Q: Colonel, on the last page of the autopsy report of November, 1963, the last paragraph states, "A supplementary report will be submitted following more detailed ex- amination of the brain and of microscopic sections." Was that done, and, if so, do you have it, the results?
A: I don't have this supplemental report with me now.
Q: And do you know the results of any parts of that supplemental report?
A: I remember -- Yes, I do. I remember a description of the brain by Dr. Humes and microscopic description by Dr. Humes in that supplemental report.
Q: Do you recall whether or not it mentions that 3/4 x 1/2 inch rectangular structure in the brain?
A: I don't recall reading about this.
MR. OSER: May I pin this up, Your Honor? Does the Court have a stapler?
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, in regard to Commission Exhibit 399, I refer you to the photograph designated in State Exhibit, I believe it is S-68 --
THE COURT: Beg your pardon?
MR. OSER: The large picture of the autopsy report.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: In referring to Commission Exhibit 399, which you testified about in front of the
Warren Commission and also referring you
[page missing from transcript]
missile-type wounds and having done the type of work you have done in the past, if a projectile similar to the type in Commission Exhibit 399 were to hit some obstruction, such as bone in the head for instance, would this cause the copper jacket to break, break up to such an extent that lead deposits or inner parts of the pellets would be left in the area?
A: There could be a deposit of the components of the jacket in the target struck by this bullet.
Q: Have you ever seen such a pellet?
A: Bullet?
Q: Strike that. Have you ever seen such a copper-jacketed pellet break up to such an extent that it would leave its component parts when it passes through merely flesh and not hit bone, from your experience?
A: Your question is: Can a bullet disintegrate when going through soft tissue, is this your question?
Q: Yes, yes, answer that question if you would.
A: Yes, it is possible a bullet can disintegrate when going through soft tissue. It is not an absolute necessity.
Q: From your experience what usually happens, does it come out intact or does it break up, what is the usual case going through soft tissue?
A: Going through soft tissue it depends on many factors. A bullet may remain intact or it may disintegrate. I can't say it always does, that it never does that.
Q: Colonel, what is your opinion as to whether or not Commission Exhibit 399 could have passed through President Kennedy's wound as indicated in State-69 that you have described?
A: I think it is possible that such a bullet goes through the body as shown on the exhibit.
Q: What is your opinion, Colonel, as to whether or not it would come out in the condition as displayed in Commission Exhibit 399 and the drawing which is depicted in State-69, not hitting bone?
A: It is possible that a bullet remains as is after leaving the body but it is not an absolute necessity.
Q: Colonel, are you familiar with how much weight loss Commission Exhibit 399 -- strike that -- are you familiar, Colonel, with the weight of 399?
A: To the best of my recollection it is approximately 161 grains, something of that order.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, unless it is established that the Doctor weighed these various objects --
MR. OSER: Your Honor please --
THE COURT: Please let me hear the objection. Make your objection, Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: Unless it is established that the Doctor weighed the object in question we object on the ground of hearsay.
MR. OSER: I think Mr. Dymond will withdraw his objection because I intend to clarify the answer I got.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, the figure of approximately 161 grains, by this do you mean this is the
approximate average weight of the average type of pellet such as 399 would retain,
this'd be approximately 161 grains?
MR. DYMOND: We object on the ground that we are getting outside the field of expertise of pathology and into the field of ballistics.
THE COURT: Did you weigh it yourself, Doctor?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: Did you weigh it after in the condition that it is now?
THE WITNESS: Sir, I know the weight from reports.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, could you explain to me how the panel of three pathologists and one
radiologist found traces of lead in the throat of the President of the United States?
MR. DYMOND: How can this Doctor explain how four other doctors found something if he wasn't present.
THE COURT: I think you question should be "Doctor, are you acquainted" --
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Again, Doctor, are you acquainted with the report submitted in 1968 by Dr. W.H.
Carns, Russell H. Fisher, Russell H. Morgan and Alan R. Moritz?
A: I am, I am.
Q: Are you familiar with the resume made in this particular report that traces of metal were found in the throat area from reviewing, from viewing autopsy X-rays of President Kennedy?
A: Where is that passage, please.
Q: I will find it for you. I refer you, Colonel, to page, let me count them because they are not numbered or marked, 13.
A: 13.
Q: The top of the page says, "Neck Region," four lines down, where it states "also several somewhat metallic fragments are present in this region."
A: I don't know what they are referring to, or rather I don't recall seeing metallic fragments on the X-rays of this region of the neck. I don't recall.
Q: And from their report, Colonel, would you say that they viewed three X-ray pictures, do they refer to pictures 8, 9 and 10?
MR. DYMOND: I object having this witness say what someone else did.
MR. OSER: I will withdraw it.
THE COURT: Try not to talk at the same time, please. I have been asking you to do that for three weeks. Let's see if we can do it that way.
MR. OSER: I will withdraw the question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, Colonel, could you tell me whether or not in your opinion Commission Exhibit 399 could have caused the wounds in Governor Connally's wrist as you testified
in front of the Warren Commission?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we object unless we are talking about only from the standpoint of direction. There is no evidence here that this gentleman ever examined the wrist of Governor Connally and I don't recall if he ever examined the pellet listed as or represented by 399. If he's talking about direction only, I will withdraw the objection.
THE COURT: Is it contained, is the foundation of that question contained in the original autopsy report submitted by the Doctor?
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I believe the witness answered earlier in cross-examination --
THE COURT: You went over this this morning and you covered it this morning so you don't have to repeat it. As far as I know it was covered this morning.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, what is your opinion as to whether or not a bullet fired from a Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle such as Commission Exhibit 399, having been fired from a sixth floor of a building 60 feet up in the air, and that this building (sic) struck an individual in the back --
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, there is no evidence of a building striking anybody in this case.
MR. OSER: You know he is getting cute.
THE COURT: 60 feet and 265 feet.
MR. OSER: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, then, rephrase the question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: The sixth floor being 60 feet above ground level, and that this bullet, Mr. Dymond,
struck the man in the back at approximately five and three-eight inches below the top of his collar and one and three-quarter inches to the right of the center seam, exited from his throat in the necktie area of this individual, then struck an individual in
front of him seated in a car, entering the second individual in the back near the right armpit, going through his chest, fracturing the fifth rib, exiting from below the second individual's right nipple, past his right forearm, causing multiple fractures of the wrist bone, leaving numerous fragments and then entering his left thigh --
MR. DYMOND: I hate to interrupt Counsel in the middle of his question. It is axiomatic. A hypothetical question must stay within the bounds of the case. Counsel is doing what is tantamount to testifying. We have no evidence whatsoever in this record as to any damage caused on the body of Governor Connally by this pellet. We are talking about fractured wrist bones, and we have no testimony of anything like that, there is no testimony to its exit in the area of the nipple of the President, of, rather, Governor Connally, and not only the answer is inadmissible but the question itself is inadmissible.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, No. 1, I haven't completed my question and, No. 2, this is the same type of question Mr. Dymond asked F.B.I. Agent Frazier on the stand stating facts not in evidence and you did allow Mr. Dymond to ask the question.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I have never asked any question similar to this and I am sure you wouldn't and didn't rule on any question similar to this at any time.
THE COURT: I don't recall Mr. Dymond asking Agent Frazier that question and it's highly irregular.
MR. ALCOCK: Mr. Dymond didn't ask Mr. Frazier that question, but all we are suggesting to the Court is that the question was outside the bounds of evidence and the Court admitted it nevertheless.
THE COURT: I am going to rule at this time that Mr. Dymond's objections are well taken. They hypothetical posed is a conclusion stating facts which have not been a part of this record, so I will sustain the objection.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Let me ask you then, Doctor, Colonel, what is your opinion as to whether or not 399,
as you saw it, could have struck the wrist and could remain in the same condition as you saw it?
A: I don't know.
Q: You don't know, Colonel. I call your attention, Colonel, to your Warren Commission testimony, I believe it is Page 382 in the middle of the page, in answer to a question by Mr. Specter, "And could it have been the bullet that inflicted the wound of Governor Connally's wrist?" Colonel Finck: "No, because there were too many fragments described in that wrist." You remember answering that question, Dr. Finck?
THE COURT: The only objection would be it is repetitious, but I will permit the question.
MR. OSER: My question is, did you so testify in front of the Warren Commission?
MR. DYMOND: I would like to interpose an additional objection. This is a question and answer based upon hearsay evidence. Your Honor has indicated very strenuously that the Warren Report itself would not be admitted in evidence here.
THE COURT: That is correct.
MR. DYMOND: Because it is fraught with hearsay. That being the case I submit to the Court the State is not entitled to take chosen portions of this Warren Report, and particularly portions which as Your Honor says are fraught with hearsay and use them in evidence in this case.
MR. OSER: Again, Your Honor, he's testifying --
THE COURT: Wait a minute, Mr. Oser, control yourself.
MR. OSER: I control myself, Your Honor, but I thought he was finished.
MR. DYMOND: I again call the Court's attention to the fact that this man never examined the wrist of Governor Connally, never had an opportunity to observe the nature of the wrist wound, and whatever statement was made in this Warren Report is based on a description furnished to him by someone who purportedly examined that wound.
THE COURT: What is that? I could not hear.
MR. DYMOND: Because it is based on a description furnished to him by someone who purportedly examined that wound.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled for the reason that Counsel for State in testing the credibility of the witness can ask him whether or not he made a statement contradictory to this statement made today and that is why I overrule your objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling of the Court Counsel respectfully objects and reserves a Bill of Exception making a part thereof the question, the answer, the entire testimony of this witness, the objection, together with the reasons, together with the Court's ruling and the entire record parts of the bill.
THE WITNESS: Would you reread it please?
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, can you tell me whether or not you testified in front of the Warren Commis-
sion under oath, in answer to a question posed by Mr. Specter, "Could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's wrist." By Colonel Finck "No, the reason there were too many fragments described in that wrist." Did you or did you not so testify, Colonel?
THE WITNESS: I would like to --
MR. OSER: Answer yes or no.
THE WITNESS: I can't answer the question the way it was asked for the following reason:
THE COURT: No. You will have to do like every other witness. Answer and then you can explain as much as you want and that is what every other witness does and either answer yes or no and then you can explain.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you or did you not?
A: Read it back.
THE REPORTER: Question: "Colonel, can you tell me whether or not you testified in front of the Warren Commission under oath, in answer to a question posed by Mr. Specter, 'Could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's wrist.' By Colonel Finck 'No, the reason there were too many fragments described in that wrist.' Did you or did you not so testify, Colonel?"
THE WITNESS: I testified, I did. May I give an explanation, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
THE WITNESS: On Page 382 of my testimony I would like to read a little more --
THE COURT: You can refresh your memory, you can explain in your own words but you can't read from the testimony of that report.
THE WITNESS: I was asked could such a bullet have passed through the head of President Kennedy and remain intact and my opinion is that I saw many fragments and this bullet did not lose many fragments, therefore, the bullet I am seeing on this Commission Exhibit 399 is not the bullet that went through the head of President Kennedy because it said here in my testimony it was asked if it was the bullet that went through President Kennedy's head.
THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait.
THE WITNESS: This is part of my Warren Report testimony.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the Doctor's obvious contention is that this answer has been taken out of context and that the preceding testimony clarifies and explains this answer and under those circumstances I respectfully submit he is entitled to read to the Jury this testimony.
THE COURT: You objected to that previously when he started to read that testimony on a previous occasion and I ruled that he could refresh his memory, but that he couldn't read the testimony.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I thoroughly agree, absolutely, but when the question is taken out of context and can be explained and clarified by previous testimony by this witness in the same hearing, I think it should be permitted. The State is reading and asking whether he made a certain statement, and I submit that this witness has a right to read the entirety of the testimony pertaining to that particular contention or fact and not only the portion selected by the State.
THE COURT: Before you finish this, please take the Jury into my office.
(Whereupon, the Jury was removed.)
THE COURT: Let me make one observation. I understand Dr. Finck's answer to Mr. Specter, that he didn't think Commission Exhibit 399 could retain its shape as it is while going through, irrespectively whether it was going through President Kennedy's head or neck, could remain in that shape because of hitting bones in the leg of Governor Connally, irrespective of what -- what difference does it make if it goes through the neck or head that it couldn't remain in the same condition because of the fragments in the wrist.
MR. DYMOND: Let me --
MR. OSER: Maybe I can clarify it further.
THE COURT: You got it mixed up enough now.
MR. OSER: I asked the Colonel before did 399 do the damage in President Kennedy's head and he said, "No, it did not." Then I asked him in regard to this particular question whether or not he answered a question of Mr. Specter regarding 399 not involving the head at all, whether or not 399 could have done the injuries and type of damage it did in Governor Connally's wrist, and the Colonel answered that question. In fact, this is the second time the Colonel has answered it.
THE COURT: He answered that this morning.
MR. DYMOND: Have you finished, Mr. Oser?
MR. OSER: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: Now the Jury is out of the Courtroom and now let me read to Your Honor the preceding testimony. Mr. Specter: "And could that bullet possibly have gone through President Kennedy in 388, that is referring to Exhibit 388." Colonel Finck: "Through President Kennedy's head, 388?" Mr. Specter: "And remain intact in the way you see it now?" Colonel Finck: "Definitely not." Mr. Specter: "And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound of Governor Connally's right wrist?" Colonel Finck: "No, for the reason there were too many fragments described in that wrist." In other words, this chain of questioning has this bullet going through the President's head and then through Governor Connally's right wrist.
THE COURT: You read it that way, but we will leave it to the Jury to determine that.
(Whereupon, the Jury returned to the courtroom.)
THE COURT: We are going to stop because unless I knew of some immediate moment when you would be through, but we are going to recess the trial until tomorrow morning. Again, Gentlemen, I must admonish you and instruction you not to discuss the case amongst yourselves or with any other person.
. . . . Thereupon, at 5:40 o'clock p.m., the proceedings herein were adjourned until Tuesday, February 25, 1969. . . . .
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, the undersigned, Charles A. Neyrey, do hereby certify:
That the above and foregoing (232 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 Clifford Jefferson and the undersigned, and transcribed under our supervision, on the day And date hereinbefore noted, in the Criminal 1District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of 1Louisiana, in the matter of the State of Louisiana vs. Clay L. Shaw, 198-059 1426 (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 25th day of February, 1969.
/s/ Charles A. Neyrey
CHARLES A. NEYREY, Reporter
EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
February 25, 1969
THE COURT: Bring the Jury down. I trust you Gentlemen had a good night. For the record, Mr. Court Reporter, all Counsel are present, the Defendant is present, and I am reminding the witness that his previous oath is still binding. You may proceed, Mr. Oser.
PIERRE A. FINCK, M.D., having been sworn and having testified previously, resumed the stand for a continuation of the CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, I direct your attention to of your autopsy report of November, 1963, and to the fourth paragraph which states, "The complexity of these fractures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared." Now, Colonel, can you tell me and tell the Court how you refer in your autopsy report that the fractures and the fragments are better appreciated in the photographs when you did not see the photographs until January, 1967?
MR. DYMOND: We object to this unless Counsel says better than what. This report indi- cates a photograph would show them better than they could be described in words.
THE COURT: You are coming to the aid of a witness unsolicited.
MR. DYMOND: You cannot compare something to nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes. When there are so many fractures in so many directions producing so many lines and fragments in the bone, a photograph will be more accurate than descriptions. The photographs were taken but turned over undeveloped to the Secret Service at the time we performed the autopsy, and the photographs were taken, we did not know when these photographs would be processed, this was beyond our control because they had been turned over, exposed, taken in our presence, but the Secret Service took charge of them.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: And you didn't see the photographs until January of 1967. Is that correct, Colonel?
A: This is correct.
Q: Also in your autopsy report on the same page, Page 4, I direct your attention to the last paragraph, the last paragraph under "2," where you said in your report, "The second wound presumably of entry," and now you state in Court that you are positive it was of entry.
A: As I recall, it was Admiral Galloway who told us to put that word "presumably."
Q: Admiral Galloway?
A: Yes.
Q: Told you to put that word "presumably"?
A: Yes, but this does not change my opinion that this is a wound of entry.
Q: Is Admiral Galloway a Pathologist, to your knowledge?
A: Admiral Galloway had some training in Pathology. He was the Commanding Officer of the Naval Hospital, as I recall, and at that time, in my mind, this was a wound of entry, it just was suggested to add "presumably" this was.
Q: Did he suggest you add anything else to your report, Colonel?
A: Not that I recall.
Q: Can you give me the name of the General that you said told Dr. Humes not to talk about the autopsy report?
A: This was not a General, it was an Admiral.
Q: All right, excuse me, the Admiral, can you give me the name of the Admiral?
A: Who stated that we were not to discuss the autopsy findings?
Q: Yes.
A: This was in the autopsy room on the 22nd and 23rd of November, 1963.
Q: What was his name?
A: Well, there were several people in charge. There were several Admirals, and, as I recall, the Adjutant General of the Navy.
Q: Do you have a name, Colonel?
A: It was Admiral Kinney, K-i-n-n-e-y, as I recall.
Q: Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of the autopsy, as you testified about?
A: Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several people, as I have stated before, I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision.
Q: Which includes your report. Does it not?
A: Sir?
Q: Which includes your report. Does it not?
A: No.
Q: It does not?
A: I would not say so, because the report I signed was signed by two other pathologists and at no time did this Army General say that he would have anything to do with signing this autopsy report.
Q: Can you give me the Army General's name?
A: I don't remember it.
Q: How did you know he was an Army General?
A: Because Dr. Humes said so.
Q: Was he in uniform?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Were any of the Admirals or Generals or any of the Military in uniform in that autopsy room?
A: Yes.
Q: Were there any other Generals in uniform?
A: I remember a Brigadier General of the Air Force, but I don't remember his name.
Q: Were there any Admirals in uniform in the autopsy room?
A: From what I remember, Admiral Galloway was in uniform, Admiral Kinney was in uniform, I don't remember whether or not Admiral Berkley, the President's physician, was in uniform.
Q: Colonel, in answer to one of the questions Mr. Dymond on direct examination asked you, you spoke of your opinion as to the sequence of shots after you saw the Zapruder film. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And it was your opinion that the sequence of shots was such that the President was hit in the back area first and then in the head area secondly. Is that basically correct?
A: Yes, the first shot in the back of the neck and the second shot in the back of the head.
Q: Now, did you know, sir, at that particular time that you formed your opinion on the sequence of shots from the Zapruder film, that during the reconstruction of the assassination, that not one expert or anybody had performed the alleged feat of shooting the shot from the Texas School Book Depository in the span of time as it had been alleged, were you aware of that?
MR. DYMOND: We object, the Doctor was not in Dallas at the time of reenactment. As a matter of fact, I think he said he never had been to Dealey Plaza.
MR. OSER: I was asking, Your Honor, whether or not he had this knowledge of his own mind in order for him to arrive at the sequence of events.
THE COURT: Break the question down.
MR. DYMOND: It would have to be hearsay if he was not there.
THE COURT: I am going to rule it out.
MR. OSER: We have had a lot of hearsay.
THE COURT: When you had a chance to study the Zapruder film, you had access at that time, access to the information, as one of the co-authors of the autopsy report, you either did or you didn't.
THE WITNESS: I had access to other reports as I remember, but pertaining to examination of the bullets and fragments.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Do you have any notes in regard to the reconstruction done by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation?
A: As I remember --
MR. DYMOND: We object again, Your Honor. This is the rankest form of hearsay.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection. He is an expert and we have had his opinion based on hearsay reports. I will permit the question under the circumstances.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the answer, the entire testimony, the objection, the reason for the objection, the ruling of the Court, parts of the bill.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Can I have that answer to my question, Your Honor, please.
THE COURT: Yes, answer the question.
THE WITNESS: As I remember, I found out about these reconstructions and tests when I read the Warren Report when it was published in September, 1964, to the best of my recollection.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, Colonel, in regard to your autopsy report, November, 1963, how much time did you spend on this particular report and its preparation?
A: I cannot give you an exact figure. As I remember I was called by Dr. Humes who had prepared this report and he read it over to me at the Bethesda Hospital, and I would say I spent several hours with him and Dr. Boswell at the Bethesda Hospital before we signed it on Sunday, 24 November, 1963.
Q: And did you have an occasion to read over the final draft, the one that you signed, Colonel?
A: I did.
Q: And you agree with everything that is contained. I believe, in that particular report of November, 1963, that you signed?
A: Essentially I do.
Q: And, Colonel, you read this report as you indicate and discussed it for several hours, can you tell me, Colonel, on why the name of Governor John B. Connally is spelled C-o-n-n-o-l-l-y when it should be C-o-n-n-a-l-l-y?
MR. DYMOND: I object on the grounds of irrelevancy, Your Honor. He has not been qualified as an expert in spelling.
THE COURT: We had a lot of spelling yesterday in the record. Do you know how to spell Governor Connally's name?
THE WITNESS: There should be an "a."
THE COURT: C-o-n-n-a-l-l-y, it should be an "a"?
MR. OSER: That's all.
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond?