REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Dr. Finck, did anyone give you any orders as to what opinion you should render in
this report?
A: No.
Q: Would you have accepted any orders as to what opinion, professional opinion, you should render?
A: No.
Q: Now, Doctor, in the course of performing an autopsy and determining the cause of death which is more beneficial to the performer of that autopsy, the viewing of photographs or the viewing of the actual subject of the autopsy?
A: They supplement each other. There is a reason for giving the description of what you see to make a record of what you see yourself, and the photographs have the advantage of giving visual results of what you see after the wounds are no longer available and the body is no longer available. These things supplement each other and as a rule in the autopsy report there are gross descriptions supplemented by photographs, but not always, you will not have photographs in all autopsy reports.
Q: Doctor, from the standpoint of gathering the necessary information for the purpose of your answering at a conclusion in connection with a death, which is more important to the doctor who is gathering that information, seeing photographs of the cadaver or seeing the cadaver itself?
A: The cadaver itself is the most important thing to see.
Q: Now, did you have available to you prior to drawing your original autopsy report the X-rays of the body of the late President Kennedy?
A: We did.
Q: When were these X-rays taken and when were they made available to you?
A: When I arrived at the hospital at approximately 8:00 o'clock at night on the 22nd of November, 1963 X-rays of the head had been taken prior to my arrival, and Dr. Humes had told me so over the phone when he called me at home, asking me to come over. After I found the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no corresponding exit, I requested a whole body X-ray, the purpose of having whole body X-rays of an autopsy is to be sure there is no -- in a case like that, no bullet in some part of the body that would re- main there, leave with the body and nobody would know that it was there, that is the reason for X-rays, because X-rays will reveal the presence of a bullet, the presence that no operation or autopsy, as complete as it may be, may definitely reveal, was my reason for those body X-rays.
Q: Did you get the whole body X-rays?
A: I requested them, and we waited, I would say, an hour or more for these whole body X-rays, and they were interpreted by a radiologist of the Bethesda Hospital who had reviewed those, so the X-rays of the head showing numerous fragments, but he stated that there was no entire bullet remaining in the cadaver, there were fragments, metallic fragments in the head, but there was no bullet in that cadaver.
Q: Was all this before you wrote your autopsy report?
A: Yes.
Q: Referring to "Exhibit S-69 and S-70," which appear on the Board over there and which are blow-ups of smaller exhibits of the same nature which the Defense has exhibited and offered into evidence, do the sketches purport to be scale drawings?
A: No.
Q: Now, under whose supervision were the sketches made?
A: Under the supervision of Dr. Humes.
Q: Was he one of the doctors who joined with you in performing the autopsy and signing the autopsy report?
A: It was the Pathologist in charge of the autopsy.
Q: Now, when you say they were drawn at his direction, what part did Dr. Humes play in this, if you know?
A: As far as I know, Dr. Humes gave the results of our observations at the time of the autopsy to a Navy enlisted man who made the drawings in the preparation of our testimony before the Warren Commission in March of 1964.
Q: Now, Doctor, you have testified with reference to S-69 that you did not dissect the track of that bullet through the President's neck. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Why did you not dissect it, was it necessary or not?
A: Well, this creates a great deal of mutilation to dissect, and we limited our examination in that respect, not to create unnecessary mutilation of the cadaver. I was satisfied with the aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, a bruise in the upper part of the lung and the lining of the chest cavity which is called the pleura, and I did not do any extensive dissection along the bullet path.
Q: Was this mutilation of the remains of President Kennedy necessary in order for you to gather enough information as to satisfy yourself as an expert as to the path of that bullet?
A: I did not consider dissection at that time.
Q: I say was it, was dissection necessary in order for you to get enough information to satisfy yourself as to the path of the bullet?
A: I don't know what it would have shown. I can't say it was necessary.
Q: You cannot say it was necessary, you say?
A: I don't know.
Q: Well, did you form a firm opinion as to the path of the bullet which you say entered the President's back?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: How did you form that opinion?
A: There was a wound with regular edges, they were inverted, and they had the characteristics of a wound of entry.
Q: Is that a firm opinion?
A: It is a firm opinion that the wound in the back of the neck was a wound of entry, without a dissection.
Q: Now, Doctor, did you ever have occasion to perform any examinations of the wounds of Governor Connally of Texas?
A: No, I never met Governor Connally.
Q: Now, yesterday under cross-examination you were asked whether you had not testified before the Warren Commission that "Commission Exhibit No. 339" which has been marked for identification "State-64" could not have gone through the wrist of Governor Connally. Is that what you testified to, and, if not, I wish you would explain what you did testify to in that connection.
A: I testified before the Warren Commission that this bullet, "Commission Exhibit No. 399," or S-64 did not disintegrate and there were too many fragments in the wrist of Governor Connally to be compatible with an injury caused by such a bullet. As I remember, I made that statement because I was referring to metallic fragments to the best of my recollection, a word which I don't see in my testimony before the Warren Commission. I don't think that such a bullet having lost such little weight could cause a wound in the wrist in which many metallic fragments are seen.
Q: Did you have occasion to examine X-rays of Dr. Connally's wrist or not?
A: I don't remember, sir.
MR. OSER: I think it is Governor Connally.
MR. DYMOND: Governor Connally, that's right.
THE WITNESS: I may have had the reports at the time of our testimony before the Warren Commission regarding the injuries of Governor Connally, but I don't recall seeing X-rays or photographs of Governor Connally.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Doctor, you testified yesterday on Cross-Examination that under certain conditions the wound of entrance in a fleshy area can be larger than the wound of
exit. Is that correct?
A: It could be.
Q: Does the same apply to a skull wound or a projectile going through the skull under those circumstances, can the wound of exit be smaller than the wound of entrance?
A: Most of the time when the bullet goes through bone, in and out, in a through-and-through wound, the wound of exit is larger than the wound of entry, the reason being that the bullet often disintegrates, creates fragments, producing a larger wound.
Q: Now, Doctor, when an individual is hit in a fleshy area, that is an area not backed up by bone, and is hit by a high velocity bullet, is it possible for there to be some stretching of the skin in connection with the penetration and retraction of the skin after the penetration?
A: Definitely. Very often the skin retracts after the passage of the bullet to some extent. The skin is more elastic, the tissue, then bone, it is a very common finding to find some retraction of skin after the passage of a bullet, the position of the bullet in relation to the target will have an influence on the shape of the wound, of course.
Q: Now, Doctor, referring to State Exhibit-68, and more particularly the sketch on the lower portion of this, and the red dot which you placed on the right-hand figure of that sketch, does that purport to represent accurately the location of the back head wound as described in the reviewing pathological report of 1968?
A: It does not, and let me explain this. I was asked yesterday by Mr. Oser to place a wound 4 inches or 100 millimeters, approximately, above the external occipital protuberance. The reason for doing so was that in the 1968 panel, P-A-N-E-L, in the chapter entitled "X-rays," this is S-72 on , you will find this figure of 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, but in the first line of that paragraph you see the word "films" on one of the lateral films of the skull, a hole measuring approximately 8 millimeters in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 millimeters on the external surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, so this measurement of 100 millimeters or 4 inches refers to a measurement made on X-ray film and not on the photographs or skull itself. I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it, so I was asked to put on the drawing a measurement coming from the X-ray measurement.
Q: Now, Doctor, when you take an X-ray picture of an individual or individual's head, does the size of that X-ray picture coincide exactly with the size of the individual's head?
A: It does not. There is a distortion, there is a change in size related to the distance between the X-ray tube and the film. There are many technical factors that the X-ray film you see does not give a scale reproduction of the subject.
Q: Now, Doctor, the measurement that you have related as to the location of the wounds on President Kennedy, did you take those measurements from the actual cadaver itself?
A: I did.
Q: Do the locations of the wounds as pointed out yesterday by you on the back of Mr. Wegmann's shirt by a pen mark and on the back of my head with a finger coincide with the measurements that you actually took from the cadaver?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, Doctor, referring again to this blow-up, "Commission Exhibit 385," which is "State Exhibit-69," with respect to the angle of the wound in the President's neck, would that angle be affected by his leaning either forward or backward at the time he was hit?
A: To some extent, yes.
Q: Referring to State Exhibit No. 60, State Exhibit No. 70 which is a blow-up of Commission Exhibit 388, with the direction of the President's head, that is whether it were turned to one side or the other, or straight ahead, affect the angle of entrance of the bullet which went into the back of his head, I mean the angle through the head of that bullet?
A: Yes, it would, to some extent.
Q: Now, Doctor, you testified that you did not conduct an examination of the left half of the brain of President Kennedy. Is that brain of President Kennedy. Is that correct?
A: At the time, when we signed the autopsy report the brain was still preserved in formula, which is a hardener, for future studies. The brain was examined after the autopsy report was signed and you will find this examination in the supplementary autopsy report signed by Dr. Humes.
Q: Did Dr. Humes ultimately render a supplementary report covering the President's brain?
A: He did, and you will find it on Page 987 of Volume XVI of the hearings before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, it is Commission Exhibit No. 391, this report was forward on 6 December, 1963, by Dr. Stover.
Q: Now, Doctor, what was the purpose of the autopsy which you and Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell conducted?
A: The purpose of the autopsy was to determine the nature of the wounds and the cause of death. When we signed the autopsy report we were satisfied with the nature of the wounds, the direction, and the cause of death. This was the purpose of the autopsy, and in my opinion this autopsy report fulfills this mission.
Q: Now, Doctor, as a result of having performed an autopsy, to what firm opinions did you arrive?
A: At the time we signed the autopsy report --
Q: That is correct.
A: -- I had the firm opinion that there was a wound of entry in the back of the neck, a wound of exit in the front of the neck, which had been included in a tracheotomy incision, a wound of entry in the back of the head and a wound of exit on the right side of the head. The head wound was the fatal wound, we had the cause of death.
Q: As of this date, Doctor, have you gotten any information which has caused you to change those firm opinions?
A: No.
MR. DYMOND: We tender the witness.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, in referring to State Exhibit-68, the autopsy descriptive sheet, can you tell me whether or not the mark placed on the rear portion or the rear diagram of a body which is indicated with the arrow and marked ragged, slating 15 x 6 millimeter,
can you tell me whether or not this spot on this diagram corresponds to a position on the head of 1 inch, approximately 1 inches above the external occipital protuberand or does it apply to 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance?
A: It refers to an approximate location on this drawing and it refers to the wound I saw at 1 inch from the external occipital protuberance.
Q: All right.
A: It was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it.
Q: Does that report of the panel show or make any reference to a hole in the President's head approximately 1 inch in the vicinity of the external occipital protuberance?
A: I haven't seen that.
Q: Now, I believe you told Mr. Dymond that at the time, preparing your original autopsy report of November 1963, that all the X-rays were available to you. Is that correct?
A: I had seen them in the -- I had seen the X-ray films of the head and the radiologist had reviewed the whole body X-rays before we prepared, before we signed the autopsy report.
Q: Do you know whether or not the X-rays that you viewed were all of the X-rays that were taken?
A: Well, here again, this review was made by the radiologist, I am not a radiologist and a qualified man to look at the X-rays was the Bethesda radiologist. He did it at our request and he said there was no bullet remaining in the cadaver.
Q: I believe you said, Colonel, there was a radiologist present during the 1968 panel report. Is that correct?
A: Yes, one of these four names is a radiologist.
Q: Do you know, Colonel, whether or not to your knowledge that two rolls of the X-ray film taken of the President on the autopsy table did not come out?
A: To my knowledge, the film that did not come out were gross photographs --
Q: Do you know whether --
A: Not X-ray films.
Q: Do you know whether or not all of the X-ray films came out or not, to your knowledge?
A: To my knowledge, they came out all right.
Q: Now, if, Colonel, you viewed the X-ray film of the head or had been viewed by a radiologist, can you tell me why there was no mention in your report of a three-quarter by one-half inch rectangular shaped object in the President's brain?
A: No.
Q: Can you tell me why there is nothing in your report making mention of metallic substances in the track?
A: Before you go to that second question, if I may say something, in that panel review of 1968 there was a rectangular structure and they say it is not identifiable to this panel.
Q: If it was there, Colonel, in the X-rays, would you say it was there in the brain at the time of the autopsy?
MR. DYMOND: What page are you referring to, Doctor, what page are you referring to?
MR. OSER: The panel of 1968, the pages are not numbered.
THE WITNESS: That is "S-72."
MR. OSER: Page 8, Mr. Dymond.
THE WITNESS: "There can be seen a gray-brown rectangular structure measuring approximately 13 by 20 millimeters, its identity cannot be established by the panel." I don't know what this refers to.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you see such at the time of your autopsy, did you see such a substance in the brain of the President?
A: I don't remember.
Q: I believe you told Mr. Dymond, Colonel, the reason you did not dissect the track of the bullet through the throat was because you did not want to mutilate the body of the President. Is that correct?
A: I did not consider this dissection --
Q: Did you or did you not tell Mr. Dymond a few moments ago that you did not dissect the track of the President's throat because of the mutilation of the body that would result?
A: Yes, I did say that.
Q: And you also told me yesterday you were told not to go into the throat area?
A: Yes, I don't remember the details about this, who said what.
Q: You were told?
A: From what I remember.
Q: And you did not do it?
A: We did not remove the organs of the neck, obviously.
Q: Describe to me what you did with the body in autopsy, what did you do with the body and how did you perform this autopsy?
A: Please repeat your question, I did not hear it.
Q: Will you describe for me what incisions you made into the body of the President.
A: I did not make the incisions into the body, as I recall I was called to examine the wounds and the incisions were made by the other two pathologists who performed the autopsy, Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, and who signed this autopsy report. My role in this autopsy was to emphasize the wounds, to examine the wounds, that is why I was called.
Q: Well, Colonel, you were present at the autopsy room, were you not, the entire time?
A: I arrived after the -- a short time after the beginning of the autopsy.
Q: Did you or did you not see the chest cavity of the President open?
A: Yes, I did, and there was a bruise, there was a bruise in the upper part of the chest cavity, a bruise produced by the bullet that entered in the back of the neck.
Q: Did you or did you not see the scalp and head area of the President open at autopsy?
A: I saw the skull and the scalp of the President open.
Q: And during autopsy, am I not correct that the standard operating procedure is a Y incision down to this area (indicating), and then another incision down in the rib cage to expose -- so you can get to the vital organs of the body you are performing the autopsy on?
A: The usual Y-shaped incision is made, I don't remember making that incision because I again was not the pathologist performing the autopsy.
Q: You saw the President on the table after the incision had been made, did you not?
A: Yes.
Q: And you are telling me that you did not go into the throat area because you did not want to mutilate the body, is that correct?
MR. DYMOND: I think he answered that three times.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, Colonel, also along the line of the dissecting of the throat area, you were,
at the time of the autopsy, on that night I believe puzzled by what you found because you found no exit wound at that time of the hole you found in the back. Is that correct?
A: It is.
Q: I believe you answered Mr. Dymond before that you were not taking orders from anybody in the autopsy room. Is that right?
MR. DYMOND: I think that is a misquotation of the witness.
MR. OSER: I asked the Colonel whether or not he told Mr. Dymond on redirect examina- tion that he was not taking orders from anybody in the autopsy room.
MR. DYMOND: I asked the witness on redirect whether anybody gave him any orders as to what his professional opinion should be.
MR. OSER: Your answer was no, is that correct, Colonel?
THE WITNESS: Right.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: But you did take orders and did not dissect the throat area?
A: Well, these are not direct orders, these are suggestions and directions. I was not told, "I give you a direct order" or that sort of thing.
Q: And at the time, Colonel, you were a Lieutenant Colonel, were you not?
A: Yes.
Q: And there were Admirals and Generals in that room, were there not?
THE COURT: We are going over the same thing.
MR. OSER: Orders were brought up on redirect.
MR. DYMOND: We object on the grounds --
THE COURT: I sustain the objection, repetitious.
MR. OSER: That's all.
THE COURT: Is Dr. Finck released from the obligation of his subpoena?
MR. DYMOND: He is. At this time may we have five minutes? We have a couple of witnesses whom we are expecting.
THE COURT: Take the Jury upstairs. We will have a recess.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, the undersigned, Paul W. Williams, do hereby certify:
That the above and foregoing (37 pages of typewritten matter) is a true and correct transcription of the stenographic notes of the proceedings and herein, the same having been taken down by the undersigned and transcribed under his supervision, on the day and date hereinbefore noted, in the Criminal District Court for 1the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, in the matter 1of the State of Louisiana vs. Clay L. Shaw, 198-059 1426 (30) Section C on the 25th day of February, 1969, before 1the 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/ Paul W. Williams
PAUL W. WILLIAMS