THE COURT: Are both sides ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Yes.
MR. OSER: Yes.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, referring to the autopsy report of November 24, 1963, of the 25th, the report, the original autopsy report --
A: I signed it on Sunday, 24 November, 1963 far as I can remember.
Q: Referring to that again on in the clinical summary in Paragraph 3 you have it marked there that shortly -- in the third paragraph on of that report you state that "shortly following the wounding of the two men the car was driven to Parkland Hospital in Dallas. In the Emergency Room of that hospital the President was attended by Dr. Malcolm Perry. Telephone communication with Dr. Perry on November 23, 1963 develops the following information relative to the observations made by Dr. Perry and the procedures performed prior to death." Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have occasion, Colonel, to speak to Dr. Perry and I ask you if you did whether or not Dr. Perry classified the wound he found in the throat?
MR. DYMOND: I object on the grounds that he never --
THE COURT: First let's find out if the witness spoke with Dr. Perry.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did either you, Colonel, or one of your fellow members of the autopsy report speak to Dr. Perry in Dallas?
A: I personally did not talk to Dallas, to a Dallas doctor but Dr. Humes called him after the autopsy and he told me so.
Q: Did you have a conversation with Dr. Humes regarding what was learned in Dallas, Texas from the Dallas doctors concerning --
THE COURT: Make it one question.
MR. OSER: I just asked him whether or not he did.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you talk to Dr. Humes about his conversation?
A: I did.
THE COURT: That breaks it down.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Will you tell us whether or not you had any knowledge that the wound in the area where the tracheotomy was performed was classified as that of an entrance wound in
Dallas, Texas?
A: All I learned is that the communication was between Dr. Humes and one or more of the Dallas surgeons, maybe Dr. Perry or it may be others, but they were people taking care of President Kennedy in the Emergency Room, that there was a small wound in the front of the neck of President Kennedy and that they included that small wound of approximately 5 millimeters in diameter in their tracheotomy incision.
Q: Did you have available to you a further description of this small wound that they found in Dallas, Texas prior to performing the tracheotomy?
A: Outside of the location in the anterior, in the front of the neck, and the description I don't recall there was more detail about that wound found by the Dallas surgeons.
Q: Can you tell me, Colonel, whether or not you had at your disposal any information from Dr. Kemp Clark?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we have not been objecting to hearsay but at this point any information of this type would be hearsay unless this doctor spoke with that person and even then it would still be hearsay.
MR. OSER: I didn't ask what the content was, I asked him if he had any information available from Dr. Kemp Clark.
THE COURT: He can say yes or no. Did you understand?
THE WITNESS: There was a Dr. Clark mentioned. I did not talk to him.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you have an occasion to talk to Dr. Charles Carrico from Dallas, Texas?
A: I did not.
Q: Do you know whether or not Commander Humes or Commander Boswell spoke to this doctor?
A: Again I cannot pinpoint names of these Dallas surgeons with whom Dr. Humes communicated with. I know the results of the communication but I cannot say he did or did not speak to this one or that one.
Q: Now, can you describe for me as to how large this wound was in the throat area that you saw the night of November 22, 1963?
A: It was a long sideways surgical incision.
Q: Could you tell me Colonel whether or not you could have taken this particular area, or the particular wound in the throat, and meshed the two sides of the incision back together again and ascertain whether or not this was a wound within the incision caused by some missile?
A: I examined this surgical wound and I did not see the small wound described by the Dallas surgeons along that surgical incision. I did not see it.
Q: If you did not see it then, Colonel, I take it then this was a small type of wound if it was there?
A: According to the telephone conversation it was a small wound in the front of the neck.
Q: Did you have occasion, Colonel, to dissect this particular wound area and to make a cross-section and submit it to microscopic --
THE COURT: I'm going to stop this if it is repetitious.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, he described that he tracked it from the back to the front.
MR. DYMOND: We object on the grounds it is repetitious.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, I have previously talked about dissecting and submitting to microscopic examination the wound the Colonel described in the back area and I am now on the throat area or what he alleges is the exit wound of the projectile.
MR. DYMOND: He covered that this morning and said he did not and that was covered very, very lengthy.
THE COURT: He said he did not and I don't know where you were when he said that, Mr. Oser. Go ahead and answer the question, Doctor.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you dissect any area of the neck muscles which might have been thought to be an exit wound of the President's neck.
THE COURT: He said he didn't dissect anything.
THE WITNESS: I made some measurement of, of course to determine the wound, this was the wound of entry in the back of the neck and I examined both edges of the surgeon's surgical incision in the front of the neck. I don't remember a dissection of this area. I remember a very close gross examination.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, I believe you testified before that normally in gunshot wounds, correct me if I am wrong, that when a gunshot wound enters an area of the body it leaves a
relatively small hole. What happens to that wound when it exits in regard to the size in comparison to the entry wound?
A: There is a variation from one case to the other. The wound of exit may be small. It may be smaller than the wound of entry. It may be larger than the wound of entry. This, of course, depends on various factors.
Q: I believe you also testified you have done some work with firing of rifles at the Arsenal and so forth?
A: Yes.
Q: What is the usual thing that you find in comparing sizes of entry wounds as to an exit wound?
A: Again, there is a variation from one case to the other. The exit is often larger than the entry but this is not always the case.
Q: Now, Colonel, using State Exhibit 68, the diagram of the wound showing on the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet in the back area it has a description of seven by four millimeters. Can you tell me whether or not that is a correct measurement of the entrance wound into the back area of the President?
A: As I remember I took those measurements and they were from one edge of the wound in one diameter and from one edge of the wound to the other in another diameter. At this time I would like to say there is some variation in taking measurements of a wound because you may take into account the edge itself or the abrasion, the rubbing around the edge of the wound, and that may explain some differences in taking measurements.
Q: Can you give me, Colonel, the approximate size in inches or parts of inches that seven by four millimeters would be?
A: Seven millimeters is approximately one-quarter of an inch. These are approximate things.
Q: And what is your answer, Colonel, about one-quarter of an inch, you say?
A: I have to consult notes because it requires conversion from metric units to inch units. This is close enough to say that seven millimeters is approximately one-quarter of an inch.
Q: Colonel, I show you State Exhibit 66 and ask you whether or not a bullet, or the pellet contained in that particular cartridge, could have caused the hole as you have described?
A: Yes, if this is a --
Q: I am merely asking you, Colonel, from looking at that particular pellet whether or not that could have caused the hole such as you described?
A: This is compatible with it.
Q: Colonel, can you give me the measurements of the wound in the area of the front of the President's neck that I am pointing to here on State Exhibit 69?
A: As I recall, it was given by the Dallas surgeons as approximately five millimeters in diameter.
Q: Can you convert approximately five millimeters in diameter to a part of an inch for me, please?
A: Approximately three-sixteenths of one inch corresponds to five millimeters.
Q: Referring, Colonel, to your Summary Report, State-67 for purposes of identification, which you signed on 26 January, 1967, can you tell me why you did not list the size of the wound that you say is the exit wound in the throat of the President?
A: Because I did not, I did not see that wound in the front. I did not, I don't know why it is not there.
Q: You say you did not see it?
A: I did not see the wound of exit in the skin. I saw a hole of exit in the shirt of the President.
Q: But in speaking of the throat area, or skin area of the President, relative to his throat you said it was approximately five millimeters and you later said that Commander Humes received this information from Dallas.
A: The wound that was in the front of the neck I obtained that information from Dr. Humes.
Q: Therefore would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you describe it is larger than the wound in the throat area?
MR. DYMOND: We object to this. First of all, the Doctor testified that these are approximate measurements on wounds in the skin. Secondly, the doctor testified that he never saw the front bullet wound and consequently an answer on that would have to be based on measurements made by someone else, told to someone else, and then included in the report.
MR. OSER: All the results, if the Court please, from two autopsy reports signed by this witness stating that -- I believe he said everything in here is true and correct when I asked him, then I asked him if he wished to change anything in here at the beginning of his testimony and he said no. I'm trying to ascertain what he told Defense Counsel on direct examination he stated this was an exit wound and I am trying to find out whether the hole in the back is larger than the front and whether or not it is compatible with a wound from this type of bullet.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the Doctor testified what he based his conclusions on and further testified that he never did see the front wound in the neck and consequently the question is impossible of answer.
THE COURT: He has testified he is familiar with the information received from Dr. Humes from the surgeons in Dallas, Texas and he knows it was in the report and that the information was communicated to him and he was aware of it. I understand that Mr. Oser's question is whether the entrance wound from the rear was larger than the exit wound, which was the information given by the surgeon in Dallas, Texas.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor has consistently ruled throughout the trial that a witness cannot relate what someone else related to him.
THE COURT: Ordinarily, I agree but it was advised to him and he was made cognizant of it when he signed the original report, when he signed the report he either knew that as a fact which was received it from Commander Humes who received it from Dallas. I will permit the question. You are asking Dr. Finck if from the information he had whether or not the measurements of the alleged entrance wound as you wish to call it, alleged, is not larger than the information received from Dallas of the entrance wound in the front. I will permit you to ask it.
MR. DYMOND: To which Counsel respectfully objects and reserves a Bill of Exception on the grounds this is hearsay evidence making the entire line of questioning, particularly this question, the answer to the question, the objection and ruling of the Court and the entire record parts of the bill.
MR. OSER: Could I have the witness answer my question. Will you answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question.
THE REPORTER: Question: "Therefore, would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you described it is larger than the wound in the throat area?"
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, that is not the question you stated you were ruling on. You said you were ruling on the question whether it was larger than the information indicated.
MR. OSER: I will ask that question.
THE WITNESS: Whether or not it was larger?
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Than the information you received from the doctors in Dallas.
MR. DYMOND: Object now on the ground that he didn't receive the information from the Doctor.
THE COURT: I just ruled that he signed his name to the report and under that exception I will permit the question. Do you understand the question?
MR. OSER: Let me ask you again, Doctor --
THE COURT: No, because then I will have to be ruling on different things if you change the question each time.
MR. OSER: Then I'll ask that the Court Reporter read the question I asked.
THE REPORTER: Question: "Therefore, would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you described it is larger than the wound in the throat area" -- then he added the second part of the question, Your Honor, which says, "than the information you received from the doctors in Dallas?"
THE WITNESS: I don't know 'cause I measured the wound of entry whereas I had no way of measuring the wound of exit and the wound could have been slightly smaller, the same size or slightly larger because all I have is somebody saying it was approximately 5 millimeters in diameter.
THE COURT: We have covered it well and you can go on to something else now, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: You said the back wound was seven by four millimeters, Doctor?
A: Approximately, all these measurements are approximately.
Q: Why approximate, Colonel?
A: Because the edge of the wound can be measured in different ways. The edge of the wound is something that you measure with a ruler and you take approximate measurements and you write them down.
Q: Now in speaking about the head wound in State Exhibit 70, I believe you testified on direct examination that you found a wound in the back of the head approximately one inch to the right and slightly above the exterior occipital protuberance, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Does State 70 show the correct location of this measurement?
A: The profile of the head showing the wound in the back of the head and exit on the right side?
Q: I am only now speaking of the wound marked "in," does that correctly indicate, where the word "in" is on the back of the head where the wound was.
A: Again these drawings are approximate and the measurements are in relation to a bony prominence and from what I recall the wound was higher than the bony rominence, external occipital protuberance, the wound was slightly higher in relation to a traversal line running through this prominent occipital protuberance.
Q: Am I correct in saying that State Exhibit 70, the diagram, is not entirely correct in stating the letters "in"?
A: It is a diagram showing --
MR. OSER: I ask that the witness answer yes or no and then you can explain.
THE COURT: You should answer.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Am I correct in saying -- I ask that the Reporter read it back.
(Whereupon, the question was read back by the Reporter.)
A: Having seen the photographs I think that the wound was higher and therefore there is a difference between the drawing and the photograph.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Then the answer to my question is the photograph as it is drawn in State Exhibit 70 is not correct, is that correct?
A: I would not say this drawing is incorrect.
Q: Colonel, let me ask you: Is this hole right here where I am pointing to in the correct position as you saw it, right now on that diagram?
A: We are looking at things only on one plane.
Q: Yes or no, and then you can explain your answer.
A: I can't compare this with the examination done from the back looking in the back of the head. We are looking at the side of the head here with the wound visible in the back, but we are not facing the back of the head.
Q: Colonel, didn't you previously testify that that exhibit was acquired to help you in the autopsy?
A: Yes, it did. It was the only thing available to us, and for practical purposes this drawing, this drawing is adequate to show the approximate location of the wound in the head of the President.
Q: It only shows approximately and doesn't show exactly, is that correct?
A: It can't show it exactly. It is not a photograph. The word exactly is excessive.
MR. OSER: I think the question calls for a yes or no answer, and then he can explain, Your Honor.
MR. DYMOND: I submit the question is one that requires judgment of depth in a two-dimension sketch. There is nothing at all on this sketch which would permit a person to give an estimate of depth. That is the difference between the location of something laterally and from the back between this and an actual photograph.
THE COURT: If I may suggest that Mr. Dymond used himself for the witness to demonstrate on, for Dr. Finck to give the exact location of entrance and why don't you do it on you, Mr. Oser, and get it over with.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I think the State has a right to ascertain just how accurate these two exhibits were that were used by the Doctor in his testimony and this is what I am trying to do.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor --
THE COURT: I am going to rule Mr. Dymond is correct. Rephrase the question. It does not show the three dimensions, but you can bring that out in the questioning if you care to do so.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, did you use those two exhibits in your testimony in front of the Warren Commission?
A: As I recall I used those exhibits in my testimony.
Q: Did you use the descriptive sheet of the autopsy in your testimony before the Warren Commission?
A: I don't remember using it.
Q: Can you tell me, Colonel, whether or not on the Exhibit State-70, the area I am now pointing to which I believe is indicated by the letter "A," whether the location on this exhibit is in the same location as indicated in the head area as depicted in the autopsy descriptive sheet?
A: Approximately, it is in the back of the head, approximately.
Q: Approximately. All right. Now, referring to the same exhibit now pointing to an area in the neck of the sketch depicted on State-70, and I ask you whether or not the point I'm not pointing to is supposed to represent a bullet wound hole in this particular picture?
A: This represents a bullet wound in the back of the neck.
Q: I ask you whether or not the location where this particular wound is indicated on this exhibit is in the same position as exhibited on the autopsy descriptive report prepared in the morgue or on the autopsy table?
A: Approximately, yes. I would like to say that the wound on this exhibit -- What is the number of this one?
Q: 68.
A: The position of the wound of entry in Exhibit 68 was higher than shown on Exhibit 68.
Q: Colonel, will you please step down from the witness stand and indicate on State Exhibit 68, the right-hand figure drawn there, would you please with this pen mark the area on that exhibit the hole as it is depicted in State Exhibit 69 and 70?
A: I don't have here on this exhibit the acromion on the shoulder but what I can do is show an approximate location higher.
Q: Do you have the acromion shown in State Exhibit 70 -- Describe the acromion.
A: The acromion is the bony prominence in the shoulder and I can't pinpoint this on this exhibit.
Q: Well, then, from what you recall having seen, would you mark it on there?
A: Approximately?
Q: Yes.
A: I would say that the wound was higher.
Q: Now, Colonel, would you put your initials by that little mark and then you can resume your seat. Now, Colonel --
A: Mr. Oser, may I?
Q: Certainly.
A: Expand on this?
Q: Certainly.
A: On of Exhibit S-67, the paragraph entitled "The Neck Wound," "The Location," that is what you are referring to?
Q: I know what I am referring to, Colonel.
A: States the drawing itself may be somewhat misleading as to the location making it appear at a point lower than it actually was.
Q: Colonel, if the photographs were misleading then why did you use them?
MR. DYMOND: I object, Your Honor, he didn't say photographs.
THE COURT: Let him finish the question and don't answer until he finishes the question. Finish your question then, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Then, Colonel, if the photograph that you have just testified to, read from your report and it stated it was misleading then why did you use the photograph in your testimony in front of the Warren Commission and here in court today?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object on the ground that the Doctor did not testify he used photographs in his Warren Report testimony. Mr. Oser is referring to photographs.
MR. OSER: All right, Your Honor, the illustration as it appears in State-70.
THE WITNESS: I could not use photographs in my testimony.
[page is missing from transcript]
BY MR. OSER:
Q: That wasn't my question, Colonel. My question was: "If the exhibit or the drawing
State 70, which I am pointing to right now, in your summary report says is misleading, why did you use this exhibit in testifying with it and about it in front of the Warren Commission and here in Court today?"
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I object again, because that is not the exhibit which the Doctor said is misleading in this report. Unless I am incorrect, the exhibit he states was misleading was State 68.
THE COURT: Let's ask the Doctor which exhibit did you refer to as being misleading?
THE WITNESS: Let me refer again to that of State-67. Photographs No. 11, 12, 38 and 39 verify the location of the wound as stated in the report. Warren Commission Exhibit 397 includes a drawing which purports to show the approximate location of the wound and specifically notes it was five and a half inches from the tip of the mastoid process behind the right ear and the same thing 14 centimeters from the tip of the right acromion. Photograph 12, 11, 38 and 39 concern the accuracy of the measurements. The drawing itself may be somewhat misleading as to the location of the wound. Now if I would know what that refers to because no one photograph shows the wound of the back of the neck and the wound of the throat. Photographs 26 and 38 show the wound in the back of the neck higher from the horizontal plane than the wound in the throat. What is Exhibit 397? Is this Exhibit 397 of the Warren Report, is State-67?
BY MR. OSER:
Q: 397, Colonel, is the handwritten --
A: It includes a drawing in Volume 17, Page 45.
Q: Yes, that is part of Exhibit 397, along with the written notes of Dr. Humes.
A: May I see it?
Q: Yes. Now, Colonel --
A: Let me answer your question now.
THE COURT: He wants to answer your question.
THE WITNESS: So, Exhibit, Commission Exhibit 397 including the drawing which you just showed to me in Volume 17, Page 45 is the drawing to which this discrepancy refers on of State-67.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Can you tell me, Colonel, when you found out about this discrepancy in that drawing,
the discrepancy you have so marked on this exhibit?
A: At the time I was comparing this Exhibit 397, Volume 17, Page 45, with the photographs of the autopsy which I saw for the first time in January, 1967.
Q: So then am I correct in stating, Colonel, that approximately the discrepancies in this particular autopsy descriptive sheet, is that correct?
A: We stated so in that statement issued on the 26th of January, 1967 and I can say that you can expect differences between schematic drawings which are made ahead of time and used as a work sheet and photographs.
Q: Colonel, what do you mean by drawings made ahead of time, are you telling me the descriptive sheet was drawn before the autopsy of the President?
A: Not the wounds but the contour of the body to mark the location, the autopsy work sheet. Many pathologists use these to record their findings, work sheets that may show the front and back, the head and other things.
Q: Well, when was this writing put in here that I am now pointing to, was that put on at the time of the autopsy or before?
A: Oh, definitely around the time of examination. From my recollection this was made between the two other prosectors and I participated in this by making some measurements which I recognize here.