I remember seeing numerous fragments in the X-ray of the head but that corresponded to another wound.
Q: In referring once again, Colonel to S-67 for identification, the five-page report signed by you in January, 1967, can you tell me why this report was prepared?
A: Please repeat your question.
Q: Can you tell me why this report was prepared, the one you signed in January, 1967?
A: The purpose of this, as I recall, was to correlate our autopsy report of November 1963, and the X-rays and photographs of the wounds, because we had seen the X-rays at the time of the autopsy but we hadn't seen the photographs in November 1963 or in March 1964, so in 1967 we were asked to look at those X-rays and photographs.
Q: By whom were you asked to do this?
THE COURT: Are you waiting for an answer?
MR. OSER: Yes.
THE COURT: I thought you were referring to your notes, Doctor.
MR. OSER: I asked the witness --
THE COURT: I heard your question. I was just wanting to know if you were waiting for an answer.
THE WITNESS: I think I went first to the -- I saw these photographs and X-rays to the best of my recollection at the archives of the United States in January, 1967, the photographs, for the first time.
THE COURT: He didn't ask you that question. He wanted to know who asked you to do this. Was that your question?
MR. OSER: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: As I recall it was Mr. Eardley. There are many names involved in this. I think it was Mr. Eardley at the Department of Justice and I had the authority to go there from the military.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Can you tell me whether or not you were asked to do this summary in January 1967 in
regard to a panel review that was going to be done by Mr. William H. Carns, Russell S. Fisher, Mr. Russell H. Morgan and Mr. Alan R. Moritz.
A: In January 1967 when I signed S-67, to the best of my recollection, I was not aware of this panel review which took place in 1968, if you are referring to an independent panel review.
Q: I am.
A: It was composed of W.H. Carns, Russell H. Fisher, Russell H. Morgan and Alan R. Moritz.
Q: That is correct, Colonel.
A: I don't remember knowing in 1967 that these four names were reviewing the evidence to the best of my recollection.
Q: Are you familiar with their work?
A: I have read this. I was made aware of this panel review, I had received this panel review in February 1969.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I am going to a new area. Do you want to take a coffee break now?
THE COURT: Yes. Sheriff, take the Jury upstairs and we will have a 10-minute recess.
(SHORT RECESS.)