February 17, 19 and 28, 1969
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW
198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"
EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
February 17, 1969
B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"
MR. OSER: The State would like to note for the record that in light of Time, Inc. on the return of the subpoena, the subpoena called for 35 millimeter slides of Frames 200 to 320, and after checking the return made by Time, Inc., the State learns that Frames 234 through 244 are missing. This is a check by Mr. Alford and myself.
THE COURT: Where is the witness? You excused him?
MR. OSER: Time has these things copyrighted and I wanted to note for the record that we did not receive those particular frames.
THE COURT: You requested that you have them?
MR. OSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why didn't you question the witness while he was here?
MR. OSER: We did not go down and go through 120 35 MM slides, we assumed they were all here. I just want it noted for the record.
THE COURT: If the gentleman is still in the City and he hasn't left, possibly you can have one of the Assistant District Attorneys call Mr. Sessions and tell him about this and maybe it can be rectified while we are proceeding.
MR. OSER: Mr. Sessions is not in his office, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let's proceed with what you do have.
JOHN NICHOLS, M.D., having been first duly sworn by the Minute Clerk, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: Would you state your name for the record, Doctor, please.
A: My full name is John Marshall Nichols.
Q: Where do you live, Doctor?
THE COURT: How do you spell that?
THE WITNESS: N-i-c-h-o-l-s.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Where do you live, Doctor?
A: I live at 8008 Reed Road in Prairie Village, Kansas, that is a suburb of Kansas City.
Q: What is your profession, Doctor?
A: I am a physician.
MR. OSER: At this time the State is going to attempt to qualify Dr. Nichols as an expert in the field of pathology and in the field of forensic pantology.
THE COURT: Proceed.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, from what university did you receive your undergraduate degree?
MR. DYMOND: At this time we object to Dr. Nichols' testimony on the ground that it is irrelevant to the issues in this case.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the questions propounded to Dr. Nichols and answers given, the Defense objection, the reason for the objection, the Court's ruling, and the entire record, including all testimony up to this point, parts of the bill.
THE WITNESS: West Virginia University.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: And in what year was that?
A: 1943.
Q: Doctor, do you hold a PH degree?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: In what, sir?
A: Well, that is from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Q: And do you hold any other degrees, Doctor?
A: Well, I hold a degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from the University of Liverpool --
THE COURT: Would you speak a little louder, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: An MD Degree from the University of Liverpool, Bachelor of Medicine -- I have been ill in bed with a terrible cold.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Continue, Doctor.
A: My medical degree is from the University of Liverpool in England, Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery and Doctor of Medicine, licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians and licentiate of Royal College of Surgeons, and these two licentiates are equivalent to the American MD Degree.
Q: Doctor, did you undergo any internship in the field of Pathology?
A: Yes, I did, Yale University at New Haven, Connecticut.
Q: How long was that internship in Pantology?
A: Well, a year for the internship.
Q: Did you do any residency in Pathology?
A: Yes, at the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond.
Q: Have you had any teaching assignments since becoming a doctor or do you --
A: Well, at the present time I am Associate Professor of Pathology at the University of Kansas.
Q: And prior to that?
A: Well, prior to that I was Assistant Professor of Pathology and prior to that I was Instructor in Pathology at the Medical College in Virginia during my last year.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not you are accredited by the American Board of Pantology?
A: I passed every examination and I am so certified.
Q: Are you a consultant, Doctor, with any hospitals?
A: Well, I am a consultant to the Veterans Hospital in Kansas City, officially, and there are pathologists in several other hospitals who ask my opinions from time to time, yes.
Q: During your medical career, Doctor, have you had occasion to write any articles or pamphlets concerning the area of pathology?
A: Well, I think I published approximately 50 articles in various medical and scientific journals and I have written three chapters in three textbooks on pathology.
Q: Have any of these articles appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association?
A: Yes, that is true, several.
Q: During your career in the field of Pathology, can you tell us approximately how many autopsies you have done?
A: I have personally done approximately 1,000 autopsies.
THE COURT: How many?
THE WITNESS: Approximately 1,000, and I have supervised the doing of approximately another 1,000, and I have assisted and participated, I suppose, in 250, these figures of course are approximate.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Have you done any work, Doctor, with various types of surgical specimens removed from autopsies?
A: Well, the surgical specimens that are removed from living patients on which the surgeon wants to know whether he is dealing with a cancer or not, yes, I suppose I have examined 35 or 40 thousand surgical specimens.
Q: Doctor, have you ever been qualified as an expert in the field of Pathology in any courts of the land?
A: I testify somewhat regularly in the trial courts of Kansas.
MR. OSER: I tender the Doctor on his qualifications as an expert.
THE COURT: In Pathology and also Forensic Pathology?
MR. OSER: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you like to traverse the witness?
MR. DYMOND: We have no questions on that, Judge.
THE COURT: Is the matter submitted?
MR. OSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It is submitted by the State. I will rule that Dr. Nichols by his experience and training and studies is qualified as an expert in and can render his opinions in the field of Pathology and also in the field of Forensic Pathology.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, would you define for us what is known as the field of Pathology.
A: Well, the field of Pathology, as I interpret it, consists mainly of making microscopic diagnoses on patients, tissue removed from human patients in order that the surgeon may tell the patient he has a cancer and treat him appropriately or tell him he has a benign disease and treat that appropriately. I suppose that pathology is really divided into some subsections too, that would be forensic pathology, which deals with the acquiring of evidence with which to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and if a crime has been committed, then to assist in apprehending, convicting, the guilty, and acquitting the innocent, although there is another branch which I am relatively ignorant, this is clinical pathology and this consists mainly of running the blood bank and chemical tests on the blood and urine and things as that in the hospital, and I profess no degree of proficiency in that.
Q: Now, Doctor, am I correct in stating that you deal with the area of forensic pathology? Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, Doctor, have you had occasion to examine what is commonly known as Zapruder film?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: Have you also had occasion, Doctor, to examine various 35 MM slides of the Zapruder film?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: Have you also had occasion, Doctor, to examine various 35 MM slides of the Zapruder film?
A: Yes, I have.
MR. OSER: At this time, the State requests permission to display the Zapruder film to Dr. Nichols.
MR. DYMOND: We object, Your Honor, on the grounds that the film has been shown approximately six times already. We see no connection between the showing of this film and the Doctor's expertise, and we further contend that it is irrelevant to the issues in this case. The Doctor has further testified that he has seen the Zapruder film.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the testimony of this witness, the questions propounded by the State, the Defense objection, together with the reasons therefor, State Exhibit 37, and all of the record and testimony in this case up until now parts of the bill.
THE COURT: I would like to make a statement. We are going to have a mass exodus in about 30 seconds. Mr. Oser stated to me in the chambers that he wishes to go up to the screen and he wants the witness possibly to go to the screen, and he is being blocked by spectators being up around the edge of the chair there. The persons who want to get against the wall, they can do it now, but nobody is going to be permitted to go right up to the front. We are trying to run this case properly and I would request that they do not talk to one another or comment in any way about what is going on in court.
You are going to put it in slow motion?
MR. OSER: In slow motion, Your Honor. I will ask the Doctor to step down, please.
(Whereupon, the Zapruder film was shown.)
THE COURT: Put the lights on, Sheriff. Let the people get back to their seats.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, are you familiar with what you have just viewed on the screen as having seen
this before?
A: Yes, my memory is refreshed.
Q: Doctor, I think you said before you viewed certain frames, slides of certain frames of the Zapruder film. Is that correct?
A: Yes, I have.
MR. OSER: At this time the State requests permission to display to Dr. Nichols various 35 MM slides of the Zapruder film.
MR. DYMOND: These have not been offered into evidence, to the best of my knowledge.
THE COURT: They have not as of this moment. They were marked for identification, as I recall, the prints were marked as "S-53," the slides were marked "S-54," and before you can show them to the Doctor, they will have to be received into evidence.
MR. ALCOCK: How can the State lay the proper foundation for introduction unless they show them to the Doctor for identification? The purport was to enter them in globo and show them to the Doctor in the presence of the Jury.
THE COURT: As you well know, if you make the offer, it is going to be shown to the Jury, it should be seen by the witness before it is shown to the Jury. Now, if you wish, have you examined the slides yourself, Doctor?
THE WITNESS: I think perhaps I have picked up one or two of them in my hands and looked at it against the light, and I have seen them thrown on the screen by his projector.
MR. ALFORD: All of the slides were identified this morning as having been made from the original film.
THE COURT: I am aware of that. I just want to know if the Doctor has been given an opportunity to look at these slides since they were in the possession of Mr. Orth, to see if the slides are the slides that he used for whatever tests he made. He said he only looked at one or two --
MR. OSER: Up to the light, Your Honor. I think the Doctor also said he saw all of the slides projected on the screen, is that right, Doctor?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I saw a rather large number, I did not count them all. I think I have seen them all, I did not make a count of them, though, or I did not initial them or identify each slide with a notation.
THE COURT: Let's make the offer.
MR. EDWARD WEGGMAN: The slides just came from New York this afternoon.
MR. OSER: Is the number "53"? I think "54" is the slides.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. OSER: The State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence that which was previously marked for the purposes of identification "S-54," the 35 MM slides from Time, Inc.
MR. DYMOND: We object to the introduction of these items, "53" and "54", first on the grounds that they are irrelevant to the issues, and secondly that the State, by introducing them, seeks to accentuate certain isolated portions of another exhibit in evidence.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection. Before I rule on Dr. Nichols testifying to the slides, I think it should be made evident, and I am afraid it will have to be done out of the presence of the Jury, that the Doctor is referring to the slides that you have in your possession.
MR. OSER: Yes.
THE COURT: That is what we did with Mr. Zapruder, if you remember. Take the Jury upstairs, if you will, Sheriff.
MR. DYMOND: Before the Jury leaves, Your Honor, I would like to reserve my bill of ex- ception to the last ruling of the Court, making the exhibits --
THE COURT: I haven't accepted them into evidence yet.
MR. DYMOND: Very well.
(Whereupon, the Jury was removed.)
MR. OSER: I have two of these carousels. I want to show one first and half of another.
(Whereupon, the slides were shown to the witness.)
MR. OSER: This is the place that is missing, Your Honor.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, having viewed the slides you just viewed, can you tell the Court whether or
not you had seen these slides prior to this time?
A: Yes, I have seen the slide earlier this morning.
THE COURT: Can you identify these slides as being the slides you used for whatever tests you made, whatever examination you made?
THE WITNESS: Well, I can't identify the particular slides, the images are all the same.
MR. OSER: I can show the Doctor the 8 x 10's while the Jury is not here.
THE COURT: You might as well cover that point too.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I show you what the State marked for purposes of identification "S-53" --
MR. OSER: Is that right, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: This consists of 21 8 x 10 color photographs or prints, and I ask you to examine the
photographs and inform the Court whether or not you have seen these photographs before.
A: Yes, I have seen these photographs earlier this morning and I examined them.
MR. OSER: All right.
THE COURT: Bring the Jury in.
(Whereupon, the Jury was brought in.)
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Oser.
MR. OSER: The State makes its offer as to "S-54," the 35 MM slides consisting of Frames 200 to 320, missing is 235 through 244.
MR. DYMOND: To which we object for the reasons previously stated, and also making a part of our bill the parts which were originally set forth.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection and permit the exhibit to be received into evidence.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I would merely like at this time to request that the Court inquire of this witness as to his seeing these slides and film early this morning, when we were waiting here right before lunch for Mr. Orth to get off the airplane with these things. We are somewhat at a loss.
MR. ALCOCK: What significance does that have, Your Honor?
THE COURT: The main thing, whether he saw them one second before he got on the stand or four hours, he has testified that he recognized them, that is the controlling factor.
MR. DYMOND: He said he saw them earlier this morning, when did you see the film?
THE WITNESS: Perhaps I used that wrong, perhaps I should have said I saw them earlier today.
THE COURT: You reserve your bill on "54." Now, what about -- did you make an offer on "53" as yet?
MR. OSER: The State wishes to offer, introduce, and file into evidence that which has been previously marked for purposes of identification "S-53," 8 x 10 color prints of certain frames of the Zapruder film. The said prints total 21.
MR. DYMOND: We have the same objection to that offering, making the exhibit, the objection, the offering, the testimony of this witness, the reasons for the objec- tion, the ruling of the Court, together with all testimony and the entire record up to this time parts of the bill.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection. I will permit the prints to be received into evidence.
MR. OSER: At this time I would like to display the slides to the Doctor.
THE COURT: We will have to set it up again, I agree with you, you will have to do it all over again. We are going to have this commotion again. Is it your purpose to play the slides now for the Doctor's benefit in front of the Jury, is that correct?
MR. OSER: Yes.
THE COURT: I will grant you permission to do so. I just don't want to have all of this commotion every time. Sheriff Brocato, if the people wish to move over there, tell them to do it now with at least noise as possible.
MR. DYMOND: We object to the seventh showing of this portion of the Zapruder film now on the slides on the ground that it's prejudicial because of the number of times shown, because of the accentuation of particular portions of it, and further that it is irrelevant to the issues in this case.
THE COURT: I would like to state -- let's have a little order, please, otherwise we are going to work it so that nobody leaves their seats. I am overruling the objection for two reasons. It refreshes the memory of the witness and the witness has been qualified as an expert and he needs this evidence to advise the Jury how he came to an opinion, so for that further reason, I am permitting the reshowing of the slides.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves the bill, making the entire testimony of this witness, the Zapruder film, which is "S-37," the prints from the film, which is Exhibit No. -- what is that, "51" or "52"?
THE COURT: "53" and "54" are the prints and the slides.
MR. DYMOND: "53," and the slides which would be "S-54," the reasons for the objection, and the entire testimony and record up until this point parts of the bill.
MR. OSER: I ask the Doctor can he see the screen from where he is.
THE WITNESS: Well, I would prefer to have a better position, but I don't want to obstruct the Jury.
THE COURT: It would be better if you stepped down. Are you ready, Mr. Oser?
MR. OSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cut out the lights.
(Whereupon, the slides were shown.)
MR. OSER: This is what is missing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. OSER: At this time, the State requests permission to display the 8 x 10 photographs to the Jury.
THE COURT: Any objection? They have already been received in evidence, you can show them to the Jury. Give half of them from this end so they can look at it here.
MR. OSER: It breaks up the order of them.
THE COURT: Oh, I see, it breaks up the sequence. Well, I tell you, it is 21 photographs, 14 men, for them to look at these photographs, that is going to take some time. Is there any objection to -- is there any objection on the part of the Defense or the State to take a recess and let the Jurors take the pictures up to the room upstairs? Any objection?
MR. ALCOCK: Not by the State.
MR. DYMOND: Subject to my original objection on relevancy.
THE COURT: We are going to take a recess and Jurors, let the Sheriff know when you are finished looking at the pictures and come down. I will try to get coffee to you as quick as possible.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Sheriff, bring the Jury down, please. You may proceed, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, I show you what the State has marked as "State Exhibit -- what is the next two numbers, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You marked the photographs in globo, all of the prints as "S-53." Now, if you are going to --
MR. OSER: I can use the alphabet.
THE COURT: "S-53-A, B," whatever you have.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I show you a document which the State marks "S-53-A" and "B," and I ask you if you
recognize those two particular photographs.
A: Yes, I recognize these photographs.
Q: I now show you what the State marks as "S-53-C," and I ask you if you recognize that photograph.
A: Yes, I recognize this third photograph.
Q: Doctor, using those three photographs, can you tell the Court whether or not you have examined those photographs as to anyone's body movement or possible reaction on these particular photographs?
A: Yes, I have examined the body movements of the late President and the body movements of Governor Connally in these three photographs.
Q: Doctor, as an expert in the field of Pathology and Forensic Pathology, can you give your opinion as to the body reactions as you see them and the body movements of President Kennedy as depicted on those three photographs?
MR. DYMOND: To which question we object. This is completely out of the scope of this Doctor's expertise, to look at a photograph and interpret the reactions of a body, that is not pathological work.
THE COURT: I understand not only did the witness examine the photographs, but he saw the movies, the Zapruder film. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
MR. DYMOND: That is not within the field of --
THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception making the entire line of questioning, the qualifications of Dr. John Nichols as an expert, the purpose for which he was offered as an expert, the exhibits "State 53-A," "B" and "C," the Defense objection, the reason for the objection, the Court's ruling, and the entire record of the testimony up until now parts of the bill.
THE COURT: Would you like to have the Court Reporter read the question?
THE WITNESS: No, I know the question.
A: In Exhibit "S-53-A," I notice that Governor Connally is sitting rather squarely in his seat looking forward and to the right. I notice that President Kennedy --
MR. DYMOND: We object to this witness looking at the photographs and telling us what the photographs show. The photographs speak for themselves.
THE COURT: He has been qualified as an expert to give his opinion. I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: He is not a photographic expert, that is what he is trying to tell us here.
THE COURT: You can reserve your bill.
MR. DYMOND: We reserve a bill, making the parts thereof the same as the bill which I previously reserved on Dr. Nichols' testimony.
THE WITNESS: Continuing on, "Exhibit S-53-A," I notice that the Presidential vehicle in which President Kennedy is riding, President Kennedy is emerging from behind what appears to be a road sign, he is reaching toward his throat with his hand, and "Exhibit 53" -- "S-53-B," the automobile has proceeded farther and has come further from behind the sign and I notice that Governor Connally still has the same posture, the President is still reaching for his throat with his right hand, and Frame -- and "Exhibit 53," "S-53-C," the automobile has proceeded further, he is almost completely from behind the sign now, Governor Connally is still squarely sitting in his seat looking forward and clutching what appears to be a hat in his right hand, President Kennedy is reaching towards his throat with both hands, and is leaning forward.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, having examined these photographs as well as having viewed the Zapruder film
and the slides, do you have any expert opinion as to the reaction of President Kennedy as displayed in those three exhibits?
A: President Kennedy is showing a typical reaction of pain in his throat.
MR. DYMOND: We object on the grounds that the answer is not responsive to the question. He was asked if he had an opinion as to his reaction, not as to the cause of the reaction.
MR. OSER: He said it was pain.
THE COURT: I think being qualified as [sic] the Doctor can give [sic] to the causation of it, I overrule that.
MR. DYMOND: He was asked what the reaction was.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, from having examined these three particular exhibits, as well as the Zapruder film and the 35 MM slides, do you have any opinion as to the cause of the reaction of President Kennedy as exemplified in those three exhibits?
A: President Kennedy is probably reacting to pain in his neck.
Q: Doctor, in those three exhibits that you now hold, do you have any opinion as to the reaction of Governor Connally in regards to pain?
A: Governor Connally does not appear to be reacting to pain.
Q: I now show you, Doctor, what the State has marked as "S-53-D," "E," "F," and "G," and I ask you to review those photographs.
A: Yes, the car in these photographs that you have just cited has moved forward, a second car is coming into view, and "Exhibit 353-D --"
THE COURT: "S-53."
THE WITNESS: I am sorry, "S-53-D" and "E," I detect that President Kennedy is still re- acting to the pain and Governor Connally appears also to be reacting to pain and probably in "Exhibit S-53-B" he is expelling a gush of air out of his mouth and his cheeks are puffed upward, this is -- this puffing of the cheeks is more pronounced in "S-53-F," and the Governor appears to be turning to the side, to the right, and he is turning very pronounced to the right in the last exhibit, "S-53-G."
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, can you tell the gentlemen of the Jury and the Court your expert opinion as to what would be the cause of Governor Connally's reactions as you see in those exhibits?
A: I think it is very likely that he has sustained a gunshot --
MR. DYMOND: I object to this, Your Honor, that is completely outside of the realm of this witness's expertise, for this witness to sit here and tell you as to what probably caused the pain, in my opinion, it is so far out of bounds that it is just --
THE COURT: Continue with your argument.
MR. DYMOND: This witness purports to look at these photographs and tell us what caused the pain that he supposedly detects in these photographs.
THE COURT: I agree with your objection, he can tell as an expert, he can give his opinion as to what caused the pain, but he cannot say unless he witnessed it what caused the pain.
MR. OSER: My question is not as to pain, it was as to reaction, not pain.
THE COURT: He can give his opinion as to the reaction but not the cause of it. We don't know what could have caused it.
MR. DYMOND: That is exactly the thrust of my objection.
MR. ALCOCK: He being a forensic pathologist, wouldn't it be consistent with his experience in the field of forensic pathology, this would be consistent with pain produced by a gunshot? What is so unusual about an expert giving an opinion along those lines? No expert or very few actually view what happened, they only see the effects of what happened. Any expert can give you his expert opinion as to what that cause was, this cause being a gunshot wound.
THE COURT: The question could be rephrased as to what could have caused that, not what did cause it. When the Coroner takes the witness stand in most murder cases or expert doctors are qualified, they can tell you what could have caused the wound, but not what did cause it, so if the question is rephrased, what could have caused it, I will permit it, otherwise I will not.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, unless this witness is qualified to testify that he has some special training which enables him to detect the differences and the different causes of pain which I think is impossible, he would not be qualified to answer that.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question and I will make a ruling on it, Mr. Dymond, and you can be heard. Will you rephrase your question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Using the four photographs you now hold in your possession, as well as having viewed the Zapruder film and the 35 MM slides, could you give your expert opinion as to what
could have caused the reaction in Governor Connally as displayed in those four photographs you now hold in your hand?
MR. DYMOND: Objection, if the Court please. This Court should not be interested in what could have caused the pain, anything in the world that would be painful could have caused pain, and that is just pure speculation.
THE COURT: I overrule your objection, he can testify to that.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the State's question, the Defense objection, the reasons for it, the entire testimony of the witness, the exhibits "State 53," and all of the testimony up until this time parts of the bill.
THE WITNESS: I can very definitely and very conclusively say that Governor Connally is reacting to a stimulus, which stimulus probably is pain.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, this stimuli that you speak of, that you just testified about, could this
stimuli have been the gunshot wound?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that, if the Court please.
THE COURT: When one of you speak, wait until he finishes so I can understand.
MR. DYMOND: I object to that on the grounds it is completely outside the scope of this witness's qualifications and the question calls for a pure assumption.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: The same bill with the same parts as the bill previously reserved.
THE WITNESS: It would be the impact of the bullet striking the Governor.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I show you what the State marks for identification, "S-53-H" through "S-53-M," and I
ask you to take a look at those photographs, if you would, please.
A: Yes, the automobile with the Governor and the President has proceeded further on its course, and in "S-53-H," Governor Connally appears to be in more extreme pain, the President is still clutching his throat, he is leaning forward and to the left, and he is being attended to by his wife. Now, in "S-53-I," the photograph is of a much poor [sic] quality than the previous one, it is blurred, it appears that the President's head, the first half of his head is exploding, and the next picture, "S-53-J," it shows essentially the same thing, the bloodiness and the red character of the explosion about his head is much less in size, and in "S-53-K," it appears that the President's had and his shoulders have moved backwards. This still seems to be apparent in "S-53-L," and Governor Connally is still in his apparent condition of pain, leaning on his wife and the President's wife is attempting to hold her husband in an erect posture, and "S-53-M," it appears that the President has moved still further backwards, his shoulders and his head, and the halo of explosion about his head is no longer apparent, but there appears to be a rather horrible flesh wound, this is the sum and substance of what I reviewed.
Q: Doctor, from having viewed the photographs you now hold as well as the Zapruder film and the 35 MM slides, could you state as an expert, Doctor, as to what the cause of the red halo or the red effect around President Kennedy's head was caused by as well as his backward movement as you have described?
MR. DYMOND: We again object on the grounds that this is outside the field of this Doctor's qualifications, and secondly it is irrelevant to the issues in this case.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: The same bill with the same parts as the previous two bills.
THE WITNESS: I think this depicts the effect of the gunshot wound, a bullet striking the President in the head.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: From having viewed this data, Doctor, can you give us an expert opinion as to the direction from which the President's head was struck?
MR. DYMOND: We strenuously object to such a question as this. This Doctor is not quali- fied to answer such a question.
THE COURT: I overrule your objection, Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, the same parts as the bills previously reserved.
THE WITNESS: Having viewed the Zapruder film, the individual 35 MM frames and the particular exhibits here, I would say that this is compatible with a gunshot having been delivered from the front.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, Doctor, in speaking of the exhibits that you identified before, and I am speaking now of "State Exhibit 53-B" and "State Exhibit 53-G," in using "State Exhibit
53-B," can you tell us again whether or not President Kennedy is responding or reacting to any stimuli?
A: In my opinion, he is reacting to a stimuli in his neck and that stimuli is probably pain.
Q: Now, in "53-B," the one you now hold, can you tell us whether or not Governor Connally is reacting to any stimuli in "53-B"?
A: In "53-B," Governor Connally is not reacting to stimuli.
Q: Now, referring to "53-G," can you tell us whether or not President Kennedy is reacting to stimuli?
A: President Kennedy is reacting more intensely to a stimuli.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not Governor Connally is reacting to a stimuli?
A: Governor Connally in my opinion is reacting to a stimuli.
Q: If, Doctor, using "53-B," if President Kennedy was reacting to a stimuli at that particular time, and the same stimuli would have caused Governor Connally to react, how fast, in your opinion, Doctor, would Governor Connally have reacted to the same stimuli applied to President Kennedy?
MR. DYMOND: I object, Your Honor, on the grounds that the hypothet is going outside the scope of the evidence.
THE COURT: In which way?
MR. DYMOND: If the Stenographer will read the question back, I will point out in which way. I assume the Court heard it.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the reason for the objection, the Court's ruling, the entire testimony and record up until this point, parts of the bill.
A JUROR: Could the Jury have five minutes?
THE COURT: Take the Jury upstairs.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Can I have a little order in the Court, please. Gentlemen, we are going to recess until Wednesday morning, and Dr. Nichols will be asked to return at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday morning. I want to make mention to the Jurors that I was lucky enough, I have a place for you all to see the Rex Parade and the Krewe of Orleans, and after that is finished, you will be brought back. I made arrangements for you all to be able to see the whole Rex Parade and the Krewe of Orleans, so that my break up the monotony that I know you are suffering.
Where is the Sheriff in charge of the Jury? I have some notes I want to give to the Sheriff. It is about 22 minutes to 5:00, and they are not here available to take the Jury, you say? Let everybody have a seat for a moment, Sheriff.
Now, in connection with tomorrow, let me mention one or two things. We are going to have about seven or eight Sheriffs with you, and please do not let anyone try to make a mockery or a joke because we are trying to accommodate you, I don't want any persons talking to you in any way. If they want to throw doubloons or things at you, you can catch them, but I don't want to have a spectacle made because we are letting you see the parade, but you will be far enough away from the street. You are going to be on a balcony at a home, the location of the home I don't want to let out now because it will be found out soon enough when it happens tomorrow, but I think it will be nice. The Sheriff will get sandwiches and chairs and whatnot so you will have food at the place. You should be there from about 9:30 until 2:30 or 3:00, and you will be brought back to the motel.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE COURT: I have arranged for a doctor to come check this evening around 6:00 o'clock. All right. I suggest that you take the Jury, and again I must admonish you, as I have done so many times, do not discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anyone else until it is finally submitted to you for your verdict in the case.
Let everybody have a seat. Take charge of the Jury and you, Mr. Shaw, you are released under your same bond.