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 28, 1969
DR. JOHN MARSHALL NICHOLS, a witness called for and on behalf of the State, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows, on Rebuttal:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Please state your name for the record.
A: Dr. John Nichols.
THE COURT: Mr. Alford, are you submitting the witness as an expert?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, Your Honor. He has been previously --
THE COURT: I am aware of that. I just want to clarify. Mr. Dymond, do you wish to traverse the witness as an expert?
MR. DYMOND: I don't think that is necessary again, Judge.
THE COURT: I didn't think so either. I just wanted the record to show I have previously ruled that he was an expert.
MR. DYMOND: Yes, I know you have, Judge. I don't see any reason to go through the formality.
THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record that I again rule the Doctor is an expert in the field of pathology and forensic pathology and can give his opinion in those particular fields. All right, you may proceed.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Your name is Dr. John Marshall Nichols? Is that correct?
A: That is correct, sir.
Q: Dr. Nichols, are you familiar with the human anatomy?
A: Reasonably so, sir.
Q: Are you familiar with the human skeletal structure?
A: Reasonably so, sir.
Q: More specifically, Doctor, are you familiar with the anatomy, with the human anatomy in the region of the human neck?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Doctor, at this time I wish to give you the following hypothet, and at the conclusion of my giving you this hypothet, I will ask you several questions: Assume that a man was struck by a rifle bullet which impacts at a location in his neck, said location being approximately five inches down from the right mastoid process and approximately five inches from the right acromion and approximately two inches from the mid line; that the resulting wound measures approximately seven millimeters by four millimeters; that this pellet then follows a path which causes it to exit at a point in the frontal neck region at the approximate location of the tie knot, and in making this exit the shirt is torn around the collar button and there is a nick in the tie on the left side of the knot; that this wound measures approximately five millimeters in diameter; and, finally, that in making the alleged path no bones are fractured, and further that this lack of fractures is verified by X-rays of the region of the neck. Now, first of all, Doctor, is there anything inconsistent in the facts which I have given you in this hypothetical situation?
A: You have mentioned a measurement two inches from the mid line. I don't understand that, sir. Is that in the front or in the back?
Q: This is in the back portion.
A: No, sir. The proposition you have stated is impossible, sir.
Q: Well, disregarding Doctor -- or let me ask you this: Why are these facts impossible?
A: Because if the bullet entered two inches from the mid line in the back, it would absolutely be required to strike one of the cervical vertebrae, sir.
Q: Now disregarding the fact of the wound being two inches from the mid line, Doctor, in your expert opinion do the facts which I have stated enable you to determine the minimum lateral or right-to-left angle at which a bullet would have to pass in order to make these wounds which I have described?
A: If the bullet comes out in the front in the mid line, it is quite easy to calculate the minimum lateral angle that it had to go in and missed a bone, yes.
Q: Now, Doctor, considering this right-to-left angle, could a bullet which entered and exited at the point which I have described, have been fired from the northeast window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository into President Kennedy's neck on November 22, 1963?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that, if the Court please. This witness is not qualified to testify to that, he is not.
MR. ALFORD: Your Honor, I haven't completed the question.
THE COURT: Wait, Mr. Alford, let me hear his objection, please.
MR. DYMOND: He is not qualified to testify to that, it is outside the field of his specialty in which he has been qualified as an expert.
THE COURT: I agree with you, Mr. Dymond. I sustain the objection.
MR. ALFORD: All right.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Dr. Nichols, what would be the minimum right-to-left angle at which the bullet
causing the wound I have described would have had to enter the body, and why is this so, sir?
A: 28 degrees, sir, the bullet had to be fired at a minimum of 28 degrees or greater.
Q: And why is this, Doctor?
A: Because if the angle is less than that, the cervical vertebra will be fractured.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Doctor, I now show you what for purposes of identification I have marked as "S-73." Now I would ask you to please inspect this and tell me what it represents, if you know.
A: This represents a schematic diagram of the human neck at about the level of C, cervical C-6 or C-7 at which point the bullet is alleged to have emerged from President Kennedy's neck. The drawing was done at my personal request and under my personal direction and supervision in the summer of 1967, and it accurately depicts the minimum lateral angle that a bullet could go through the neck without striking bond. Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Now, Doctor, I show you what for purposes of identification I will mark as "S-79," and ask you whether or not you can identify this.
A: This is a faithful photographic reproduction of the sketch.
Q: Is there anything included in the sketch which is not included in the photograph?
A: The total qualities, the black and white rendition of some portions are not completely similar.
Q: Now, Doctor, have you had occasion to view and examine the Zapruder film, sir?
A: Yes, sir, I have.
Q: And do you have an expert opinion as to the approximate location in reference to the Zapruder film, in which President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet?
MR. DYMOND: Object, if the Court please. This is outside the field of his expertise.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court --
THE COURT: How in the world, Mr. Alford, can you have Dr. Nichols tell us what bullet hit the President.
MR. ALFORD: I will strike the word "bullet." I will rephrase the question.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Dr. Nichols, from your viewing of the Zapruder film, have you been able to determine at what point the President appears to react to some stimulus?
A: He appears to react at frame 200.
MR. DYMOND: I object to that, if the Court please.
MR. ALFORD: On what ground?
MR. DYMOND: Once again that is outside --
MR. ALFORD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Let me get something straight. When he makes an objection, will you please keep quiet until I hear the objection, because when you are talking I can't hear his objection. Will you please do that?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond, I will be glad to hear you.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, again I object on the ground that this is outside the scope of this witness' expertise. He has not been qualified in the field of photography, and therefore --
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond, this was covered in the original testimony of Dr. Nichols, as I recall it, and you made the same objection, that he was not qualified in the field of photography, and I overruled you then.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we would like to make an additional objection then that this is repetitious and has no place in re-direct examination.
THE COURT: What are you rebutting there, Mr. Alford?
MR. ALFORD: Please the Court, this is simply a preliminary question which the State intends to link up to rebutting evidence.
THE COURT: No, sir, you have got to be more specific than that, you have got to tell me what you are rebutting.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, I will be glad to tell you. On Direct testimony and on Cross-Examination Defense witnesses stated that they were not able to determine the lateral angle, they stated that they did not do it. Dr. Finck specifically refused to state the lateral angle. However, he did state facts, and we have already elicited from this witness that based on the facts which were testified to by Dr. Finck, he feels that he can state a minimum angle. We feel like this is perfectly proper rebuttal.
THE COURT: Frame 270 tells you the angle that President Kennedy was struck.
MR. ALFORD: No, Your Honor. I gave the witness a hypothet.
THE COURT: I am aware of that.
MR. ALFORD: Based on the hypothet, and I only asked him about the Zapruder film in order to maintain the continuity of the testimony.
MR. DYMOND: Do you want me to say anything further, Judge?
THE COURT: I don't understand Mr. Alford's explanation of what he is rebutting. Are you rebutting Dr. Finck's testimony?
MR. ALFORD: Not only Dr. Finck's but also Mr. Frazier's testimony, Your Honor. Mr. Frazier specifically testified that one bullet could have passed through two persons seated in the President's limousine. I am leading up to this. Also Dr. Finck's testimony in certain respects.
THE COURT: That was covered in your original presentation of your case.
MR. ALFORD: Not by us, Your Honor. They put Mr. Frazier on. Mr. Frazier is the one who stated in his opinion one bullet could have passed through two persons.
THE COURT: I can't repeat the testimony, but I am certain that was covered.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, the Defense witness, Colonel Finck, testified as to where he found a wound in the President's clothes. Furthermore he testified as to what the track of that wound in the throat was, and, in addition, he said that no bones were broken, and it wasn't until the Defense put on Colonel Finck that it was brought into the facts and into the evidence in this case as to what the description of the President's throat wound was, and this is what we are attempting to rebut at this particular time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I sustain Mr. Dymond's objection, it is repetitious, and besides you are asking for an opinion that is not covered in his expertise for which he was qualified.
MR. ALFORD: One moment please, Your Honor.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Now, Dr. Nichols, if two persons were seated in an automobile, one relatively in front of another, and a bullet made a path as I have described to you through the neck
of the rear person or the person furtherest to the rear in the automobile, in your expert opinion, or in your opinion, where would this person seated in front have to be seated in order to be struck in the right armpit?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object to this, first on the ground that it is too indefinite, vague, "sitting relatively in the front." Thirdly, no foundation has been laid to show that this Doctor ever examined the wounds of Governor Connally, he does not know exactly where the Governor was sitting with relation to the late President Kennedy.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court --
THE COURT: I sustain the objection, Mr. Alford.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Now, Doctor, if at the time that the President has been as observed in the Zapruder film, reacting to a stimulus at the first point, would this angle which you have testified to, being a minimum of 28 degrees, have been affected by the direction in which his head were turned, if in fact it was turned?
A: Only very slightly, sir.
Q: Would you please explain this.
A: Yes, sir. When one moves their head, most of the rotation takes place at the top of the vertebral column. We have seven cervical vertebrae. For example, if you move your head seven degrees, you do not get one degree of rotation on the vertebra, you get the majority of the rotation on the top two vertebrae, say five or six degrees of rotation, and down about C-6 or C-7 where the bullet emerged, you get practically no rotation. This can be very easily confirmed by any person putting a finger here and moving the head slightly (demonstrating). It is easily seen that practically no rotation takes place at the level that the bullet emerged.
Q: Now, would the fact that the President's left shoulder were withdrawn from the rear seat affect the lateral angle?
A: Yes, turning the body at that level would affect it.
Q: Now, from your viewing of the Zapruder film and various other pictures, were you able to detect any withdrawing of the left shoulder from the seat?
MR. DYMOND: Object, if the Court please. The Doctor has testified on Direct Examination when he was here in court before, to the exact location of President Kennedy as though he were in Dealey Plaza when the shots were fired, and this is nothing but repetition of that testimony.
THE COURT: I think he has covered that point on Direct Examination. I will sustain the objection.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Now, Doctor, is the fact that there was a wound in the rear neck measuring
approximately seven millimeters by four millimeters, and a wound in the area of the know of the tie measuring approximately five millimeters, and said wound being supposedly the wound of exit, are these two measurements consistent with a wound of entrance and a wound of exit?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the same objection on this, it was covered on Direct.
THE COURT: Just a moment. I particularly remember that you covered this subject very grossly with Dr. Finck. I don't believe that subject matter was taken up by this witness previously. I will permit the question, I will overrule your objection.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Could you answer the question?
THE COURT: Now wait. Let me tell you one thing you left out, Mr. Alford, in your question, you didn't say it was a wound in the fleshy part of the neck, not of the skin. You didn't cover that point.
MR. ALFORD: No, I apologize.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: I would add one additional fact to this question, and that is that this is a wound through a fleshy portion of the body.
A: I think in order to answer that question I would need to have somebody of the same measurements as the President, and I would have to go into considerable detail, the position as measured from the mastoid and from the acromion. Assuming that it does miss the vertebral bodies, the bullet could have traversed the neck, yes, and come out at the mid line.
Q: I see. Are the measurements of the wound of entrance being seven millimeters by four millimeters, the wound of alleged exit being five millimeters, consistent, based upon your experience in the field of pathology?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object there again as to the measurements of the wound of exit. The actual measurements of the wound of exit have never been firmly established. Therefore, this hypothet attempts to go outside the bounds of what has been proven.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection. I particularly recall a previous doctor talking specifically about having measured it. I will permit the question.
THE WITNESS: Generally speaking, the wound of exit in the overwhelming majority of cases is larger than the wound of entrance.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: I see. In the example or the hypothet which I have given you, is the alleged wound of exit larger than the alleged wound of entrance?
A: No, sir.
Q: Now, Doctor, if you were engaged in the performance of an autopsy, and in the course of the performance of this autopsy you found a wound measuring approximately seven millimeters by four millimeters in the back or the neck, back of the neck of a person, but you could not determine or find a wound of exit, what procedure would you take at this time?
A: Before starting this autopsy I would have X-rays made of the entire body, and I would have had photographs of the appropriate anatomy of the body made, and then not having found a missile in the body, I would have dissected the track.
Q: Would there be any other way of accurately determining the path of a bullet under these circumstances, other than through X-rays or dissecting the track?
A: If the subject was in the exact position at autopsy as at the time the injury was inflicted, and you know that one is the hole of exit and one is the hole of entry, it would be very simple.
Q: Now, not knowing that, the location of the hole of exit, would it be possible to accurately determine the path of a bullet without having X-rays or dissecting the track?
A: It would not.
Q: Doctor, are you familiar with the term "beveling"?
A: Yes, I am, in relation to missiles in the skull.
Q: And to what does this term refer?
A: It refers to the fact that the hole will be larger on one side of the skull bone than it is on the other side.
Q: Is this always a valid theory under all circumstances?
A: No, sir. In order to find and firmly establish the bullet hole of entry and the bullet hole of exit, one has to take into account a larger number of things, and this is one of the things that you take into account, but it is not always true, there are exceptions.
Q: I see. And would the type of missile which had entered the skull affect the validity of this theory?
A: Very much so, sir. Small caliber bullets such as a .22 and such as .32's from pistols and such things as this, the beveling is much more pronounced and it is a much more reliable guide. However, with such an impact of such a bullet of the 161 grain 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano, the head in effect explodes and many fragments of bone are produced. It is very, very difficult under these circumstances to ascertain the point of entry and the point of exit.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Doctor, at this time I show you what for purposes of identification has been previously marked as "D-28," and I ask you whether or not you are familiar with what is depicted on this sheet of paper.
A: I am quite familiar with this, sir; I use it in my own lectures, I have seen it in the Warren Report, I have seen it in a publication by Dr. Finck in the Journal of the American Association for Forensic Sciences, I have talked with Dr. Finck about this personally, and I have written him about this.
Q: I see. Is this a valid theory under all circumstances?
A: No, it is not a valid theory under all circumstances. With small caliber weapons, the principles that he is attempting to demonstrate here are reasonably correct. However, with weapons such as 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcanos and such things as 30/30 rifles, this does not apply.
Q: And, Doctor, if a person were struck by a bullet in the skull, will signs of beveling or coning always be present?
A: They do not always occur, sir.
Q: All right. If signs of beveling or coning are detected in a particular skull, is this conclusive evidence as to the direction from which the person were shot?
A: It is not conclusive evidence, sir.
Q: What additional evidence would you require?
A: I would require all data that could possibly be brought to bear on this, including photographs taken at the time of the infliction of the wound, either stills or movies or both.
Q: Now, Doctor, if a person was struck in the head with a relatively high velocity bullet, one traveling at approximately 2,000 feet per second, would the effects of beveling always be present, and, if so, how accurate would it be?
A: Beveling would not necessarily always be present, and if it is present, it is suggestive. However, under these circumstances, as I have previously said, the skull breaks into many fragments and one does not even get all the fragments with which to piece together the whole, and you have to speculate in some instances.
Q: Could bone or what is known as secondary missiles cause beveling?
A: Oh, yes, sir.
Q: Could fragments of bullets cause this beveling?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Have you ever examined a case in which the theory of beveling proved to be inaccurate, or coning proved to be inaccurate?
A: I have examined several cases in which I was unable to obtain an adequate amount of beveling with which to express an opinion.
Q: I see. And in these cases, upon what evidence or medical evidence did you rely?
A: I relied upon microscopic sections of skin wounds, and upon eye-witness reports, and such things as powder burns.
Q: Now, Doctor, you have testified that a bullet entering a neck at the locations as I have given you, but not fracturing bone, would have to enter at a minimum left-to-right angle of 28 degrees. Is that correct, sir?
A: That is correct, sir.
MR. ALFORD: May I have these marked as "State 80" and "State 81."
THE COURT: Show them to Mr. Dymond.
(Whereupon, the photographs referred to by Counsel were duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-80" and "Exhibit S-81.")
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: (Exhibiting photographs to witness) Now, Doctor, I show you what for purposes of
identification have been marked as "S-80" and "S-81," and I would request that you examine both of these photographs and tell me whether or not you recognize them, and, if so, what they depict.
A: Yes, sir. Mr. Alford, these are two pictures taken of a skeleton in which I have placed a short-end plated dowel in a position approximately 21 degrees from the right to the left, in such a manner as to get the bullet out at the mid line approximately in the place where one does a tracheotomy incision. I have also indicated on here with letters the mastoid process and the acromion process. These pictures were taken under my personal instruction and supervision, and they faithfully render that which I intended to show, within the degree of accuracy that one can place such a path.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, at this time the State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence exhibits marked "S-79, S-80," and "S-81."
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, as to "S-79" we have no objection. As to "S-80" and "S-81," if the Court please, we object unless this Doctor is in a position to testify that this is either a picture of the skeleton of President Kennedy or that the relative bone size and bone structure and so forth of all individuals is identical. Otherwise it is our position that these photographs are irrelevant to the case.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Alford, if you will rephrase your offer that the pictures are offered as being similar to an ordinary male skeleton, then I will permit the offer --
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- and overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling --
THE COURT: They are not being offered as the skeleton of President Kennedy?
MR. ALFORD: That is correct.
THE COURT: An ordinary male skeleton.
MR. DYMOND: To exhibits "S-80" and "S-81" Counsel objects to their introduction and reserves a bill, making the offer, the objection, the reason for the objection, the ruling of the Court, and the entire record, parts of the bill.
MR. ALFORD: At this time, Your Honor, I would request permission to show these to the Jury.
(Whereupon, the exhibits in question were displayed to the Jury.)
THE COURT: All right. Are you ready to proceed, gentlemen?
MR. ALFORD: I would ask that this be marked "S-82."
(Whereupon, the drawing referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-82.")
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: (Exhibiting drawing to witness) Doctor, I now show you what for purposes of identification has been marked as "S-82," and I ask you whether or not you recognize this, first of all.
A: Yes. This is a drawing, it is a photograph of a drawing. I had the drawing prepared at my explicit instructions and directions, and photographed. The photograph also represents a faithful rendition of what I wanted to do.
Q: I see. Does this photograph depict a bullet entering a person at approximately 28 degrees?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: Does it also indicate a second person, one sitting relatively in front of the other?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: I see. Does it indicate the path of a bullet headed into the first person at 28 degrees?
A: Yes, it does.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, at this time the State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence what has been previously marked as "S-82." The State does not state in its offer that any two persons depicted are seated in the exact same positions as President Kennedy or Governor Connally, but as Officer or Agent Frazier stated, it depicts two persons, one seated relatively in front of the other.
MR. DYMOND: To which we object, if the Court please. This drawing which, according to the Doctor's testimony, represents "what he wanted it to represent," is entered or offered for a precise purpose involving precision. Now, by this Doctor's very testimony it represents one person "sitting relative in front of the other." Frankly, I don't know what that means in terms of precision, I don't believe it means anything, and this is obviously a misleading sketch designed to show exactly what this witness wants it to show.
MR. ALFORD: No, Your Honor --
MR. DYMOND: -- using his own measurements, and by his own testimony not being an exact reproduction of anything except his own sketch.
THE COURT: You see, you would have to get the frame from the Zapruder film and then try to calculate at what particular fraction of a second the entrance wound was made, and then you have to find out where Governor Connally was at that fraction of a second.
MR. DYMOND: That is correct.
THE COURT: The objection is well taken, I sustain it.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, this witness is familiar with the Zapruder film and, if the Court will allow me, I can question him.
THE COURT: You can question him on what he has found in the Zapruder film at that precise fraction of a second, but you cannot bolster your own witness by letting him prepare a drawing that aids him in describing his testimony but bolsters him. You can't bolster him, and that is what you are using it for.
MR. ALFORD: It is simply an illustration of his testimony, that is all.
THE COURT: He can orally testify to the facts you are trying to put over here. I will sustain the objection, I will not admit "S-82."
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Now, Doctor, did you have occasion to examine the Zapruder film at approximately
frame 255?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: At this frame can you detect whether or not Governor Connally and President Kennedy are sitting relatively in front of each other?
THE COURT: Which frame?
MR. ALFORD: Frame 225, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Can you detect their exact location in relation to one another?
A: With a reasonable degree of accuracy, yes.
Q: Would you please explain this to the Gentlemen of the Jury.
A: Well, by simple observation with the naked eye, it appears that Governor Connally is sitting almost exactly in front of President Kennedy, perhaps an inch or so to the left.
Q: Now, Doctor, should a bullet enter a person at a 28-degree lateral angle, where would another individual seated in front of this person have to be seated in order to be struck by the bullet on the right side of his body?
A: Very considerably to the left, I would suggest 18 inches or so.
Q: Did you find as a result of your examination of the Zapruder film, that Governor Connally was seated to the left of President Kennedy?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we object to this testimony. This doctor is no better qualified to say what the Zapruder film shows than anybody else, and to have him get on this stand as an expert in the field of pathology and try to tell us what that Zapruder film shows when we have seen it eight times here, borders on the ridiculous I submit!
MR. OSER: Your Honor, if the Court please, what the State is attempting to do at this time is to rebut the testimony of Agent Frazier. Agent Frazier's testimony was to the effect that in the reconstruction he could line up a shot that would pass through the President's stand-in and the Governor's stand-in by sighting from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository down to either a white chalk mark or a piece of cloth on the back of the stand-in. We are attempting to do, at this particular time now that the Defense or after the Defense has put on Dr. Finck and we ascertained that it was a through-and-through gunshot wound and that no bones were broken -- the Government in its reconstruction did not calculate the lateral angle from right to left passing through President Kennedy's neck. This doctor has testified today that the lateral angle passing right to left would have to be a minimum of 28 degrees because of the bone structure of the human anatomy with which he is familiar. Now at this time we are attempting to introduce this particular exhibit based on the Doctor's research and examination, showing that if a bullet passed through an individual at 28 degrees as described by Dr. Finck, the Defense's witness, what would happen to that bullet and what would be the path of that bullet if it did not hit bone, and this is the reason, Your Honor, this testimony is being offered.
THE COURT: You have covered that. You are getting to whether or not it would strike someone in front of him. That was the question.
MR. OSER: That is correct.
THE COURT: He said the first (person) would have to be 18 inches over to his left. I heard him state that.
MR. OSER: Right, Your Honor, and this particular exhibit is to show --
THE COURT: I have already ruled on that exhibit -- he can answer it orally -- I have ruled the exhibit out. I believe the Doctor has answered your question, he said the person would have to be 18 inches over to receive the wound. Didn't you say that?
THE WITNESS: Approximately 18 inches.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Doctor, in examination of frame 225 of the Zapruder film, did you find that
Governor Connally was seated 18 inches to the left of President Kennedy?
A: Very definitely not.
MR. DYMOND: We object to that, if the Court please. Once again, this is supposedly an expert in the field of pathology and has been --
THE COURT: And forensic pathology.
MR. DYMOND: Forensic pathology, too, but not photography. I haven't heard him qualified --
THE COURT: Overrule the objection. We saw it nine times and I think I could give you an expert opinion on it myself.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the objection, the State's Exhibit 82, the answer of the witness, the reasons for the objection, the ruling of the Court and the entire testimony parts of the bill.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Do you recall the question?
A: I have forgotten it.
MR. ALFORD: Please read it.
(Whereupon, the aforegoing question and answer were read back by the Reporter.)
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Do you wish to further answer that question?
A: I would confirm just that he was sitting approximately in front and not 18 inches over, perhaps one inch, perhaps, or two inches.
MR. ALFORD: The State will tender this witness.
MR. DYMOND: Did you tender the witness?
MR. ALFORD: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Doctor, have you ever examined the Presidential limousine which was in Dallas on
November 22?
A: I went to Washington to do so, sir, but --
Q: Would you kindly answer my question and then explain, Doctor.
THE COURT: That is correct, just say yes or no.
THE WITNESS: No, I have not, sir.
MR. ALFORD: Now he has a right to explain.
THE COURT: You can explain.
THE WITNESS: (Continuing) I wrote to the Secret Service and asked permission to do this, and they gave me an evasive answer. I went to Washington. They met me at the airport and apologized for having torn it up but gave me the measurements which I have today.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: You are the same doctor who sued the Government, are you not?
A: I am still suing the Government, sir; it is not past tense, it is present.
Q: Now, Doctor, is my understanding correct that sometimes in writing your autopsy reports you take into consideration the testimony of eyewitnesses?
A: It doesn't influence my decision.
Q: Didn't you testify just a few minutes ago that in cases where you might have a skull wound and you can't find beveling, that you take into consideration the testimony of eyewitnesses?
A: If my answer conflicted with my testimony, I would go back and make a reexamination sir, but my testimony would not affect my protocol in the slightest.
Q: So you would not take that into consideration in forming your opinion, is that correct?
A: No, I take into consideration my own observations personally.
Q: And that is all?
A: That is all.
Q: And you are testifying now that you didn't say on Direct Examination that you would take into consideration the testimony of eyewitnesses?
A: I don't recall the exact phrasing of that question, but if I said that, I would like to withdraw it and amend it: I would obtain testimony or opinions of eyewitnesses without --
THE COURT: Please.
THE WITNESS: -- taking them into consideration is another matter.
MR. DYMOND: At this time, if Your Honor please, I would like to ask if the Court Reporter can find that answer given by the witness.
MR. ALCOCK: He acknowledged the possibility of making the statement. He said if he made it he was amending it at this time.
THE COURT: I agree with you, Mr. Alcock. We are not going to go back.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: So you don't know whether you made that statement or not? Is that right, Doctor?
A: I don't think I did, sir.
Q: Now, Doctor, if you couldn't find a point of exit to a body wound where you did find a point of entrance, would you reject the statement of a brother pathologist whom you knew to be qualified, to the effect that he had found a point of exit?
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, that is asking this witness to pass judgment on the testimony of another witness in this case, and this is an objection Mr. Dymond has made repeatedly.
MR. DYMOND: I am not asking him to pass judgment on anything, I am asking him to tell me what he would be willing to consider in arriving at a conclusion, that is all.
MR. ALCOCK: I will withdraw the objection.
THE WITNESS: Repeat the question, please.
MR. DYMOND: Would you read it back.
(Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I would consider the possibility that he had made an error. I would talk with him. For example, a neck wound -- I myself personally found a neck wound in the back but no apparent wound in the front, and in this instance it developed that the decedent had his mouth open and the bullet came out the mouth and there was none to see.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Doctor, did you ever examine the remains of President Kennedy?
A: I have requested to do so, sir, but been rejected.
Q: Would you answer the question and then explain if you want to.
A: No, I have not, sir.
Q: Have you ever seen the X-ray films or X-ray pictures?
A: No, I have not, sir.
Q: Have you ever seen the autopsy photographs?
A: I have not, sir.
Q: Doctor, weren't you a student under Dr. Finck at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology?
A: I attended three lectures given by Dr. Finck, yes, and in that sense he is my mentor, sir. In correspondence with him he refuses to talk to me about the subject. I attempted to do so on many occasions; it was part of my trip to Washington to talk to Dr. Finck, but he rejected me.
MR. DYMOND: That is all.