Q: [ALVIN OSER] Now, Colonel, I again, speaking about State Exhibit 70 and the hole I am now pointing to designated as "A" on this exhibit, can you tell me whether or not there were any other characteristics that you found other than the beveling or coning effect that led you to believe or state that this was an entrance wound?
A: No, and I would like to explain that the beveling in bone is among the best factors to use in determining the direction of the bullet. Having seen beveling from inside in that wound in the back of the head in the bone I made a positive identification of a wound of entrance in the back of the head. This is firm.
Q: Colonel, did you dissect the scalp area and submit a section to microscopic examination?
A: Again, I examined that wound.
Q: Yes or no and then you can explain.
A: I don't remember. I don't remember. The microscopic examination is not made at the time of the gross autopsy it is made sometime later from samples taken at the autopsy and I don't remember the details in that respect.
Q: You don't recall having seen the results of any such tests?
A: I remember reading microscopic descriptions by Dr. Humes and I believe it is in his supplemental autopsy report describing the microscopic sections taken from samples.
Q: Does it appear in your official autopsy report signed by you in November 1963?
A: I don't see a microscopic description in the autopsy report of 1963 from Page 978 through 983 of the Volume XVI.
Q: As of this date, Colonel, in February 1969 can you tell us the results or any microscopic examinations of a cross-section of the wound in the scalp of the President of the United States?
A: I have no further information beyond the description I read made by Dr. Humes.
Q: Have you ever been to Dallas, Texas, more particularly Dealey Plaza to see the site of the assassination?
A: I have not.
Q: The description on State Exhibit 68 of the head wound indicated here says, correct me if I am wrong "Ragged 15 x 6 millimeters." Is that correct as you found them?
A: For practical purposes to show the approximate -- yes, for practical purpose ragged means the edges were irregular and I testified this morning that when a bullet strikes soft tissue with underlying bone close to it that bone offers a great resistance and the appearance of the edge of the wound, and I have seen this repeatedly in many cases, the appearances of the edge of the wound is different than when there is bone close to the skin or when there was a soft tissue beneath the skin, and that explains the differences of the characteristics of those two wounds. One the wound in the neck, no immediate underlying bone and with very irregular edges and the other in the back of the head with the skull under the scalp and offering immediate resistance to the projectile.
Q: Colonel, can you give me the angle of entrance of this particular wound on a horizontal plane downward?
A: The angle of -- of the wound in the head?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: In the head. Again, this is difficult to determine because the wound of exit is very large and the best we could do is to take the approximate center of this very irregular wound and draw a line between this approximate center and the smaller wound of entry in the back of the head and draw a general direction. The --
Q: What was the angle you calculated, if you calculated one? A: Again I have that figure "within 45 degrees," an approximate measure, but the degree of 45 degrees I remember is better to quote for the neck wound than for the head wound for the reasons I mentioned. The head wound was so large, the exit, it is difficult, extremely difficult to give an angle for this.
Q: Colonel, could you tell me, using myself as an example, approximately what the loca- tion in my head would be 100 millimeters above my external occipital protuberance?
A: 100 millimeters is approximately 4 inches. This is the external occipital protuberance. My finger is approximately 4 inches and at a place here which is approximately the location here.
Q: About right here, Colonel, 'cause I can't see you.
A: Approximately here, Mr. Oser.
Q: Now, Colonel, I believe you said that you are familiar with the report of Drs. Carns, Fisher, Morgan, and Moritz, as having reviewed and returned in 1968, I ask you whether or not you disagree with their findings, Colonel, that after viewing the X-rays of the President they found a hole in the President's head 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance?
A: I can't say I agree or disagree with this for the following reasons: This measurement refers to X-ray films. On of this Panel Review -- what is the exhibit number of this?
Q: I now mark it as State-73 -- 72, I am sorry.
A: On of this Panel Review of 1968, which I read for the first time in 1969, I read: "One of the lateral films of the skull" -- and this refers to a general section heading you will find on "Examination of X-ray Films" on Page 9, as I read this, I interpret this statement of as a measurement based on X-ray films. So there was a difference between measurements made on X-ray films and photographs or photograph ual measurements on the cadaver.
Q: Do you disagree with the fact that these four doctors are qualified in the field of Pathology?
A: They are definitely, three of them, three of them are qualified pathologists, and the fourth doctor is a radiologist.
Q: Radiology is in what field of medicine?
A: Radiology is the study of X-rays for diagnostic reasons or for the reasons of treating with radiation.
Q: Would you say, Colonel, that a radiologist is the best qualified person in the field of medicine to read an X-ray?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you find in reading that report any mention by these four gentlemen, or these four doctors, of any hole in the President's head being one inch slightly above the occipital protuberance bone?
A: I do not find the measurement as one inch to the right of the external occipital protuberance in this State-72.
Q: Colonel, could you step down, and using State Exhibit 70, show me the approximate location in correlation to the size of the diagram, or the illustration, where 100 millimeters would be above the occipital protuberance bone.
A: On which one?
Q: I will repeat my question. Using State Exhibit 70, Colonel, would you show me the approximate location of 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone in relation to the size of this particular illustration as it appears in this exhibit.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, this exhibit does not purport to be a scale exhibit and as I said before, it is not a three- dimensional photograph. I doubt if the Doctor could locate this bone, and if he could, any estimate of distance would be useless because it does not purport to be to scale.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, the Doctor used this exhibit saying this is the approximate location he found, and I am now asking him the approximate location that four doctors examining X-rays said it was 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone, and I think he can tell the approximate location of that.
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond's objection is that it is not a picture of the rear of the base of the skull, and for that one reason Mr. Dymond doesn't see how the witness could put it any relation with respect to the rear of the skull and moving laterally across the skull.
MR. DYMOND: He has already done this on Mr. Oser's head, which is three dimensional.
MR. OSER: Still and all he used this exhibit showing at least a portion of the back of the skull and a line going over the top of the skull which would indicate at least to me the approximate mid-part of the head, and I fail to see why the Colonel cannot indicate the approximate location 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone. I know it is not drawn to scale, but I am only asking him for the approximate location.
THE COURT: Could he not do it better in the figure in your autopsy sheet there?
MR. OSER: But, Your Honor, that may well be, but since the Doctor has used this exhibit and said this is where he found a hole, I think the State has a right also to show as a result of the testimony where approximately 100 millimeters was.
THE COURT: You understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, but I can't see how I can be asked to place a wound that was measured on X-rays, I don't understand how I can be asked to put on a illustrative drawing showing the location of the wound as we approximately saw it and not based on measurements on X-rays. Those 100 millimeters --
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Tell me how did the illustrator do it if he didn't have the X-rays and photographs?
A: He did not.
Q: Then how did he do it?
A: Because he was told by Dr. Humes about the approximate location of that wound in the back of the head on the right side and approximately one inch from the external occipital protuberance and slightly above it.
Q: He was told by Commander Humes that?
A: To my knowledge the illustrator making those drawings made them according to the data provided by Dr. Humes.
Q: Let me ask you this then, Colonel: Am I correct in stating that you said that the area I am pointing to right now is the approximate location where four inches above my protuberance bone is?
A: On your head I agree but the measurement of 100 millimeters was made on an X-ray and that is why I am reluctant to say.
Q: Made by a radiologist, one was a member of the American Board of Radiology?
A: I don't know that. That report is signed by four people, there were four to sign it.
Q: Didn't you say one was a radiologist?
A: To my knowledge.
Q: And a radiologist deals in X-rays?
A: A radiologist deals with X-rays and the interpretation of them.
MR. OSER: Again I call for the witness to put the approximate location because there has been testimony on direct examination as well as cross-examination, and because the Defense introduced a picture of Exhibit 388 in Defense Exhibit 67 and I think the State has a right to use this for further witnesses and further cross-examination of the Doctor. I call for this location.
MR. DYMOND: The Doctor has said that he can't do it.
THE COURT: He already testified that the or that there is somewhat of a difference between locations on there and in X-rays and I am not going to force him to do it.
MR. OSER: Then I ask that he mark it on State-68.
THE COURT: If he can do it.
MR. OSER: Four inches above the external occipital protuberance on the descriptive sheet, State-68, and I, this is the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet, and I presume you have used it before for autopsies and I ask that it be so marked there.
THE COURT: If the Doctor can do it.
THE WITNESS: I don't think I can put a wound on a drawing whereas the distance of that wound on an X-ray was given as 100 millimeters I can't do that on something that is different.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, may I ask the witness --
THE COURT: Let's see if I can clarify it. Dr. Finck, on the drawing of the rear of a human being, male, can you place with some kind of a pen or what have you the correction, if one was made, as a result of the four-man panel, as to what you all originally determined. If you can do it and if you can't, you can't do it.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, may I submit the Doctor is trying to explain that the distances --
MR. OSER: I don't want Mr. Dymond to testify.
MR. DYMOND: This is in support of my objection.
THE COURT: I will listen.
MR. DYMOND: That the distances on an X-ray measurement is not compatible at all with the distances on this drawing and would be impossible to transpose.
THE COURT: I will accept that. Take the witness stand.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, you are familiar with an autopsy descriptive sheet, have you seen something
similar to this before and have you ever used something like this before in an autopsy?
A: It is quite common to use worksheets in autopsies.
Q: I ask you again, that wasn't my question, have you used them before?
A: I have used worksheets in autopsies.
Q: And you are telling the Court that you can't mark 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone on that descriptive sheet that you have used before?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, it is repetitious. Your Honor has ruled on the question.
THE COURT: I will let the Doctor answer one more time. The question is -- Please read it, Mr. Reporter.
THE REPORTER: Question: "And you are telling the Court that you can't mark 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone on that descriptive sheet that you say you have used before?"
MR. OSER: What is your answer?
THE WITNESS: I could place a wound higher on that drawing but again I don't understand why I am asked to do that.
MR. OSER: I don't think it is for the witness to determine that.
MR. WEGMANN: Let the witness answer.
THE COURT: If you say you can place it, I suggest you leave the witness stand, step down and go place it.
THE WITNESS: That would not be placed on X-rays, that would be a wound higher and approximately in this location.
MR. OSER: These are approximate and we can cover the matter.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Initial that, please. Thank you, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, at this time I would like to make a comment for the record.
THE COURT: No, sir, you are not running the show. You either answer the question and give an explanation and don't comment.
MR. DYMOND: May we see whether this comment is in the form of an explanation of his answer, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is the statement that you wish to make in further explanation of your answer to this question?
THE WITNESS: Definitely.
THE COURT: You may do so.
THE WITNESS: The mark I have made --
THE COURT: You can't volunteer information just because you wish to tell us about it. You can only give us answers to a question and then an explanation. There is a difference from what you want to volunteer and what you want to explain. If you want to explain you may do it but you can't volunteer a comment and that is the legal situation of the Court. If this is in further explanation, then I will permit it.
THE WITNESS: The mark I just made on -- what is the exhibit number?
MR. OSER: 68.
THE WITNESS: On Exhibit 68 does not correspond to the wound I have seen at the time of the autopsy. The wound as seen at the time of the autopsy was not as high as that. I did so because repeatedly I am asked to show on this drawing what would the position be of a wound approximately four inches or 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, but I don't endorse the 100 millimeters for this drawing. Again the measurement was made on X-rays. I was more or less forced to put that on this exhibit.
MR. OSER: I want the record to reflect the witness was not forced.
THE WITNESS: I was asked to show on this drawing a wound four inches from the external occipital protuberance.
THE COURT: Let's go on to another area.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: How many pieces of skull, Colonel, did you have to use at the time of the autopsy being turned over to you from some other place?
A: As I recall, there were three bone fragments and on one of them I saw a definite beveling which allowed me to identify this portion of a wound of exit as part of a wound of exit. The appearances of these portions of skull had the same eneral characteristics, as far as the appearance of bone, as the lining of the skull of President Kennedy and I made a positive identity of exit seeing the beveling from outside after having oriented this specimen as regards the outer and inner surfaces of the bony specimen.
Q: Doctor, did you section and examine the left cerebral hemisphere or the left side of the brain of the President?
A: I did not.
Q: Why?
A: The most massive lesions were on the right side and the brain was preserved in formalin, which was a protective fixative used in pathology, it preserves specimens, and I did not make sections of the left side, to my recollection.
Q: Colonel, you testified on direct that in your opinion the bullet entered the President's head from above and behind and there is an arrow indicating the proposed direction on this diagram into the left side of the President's head and you are telling me now that you didn't examine the left side of the brain?
MR. DYMOND: There is no evidence of that in the record.
MR. OSER: Then I withdraw the question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: What does the arrow indicate?
A: I don't know what the arrow means on this exhibit.
Q: Let me ask you this: If an individual, Colonel, on a hypothetical question, is shot from above and to his right at some distance over 100 feet by a high speed rifle projectile traveling at approximately 2175 feet per second, carrying an energy load of approximately 1676 foot pounds, and this projectile enters this individual in the back of his head, coming in from the right and above, I ask you whether or not you deem it feasible to examine the left side of the brain area in this particular individual?
A: Yes, it would be but again the brain was removed and preserved for further section- ing and as far as the exit is concerned it is the examination of the scalp and bone which shows the lesions of the out wound or the exit wound. The brain is a structure which is different from that and I know the brain contained many fragments.
Q: How many did the left side of the brain contain?
A: What is your question?
Q: How many fragments were there in the left side of the brain or did the left side of the brain contain?
A: I don't remember the locations of these metallic fragments.
Q: Why?
A: Right now I don't remember.
Q: I thought you said, Colonel, you didn't section the brain.
A: We took X-rays of this brain, far as I remember someone did, to determine the presence of metallic fragments after it was removed, as I can remember, but I don't recall making sections of that brain. I believe Dr. Humes did section that brain.
Q: As of this date in February, February 24, 1969, can you tell me the results of that sectioning of the left side of the brain?
A: No.
Q: Can you tell me what the rectangular structure measuring approximately 13 x 20 millimeters as found by the four panelists in the brain of the President could be? A: I don't know what it means.
Q: How long is 13 x 20 millimeters?
A: 1 inch is 25 millimeters so 13 millimeters is smaller than 1 inch and 20 millimeters is almost 1 inch but not quite 1 inch because 1 inch is 25 millimeters just about.
Q: Would it be safe to say it was approximately or would be approximately 3/4 x 1/2 inch, that'd be about right?
A: 20 millimeters is approximately 3/4 of 1 inch and 13 millimeters is approximately 1/2 an inch because 25 is one inch.
Q: Now, Colonel, can -- You previously testified that you did a lot of work at the autopsy table in the area of this particular head wound. Can you tell me why you can't tell me what this 3/4 inch x 1/2 inch rectangular-shaped whatever it is, what it was in the President's brain?
A: At this time I can't interpret this. There are numerous bone fragments produced by this explosive force in the head leading to many bone fragments and I can't positively identify this structure you are referring to.
Q: Did you find any bone fragments this size?
A: Where?
Q: In the brain.
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you mention this 13 x 30 millimeters or 1/2 inch by 3/4 inch rectangular object in the brain of the President in your report of January 1967?
A: I don't think I did.
Q: Did you mention this 3/4 x 1/2 inch object in the President's brain in your autopsy report of November 24, 1963?
A: No, but we would have to refer to the supplemental report which I don't have with me involving the brain descriptions by Dr. Humes. In the report of November '63 I don't remember a fragment from the brain for the very good reason that as I remember on Sunday the 24th of November, 1963 the brain was still being preserved, fixed, as I say in formalin. To the best of my recollection it was not sectioned.
Q: What you are telling me, Colonel, is as you didn't go into the other half of the brain and completely ascertain what may have or may not have been there then you did not do a complete autopsy, is that correct? Yes or no and then you can answer the question.
A: Yes. As regards the wounds on the external aspect of the body, what we found on the 24 November '63 was adequate as regards the external wounds of the brain.
Q: Is this in your opinion a complete autopsy under the definition used by the American Board of Pathology? Yes or no and then you can explain it.
A: On -- No. On the 24th of November because to my recollection we based our autopsy report on the 24th of November on the information obtained from people at the scene. We based it on our gross autopsy findings pertaining to the wounds as they were described on the body and the X-rays taken before and during the course of the autopsy.
Q: Am I correct, Colonel, did I hear your answer that it was "no" and then you explained it?
A: I explained it because there was supplemental reports, examinations of clothing that was made at a later date.
Q: Colonel, why didn't your report of January 19, 1967 contain anything about this particular object or any further work you may or may not have done with the brain, taking into consideration you had some 3 1/2 years to go over Dr. Humes's report?
A: I don't know. I was asked to correlate the autopsy report with the photographs, I had the opportunity to see for the first time in January, 1967.
Q: Did you use Commander Humes's supplemental report in drawing up your report of January 1967?
A: I don't remember.
Q: If you had would you remember?
A: Right now I don't remember what I used and did not use.
Q: If you did not, Colonel, would you say that your report of January, 1967 was then not complete and accurate completely? Yes or no, and then you can explain.
A: No, I don't remember all the factors I used at that time. You must understand there are details I remember and others I just don't remember at this time.
Q: When did you first learn you were going to testify?
A: When did I first learn I was going to testify here?
Q: Yes.
A: I was called on the phone on Sunday, and I will give you the date -- anyway, it was in February, 1969 that I was called to this trial.
Q: Well, Colonel, can you give me an approximation of how many days before today?
A: It must have been on Sunday the 16th.
Q: Sunday, the 16th of February?
A: Of February.
Q: You did --
A: And I -- I was called by Mr. Wegmann, Mr. Wegmann must have the date he called me on the phone at home.
Q: As best you can recall it was February 16?
A: It was in February.
Q: And you did bring some notes with you, did you not?
A: Let me refer to those and we can speed it up. I found it. I was called 16 February, '69.
Q: And my next question is, Colonel: You did bring some notes with you, did you not?
A: I brought my diary.
Q: And you brought some other notes with you, didn't you?
A: I brought S-67, the report of Dr. Humes and Boswell and myself, signed on 26 January, 1967; I brought S-72, the 1968 Panel Review by Carns, Fisher, Morgan and Moritz.
Q: Colonel, if you had to say --
A: I'm not finished. I brought Xerox copies of Page 978 through 983 of Volume 16. I brought a copy of my testimony before the Warren Commission starting on Page 377 and ending on Page 384 and the notes I have here I have written here before this testimony.
Q: But you didn't have Commander Humes' supplemental autopsy report?
A: I do not.
Q: Now, Colonel, referring to autopsy report of November, 1963, again, in the second page, second paragraph, you state: "Three shots were heard and the President fell forward." What do you base "falling forward" on?
A: Repeat your question, please.
Q: Referring to your autopsy report of November, 1963 on Page 2, Paragraph 2, you state "Three shots were heard and the President fell forward." Can you tell me what you base your statement on, "The President fell forward"?
A: This, again, is information we obtained when this report was prepared. I cannot pin down the source. It may have been somebody in the car, the Presidential limousine, some witnesses of the incident, so as we put it down as somebody told us.
Q: Colonel, before in answer on direct examination to one of Mr. Dymond's last questions, you gave a description of what you saw in the Zapruder film as the President moving his hand up, going slightly forward, and then he was struck with the second shot. You could describe the President's movements at the time of the second shot and why?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object and submit this is a question impossible to answer.
MR. OSER: If the Court please --
THE COURT: Let me hear Mr. Dymond, please, Mr. Oser.
MR. DYMOND: That is my objection, is it is a question that can't be answered.
MR. OSER: The witness as author of the report said the President fell forward and I want to know what he based it on.
THE COURT: I agree with you, but he said it was from somebody in the autopsy room, it was hearsay, but he accepted it from people allegedly that were eyewitnesses, and he says that is where he got the information from.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, you did view the entire Zapruder film?
A: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: That was much after this report was given.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: As of this day and this testimony, Colonel, you have viewed the entire Zapruder film, have you not?
A: I have viewed the entire Zapruder film in March, 1964.