PIERRE A. FINCK, M.D.
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 24, 1969

B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"

THE COURT: Bring the Jury down. I trust you gentlemen had a nice weekend. Is the State and Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Ready.
MR. OSER: We are ready, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. DYMOND: We now call Dr. Finck.
PIERRE A. FINCK, M.D., having been first duly sworn by the Minute Clerk, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Dr. Finck, for the record, would you kindly state your full name.
A: My first name is Pierre, P-i-e-r-r-e, A is my middle initial, and my last name is Finck, F-i-n-c-k.
Q: Now, Dr. Finck, what is your profession, sir?
A: I am a full Colonel in the United States Army Medical Corps, I am a physician in the Army, a specialist in pathology.
Q: Are you the holder of a medical degree, Dr. Finck?
A: Yes, from the University of Geneva Medical School, Switzerland, I obtained a Federal Degree of Physician in 1948 in Switzerland.
Q: Now, what has been your experience in the medical profession since having obtained your degree in 1948?
A: I had four years of formal university training in Pathology, two of them at the University of Geneva Institute of Pathology, and two of them at the University of Tennessee Medical School in Memphis, Tennessee.
Q: Now, may I interrupt you one moment and ask you whether or not this specific training in pathology came after your having obtained a regular medical degree?
A: I stated that I had four years of formal Pathology training after my M.D. degree, and I was an instructor of Pathology at the University of Tennessee, Memphis.
Q: Now, Doctor, of what have your duties consisted in the Army?
A: I was drafted by the Doctor's Draft of the United States Army in 1955. I was sent to Germany where I was a Pathologist of the United States Army Hospital, Frankfurt, F-r-a-n-k-f-u-r-t, and there I performed autopsies, many of them of a medical- legal nature, involving trauma, violent deaths, bullet wounds, accidents, and then in 1959 I was sent to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, D.C., on the grounds of Walter Reed Medical Center. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is the central repository and consultation facility for the Federal Military Services, the Veterans Administration, and we have some 2,000 civilian contributors in the United States and throughout the world who send cases to us for consultation of a pathological nature. In brief, pathology is the study of disease but in my particular field, the field of forensic pathology, f-o-r-e-n-s-i-c, it is the interpretation of medical-legal cases as they pertain to the law, cases of violent deaths, of unexplained deaths, unexpected deaths, poisonings, manners of deaths, such as homicide, suicide, accidents, undetermined deaths. The adjective "forensic" comes from the Latin Forum, f-o-r-u-m, which means the public place, the market place, so forensic indicates a public interest. It may relate to criminal matters, insurance cases, claims, lawsuits, litigation in general, and in November of 1960 I was appointed Chief of the Wound, W-o-u-n-d, Ballistics Pathology Branch at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology hereafter abbreviated AFIP, I repeat AFIP. In 1961 I applied to take the examination in forensic pathology, the American Board of Pathology on the basis of my interest in this field as a medical student, as a physician, as a pathologist during my training, and in the Army in Europe. I had letters, for example, from the Provost Marshal, who is the Chief of Police, that is the title of the Chief of Police in the United States Army, who stated that I had contributed to the interpretation of violent deaths, medical-legal cases in several instances. On that basis the American Board of Pathology accepted my training and my qualifications to take the examination of the American Board of Pathology in the specialty of Forensic Pathology. I had taken already -- this is a requirement, I had taken the examination to be certified in anatomic pathology in 1956. On the basis of the requirements I mentioned, the Anatomic Pathology Board and my qualifications to take the examination, I was certified in 1961, in 1961 by the American Board of Pathology in the special field of Forensic Pathology. Going back to your question about my duties except a tour of duty of one year in Vietnam as Commanding Officer of the Ninth Medical Laboratory, I have been in charge of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the AFIP since November, 1960 and I am still in charge of it. This branch is part of the division of which I am also in charge and which includes medical-legal areas such as accidents, poisonings, aircraft accidents, ground traffic accidents, et cetera.
Q: Now, Doctor, have you had any additional special training or experience in connec- tion with missile wounds?
A: I have carried out experiments on missile wounds in Washington, D.C., and at Edgewood, E-d-g-e-w-o-o-d, Arsenal, Maryland, on wounds produced by bullets fired by rifles.
Q: Doctor, did you have any training or experience while stationed in Panama, and, if so, what?
A: In March, 1964, while stationed in Washington, D.C., I was called at home by a military aide of the Deputy Secretary of Defense who requested that I go to Panama, the Republic of Panama, on behalf of the United States as an expert medical witness. I had to provide an opinion based on some 20 autopsy reports written in Spanish, autopsies performed by the Panamanian Coroner on victims of the riots, r-i-o-t-s of January, 1964. I had to state whether or not the wounds of these victims were consistent with the ammunition --
THE COURT: We need general qualifications, not special cases. I would prefer you not going into any one special case.
MR. DYMOND: All right, sir. At this time we submit the Doctor as a duly qualified expert in the field of Anatomic Pathology and Forensic Pathology.
THE COURT: Does the State wish to traverse?
MR. OSER: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I will certify the witness concerning his qualifications in the field of Anatomic and Forensic Pathology, and he can give us his opinions in that field. You may proceed.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you have occasion to participate in the autopsy which was performed on the late President John F. Kennedy?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Now, with whom else did you participate in the performance of this autopsy?
A: The Pathologist in charge of the autopsy of President Kennedy was Dr. Humes, H-u-m-e-s, he called me at home to come to the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, and I went there. I found Dr. Humes and also Dr. Boswell, B-o-s-w-e-l-l, who was the Chief of Pathology in the same hospital. Dr. Humes was the Director of the Laboratory, the three of us were pathologists.
Q: Now, Doctor, are you one of the co-authors of the pathology report in connection with the autopsy which was performed on our late President?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Doctor, will you describe for the Court and for the Jury the nature of the examination of the body wound other than the head wound which had been inflicted upon President Kennedy?
A: I would like to refer to my notes and use the small table.
Q: Yes.
THE COURT: I think they have a table set up for you.
MR. OSER: I object to the use of the notes unless it is ascertained what notes these are and were they made by the Doctor.
MR. DYMOND: He said his notes, we must assume he made them.
THE COURT: He may refer to them, as we covered previously, but he cannot read from them and testify, he cannot read from the notes already made and testify.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: It is permissible for you to refer to your notes for the purpose of refreshing your memory; however, you may not read your notes to the Jury.
A: I understand.
Q: All right, sir.
A: I saw on the right side in the back of the neck of President Kennedy a small wound.
Q: May I interrupt you one moment, Doctor, and ask, Doctor, let's have Mr. Wegmann step forward, and I ask you whether you can point out on his anatomy the approximate location of the wound to which you refer?
A: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you do this, sir, rather than doing it right here, can you do it in that area so the Jury can see?
MR. DYMOND: Would you kindly step down, Doctor, and do it in full view of the Jury.
THE COURT: I don't believe the Jury can see what you are doing, Doctor.
MR. DYMOND: I think that is better now.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: Would you mark that with this pen, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: I would like to call your attention at this time to the fact that I have made this mark on the shirt, and I apologize for it, but on the skin of President Kennedy I saw on the right side at approximately five inches from the right mastoid process, which is a bony prominence behind the right ear, the tip of it is at the bottom of the bony prominence, at approximately five inches from it down, a wound. This wound is approximately five inches from the right acromion, which is the upper extreme bony prominence of the shoulder, and approximately two inches from the midline. When examining this wound, I saw regular edges pushed inward what we call, what we call inverted. I saw a regular wound with regular edges pushed inward. This is what we call inverted, i-n-v-e-r-t-e-d.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Doctor, did you make --
A: May I add one thing?
Q: Surely.
A: This edge showed what we call an abrasion, a-b-r-a-s-i-o-n, which is usually seen when a projectile rubs against the skin and then goes through, it rubs it off and this is called an abrasion.
Q: Now, Doctor, did you make a minute examination of this wound in the back of President Kennedy that you have just pointed out on Mr. Wegmann?
A: I looked at it very closely and I had the opinion based on the character I mentioned, regular edges, with abrasion, and turned inward, that this was a wound of entry, e-n-t-r-y, which is a synonym for entrance, e-n-t-r-a-n-c-e.
Q: From the nature of this wound and your examination thereof, could you give a professional opinion as to what had entered that wound?
A: It was compatible with a wound caused by a bullet.
Q: Doctor, did you find anything in the nature of that wound which was incompatible or inconsistent with its being a wound of entry of a bullet?
A: No.
Q: Now, Doctor, did you examine on the remains of the late President Kennedy a wound in the frontal neck region?
A: At the time of the autopsy I saw in the front of the neck of President Kennedy a transversal, which means going sideways, a transversal incision which was made for the purpose of keeping the breathing of the President, and this is called a tracheotomy, t-r-a-c-h-e-o-t-o-m-y. I examined this wound made by a surgeon, it is very commonly found in unconscious patients, the incision is made to allow them to breathe. I did not see a wound of exit at that time, but the following day Dr. Humes called the surgeons of Dallas and he was told that they --
MR. OSER:
I object to hearsay.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: You may not say what the surgeons in Dallas told Dr. Humes. That would be hearsay evidence.
A: I have to base my interpretation on all the facts available and not on one fact only. When you have a wound of entry in the back of the neck and no wound of exit at the time of autopsy, when the X-rays I requested showed no bullets in the cadaver of the President, you need some other information to know where the bullet went. At the time of the autopsy there was a wound of entry in the back of the neck, no exit, no X-rays showing a bullet, that bullet has to be somewhere, so that information to me is of great importance. I insist on that point, and that telephone call to Dallas from Dr. Humes --
THE COURT: You may insist on the point, Doctor, but we are going to do it according to law. If it is legally objectionable, even if you insist, I am going to have to sustain the objection. Do you understand me, Mr. Dymond?
MR. DYMOND: I do.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: You say the X-rays showed no bullet or projectile in that area of the President or in any area?
A: In the entire body we saw X-rays of, I requested whole body X-rays for the reasons I mentioned, that when I arrived in Bethesda, there were only X-rays of the head showing fragments due to another bullet wound.
Q: Now, Doctor, let me ask you this: Was the location of the scar, that is, the tracheotomy incision which you saw, was this medically consistent with that area as having served as a point of exit of the bullet which entered the back of the President?
A: Entirely.
Q: Medically, was there anything inconsistent with its having been the point of exit?
A: No.
Q: As an expert, then, do you have an opinion as to what was the point of exit of the bullet which entered the President's back?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Would you indicate, would you kindly tell us what that is and upon what you based it.
A: I have seen the shirt of President Kennedy.
Q: Would you tell us what you observed in connection with this shirt of President Kennedy?
A: In connection with the exit I am now asked to testify on, I have seen in the front of the shirt of President Kennedy a small wound at the -- approximately the level of the tie know below the button of the shirt, and this was two holes going through the superimposed hems of the shirt, the fibers at the edge of that hole showed coagulated blood and the fibers were turned outward, indicating an exit hole. The position of that exit hole in the shirt of President Kennedy is entirely compatible with the level of the incision I saw in the front of the neck at the time of autopsy.
Q: Dr. Finck, I show you what purports to be a likeness of a human body on a sketch. I have marked this for identification "D-27," and I ask you whether that would be a likeness of the human body for the purpose of the medical material to which you have testified?
A: It is. And --
Q: Before you go further, let me ask you whether you yourself drew this sketch which appears in the Warren Report or whether it was drawn by someone else?
A: It was drawn by someone else.
Q: Go right ahead, sir.
A: This drawing was made by a Navy enlisted man when we were preparing our testimony before the Warren Commission. Dr. Humes supervised the making of this drawing.
Q: Doctor, I ask you whether with the aid of this drawing which I will now offer, file, and produce in evidence, marking same for identification "D-27," whether you can exhibit to the Jury what in your professional opinion was the course taken by the bullet which entered the President's back.
THE COURT: Before he answers that, I wan to see if there is an objection to the offering.
MR. OSER: The Doctor stated that was drawn by somebody else.
THE COURT: It is received in evidence and he can show it to the Jury.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Are you able to do that, Doctor?
A: To explain this to the Jury?
Q: That is correct.
A: Yes.
Q: Would you kindly step down here before The Jury and do it.
A: Gentlemen, I would like to --
THE COURT: May I suggest, sir, we have fourteen men, why don't we let him use the microphone and stand over there. You have to be in a position where all of them can see and hear you.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right, proceed.
THE WITNESS: I would like to explain to you the drawing labeled "D" as in Delta, -27. In the upper half of this letter-sized paper it represents the right side of the head, upper chest of President Kennedy. The arrow you see behind his neck indicates that the projectile entered, E-N-T-E-R-E-D, in the back of the neck, and the arrow you see in front of the neck, in the front of the neck of the drawing indicates that the projectile came out in the front of the neck. You will notice that the position of the head and upper chest is along a vertical line as compared to the horizontal line. You will notice that the wound of entry in the back of the neck in relation to the wound of exit in the front of the neck and in relation to a horizontal line, you will notice that the entry in the back of the neck is higher than the exit in the front of the neck.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: All right, Doctor. Now, Doctor, I will ask you whether this sketch to which you have referred for the Jury purports to represent the actual vertical position of President Kennedy at the time that he was hit by this bullet, or is this an aribitrary vertical sketch? What I mean is, could he have been leaning further backward when he was hit, could he have been leaning further forward when he was hit, or does this purport to be the exact position in which he was at the time that he was hit?
A: As regards the position of the President at the time of the wounding, the Zapruder film shows that the President was sitting in the presidential limousine in a straight- up position looking in a generally forward direction.
Q: Now, upon examination of the Zapruder film, Doctor, was it possible for you to determine the actual moment at which the President was hit by the first projectile?
A: The great value of the Zapruder film to us was that it established, as I said, the position of the President and also the sequence of the shots. I remind you that at the time of the autopsy we stated that we could not determine the sequence of the shots. You can seldom do so by looking at wounds, so we could describe them, interpret the direction, have an opinion, a firm opinion about the direction, but as far as the sequence of the shots is concerned, this was established by the Zapruder film.
Q: Now, Doctor, as an expert, do you have a firm opinion as to whether the wound which you have just described was inflicted by a shot from the rear or from the front?
A: It was definitely inflicted by a shot from the rear.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, with the Court's permission, I would like to exhibit this to the Jury for examination.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Doctor, with respect to wounds in body matter such as skull, would you tell me whether the terms coning, cratering, beveling and shelving are synonymous?
A: In the field of describing wounds by projectiles through structures such as bones, the terms are synonymous, I would say it is cratering and not crating.
Q: I thought I said "cratering."
A: C-R-A-T-E-R-I-N-G, cratering, from a crater.
Q: Now, Doctor, in connection with the autopsy performed on our late President Kennedy, did you have occasion to examine and analyze a head wound which appeared upon his remains?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Would you describe for the benefit of the Jury the extent and nature of the examination which you made on this part of the remains of President Kennedy.
A: I saw in the back of the head of President Kennedy, at the right side at approximately 1 inch, 25 millimeters, from a bony prominence you can all feel in the back of your head, it's called the external occipital protuberance, I saw that wound slightly above this protuberance.
Q: Doctor, if I come forward, will you be able to point on my head the approximate location of the wound which you have just described?
A: Yes, I will be.
Q: I won't ask you to mark this one.
A: This is the approximate position of that wound which was in the scalp on the right side at approximately 1 inch to the right of that protuberance and slightly above it.
Q: Now, Doctor, will you describe to the Jury the nature of this wound which you found on President Kennedy's head and the location of, which you have pointed out on my head?
A: This wound had slightly irregular edges in contrast to the first wound I described in the back of the neck, and I would like to explain at this time the reason for that. The tissue underlying the skin, I have described in the back of the neck is soft tissue, and when the bullet strikes the skin in such an area it does not meet the resistance it meets when there is bone underneath, and this explains the difference in character of those two wounds of entry. The wound in the back of the head showed irregular edges because there was bone close to the scalp corresponding to that scalp wound in the back of the head I just demonstrated, there was a hole in the bone, in the skull of President Kennedy, and I examined it, that hole, from outside the skull and from inside the skull. When examining from outside the skull, I did not see a crater, I saw a hole but there was no crater around it. When I looked at that wound from inside the skull, I saw a definite crater, C-R-A-T-E-R, and this is a certain factor to identify positively the direction of a projectile going through a flat bone such as the skull. To take a practical example, I have seen similar craters in wood, when a bullet goes through and through a pane of wood, and in glass, and it is the difference of the examination between the outer surface and the inner surface that allows the examiner to determine the direction of the bullet. Police officers do that all the time when they examine panes of wood or panes of glass, and I have done so myself. It is an accepted fact.
Q: Doctor, I show you a sketch which has been marked for identification "D-28," and I ask you what this represents?
A: This letter-sized black and white illustration labeled "Delta-28," entitled "Perforating, P-E-R-F-O-R-A-T-I-N-G, Missile, M-I-S-S-I-L-E, Perforating Missile Wound of the Skull" shows a scheme, S-C-H-E-M-E, prepared at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology according to my instructions and based on the factors I just described.
Q: Doctor, was this prepared under your instructions before or after the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: It was prepared before the assassination of President Kennedy to demonstrate the pattern of wounds in bones in a through and through wound by a projectile. I did this for teaching purposes because I have to give many lectures in this field.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, in connection with the testimony of this witness, we would like to offer, file, and introduce into evidence the exhibit marked for identification "D-28."
MR. OSER: No objection.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Doctor, with the aid of Exhibit D-28, could you better explain to the Jury what you mean by coning, cratering, beveling or shelving of the bone?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you kindly let me get the microphone and step down and do it, please.
A: This is A, Alpha in white, the cavity within the skull, what we call the cranial cavity, C-R-A-N-I-A-L, labeled B as in Bravo, and the cavity shown in black, C as in Charlie is the wound of entry, D as in Delta is the wound of exit, and you see the title of this, "Perforating Missile Wound of the Skull," perforating is synonymous with through and through, it means the projectile goes all the way through a structure producing a wound of entry and a wound of exit. There may be fragments left by the projectile in between, but as far as the wounds are concerned, it is still a through and through or perforating missile wound by a missile, here a bullet or any projectile. You will notice that at the level of C, Charlie, when you examine this wound from outside you see a hole which is smaller than the hole observed when you look at that wound from inside the skull. You see the diameter outside in Charlie is smaller than the inside diameter of Charlie. When you look at this wound from inside, you see a crater, C-R-A-T-E-R, or cone, and this finding is called cratering, coning, shelving, or beveling. When that projectile goes through the bony structure of the skull, it produces a wound of exit, and here again by looking at the wound from inside of Delta and outside of Delta, you will see a larger diameter when examined from outside as compared to the diameter of the wound when examined from inside the skull. It is on the basis of such factors that the direction of the bullet path, P-A-T-H, is determined.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time in connection with the testimony of this witness, we would like to offer, file, and produce into evidence "D-28." I think it has been offered already.
MR. OSER: No objection.
MR. DYMOND: May we show this to the Jury at this time?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Dr. Finck, in addition to what you have described as a bullet hole of entrance, the location of which you have indicated on my head, would you describe any other damage which you might have found to the skull of the late President Kennedy?
A: In addition to the wound of entry I have discussed in the back of the head, there was a very large wound, irregular, star-shaped, what we call stellate, s-t-e-l-l-a-t-e, approximately five inches in diameter. It was 13 centimeters in diameter, which is approximately five inches and one-eighth. During the course of the autopsy we received from Dallas portions of bone which have the same appearance as the general appearance of the remaining skull of President Kennedy, and on one of the fragments which we could match inside this wound, approximately five inches in diameter, occupying the right side and the top of the head of the President, I saw the beveling I described to you. First identified the outer aspect of the specimen and the inner aspect, I-n-n-e-r, of the specimen to orient the specimen in relation to the wound. After having oriented the specimen as far as the outer and inner surfaces are concerned, I saw this crater when the specimen was viewed from outside which identifies a portion of the wound of exit. You realize that when you have a bullet going through a head at high velocity, the wound of entry may be entire, complete, as in this case, but because of the shattering, s-h-a-t-t-e-r-i-n-g, shattering and explosive force produced by that bullet, the wound of exit is very irregular and very often you don't have all the portions of bone to make a complete skull, some portions are missing, so you cannot do what you do with a complete puzzle, to take the complete pieces and make a complete image. In that case the fragments were matching the wound in a general way, and I could make a positive determination of a wound of exit, of a portion of a wound of exit, in a bone fragment submitted to us during the course of the autopsy, and it was, I would say, between approximately 11:00 o'clock at night -- I can give you the time, it was during the course of the autopsy this fragment was brought to us and allowed us to determine that this was the wound of exit.
Q: Approximately 11:00 o'clock on what date?
A: On the 22nd of November, 1963, the date of the assassination.
Q: Now, Doctor, were any skull fragments delivered to you which were incompatible with your opinion as to the exit area having been on the side of the head?
A: There were none.
Q: There were none. Now, having examined the skull particle which you have testified contained evidence as to which direction the bullet was traveling, and as an expert in the field of Pathology, do you have a definite opinion as to whether the projectile which caused the bone damage exhibited by that particle entered from the front or from the back?
A: I have a definite opinion. I would like to add that that bony specimen brought to us was X-rayed and contained metallic fragments which corroborates the finding of metallic fragments seen at the time of the autopsy on the X-ray film of the head of the President, and the X-ray film was taken before the autopsy of the head, I saw the X-ray film, there were metallic fragments on the X-ray, there were metallic fragments in that bony fragment brought to us during the course of the autopsy, and I have a firm opinion that the bullet entered in the back of the head and exited on the right side of the top of the head producing a very large wound.
Q: Doctor, did you find any evidence which would indicate that the President was hit by more than one shot in the head?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, as a result of your examination of the head, the head of the late President, what, if you have one, is your opinion as to the direction from which the bullet which inflicted the head wound came?
A: The bullet definitely struck in the back of the head, disintegrated, which is often the case when such a bullet at high velocity goes through bone, producing numerous fragments, many of them seen on X-ray of the head, and of the bony portion of the exit, and also recovered by us, we found fragments in the brain of the President, and that projectile produced that wound of exit on the right side and top of the head.
Q: Doctor, having examined the entire body of the late President Kennedy, did you detect other than the two wounds which you have described to me any other wounds on the body of the late President?
A: I did not, no other bullet wounds.
Q: Doctor, I exhibit to you a sketch which has been marked for identification "D-29," and I ask you whether you drew this sketch or whether it was drawn by someone else?
A: It was drawn by someone else.
Q: I further ask you whether this sketch depicts the path of the bullet into and out of the head of the late President Kennedy in accordance with the professional opinions which you have given.
A: It does.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, in connection with the testimony of the witness, I would like to offer, file, and produce into evidence the sketch marked for identification "D-29."
MR. OSER: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, at this time, Dr. Finck, we will ask that you step down, step before the Jury and with the aid of this sketch demonstrate to them what in your professional opinion happened when the President was hit in the back of the head with the bullet?
A: Gentlemen, you are looking at a letter-sized paper reproduction of a drawing labeled here "D-29," D as in Delta. It represents the right side of the head and the right shoulder and upper chest of President Kennedy. For demonstration purposes, the drawing shows the wounds in a general way, arrows indicate the direction of the missile, the arrow behind the back of the head has the word "in," i-n, and the arrow you see in front of the wound on the right side and top of the head is labeled "out," o-u-t. You see a relatively small wound of entry in the back of the head and you see a much larger wound of exit irregular on the right side of the head. This indicates the direction of the bullet striking the back of the head coming out on the right side. If you take the middle of this wound of exit, the general direction of this missile path, p-a-t-h, is from the rear to the front going downward.
Q: Please return to the stand, Doctor.
MR. DYMOND: We now ask that we be permitted to exhibit this to the Jury.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Doctor, in view of the small size, what was according to your testimony the hole of entrance in the President's skull and the relatively large size of the hole of exit, was it possible to determine with any degree of preciseness the angle at which this projectile struck the head of the President?
A: Not with precision because the wound of exit is quite large, and this is very difficult, a very difficult thing to do, determine the angle based on such findings. It is the best interpretation we could make based on such large wound of exit and the small wound of entry.
Q: Now, what was the best interpretation that you could make in view of the relative sizes of these wounds, Doctor?
A: That the bullet, that the projectile entered in the back, came out on the right side, and that the direction was from above down.
Q: Now, Doctor, is your opinion, is it not a firm one as to the direction of this projectile?
A: My opinion regarding the direction of the projectile is firm.
Q: Now, Doctor, from the --
A: As far as the entry and exit are concerned.
Q: Do you have any doubt about that?
A: I have no doubt that the bullet entered in the back of the head, disintegrated, came out on the right side of the head.
Q: Doctor, have you seen the Zapruder film?
A: I did.
Q: From the standpoint of a Pathologist, would it be possible to render a proper or accurate pathological opinion as to the point of entrance and the point of exit of this bullet without having viewed the remains of President Kennedy and by only having seen the Zapruder film and conducted some independent experiments with cadavers or bodies other than that of President Kennedy?
A: I would not do so.
Q: Why, Doctor.
A: As I said, the film was of a great value because of the motion aspect of it, because it was of a great value to determine the sequence of shots, it showed the position of the body, it showed the movements of the body during the shooting, I have seen on the movie President Kennedy moving forward, rising his hand to his throat, and then he was struck by the second bullet that hit in the back of the head.
Q: Now, Doctor, at the time that you co-authored the Pathological Report in connection with the autopsy performed on the late President Kennedy, had the Warren Commission yet been formed?
A: Would you repeat that question, please.
MR. DYMOND: Strike that question.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: At the time you performed this autopsy, had the Warren Commission yet been formed by Executive Order of President Johnson?
A: I don't think so. The date is available, and to my recollection I don't seem -- I don't think the Commission was formed.
Q: When did you form your opinions as to the directions of the projectiles which hit President Kennedy and the number of wounds which had been inflicted upon his body?
A: At the time we signed the autopsy report, the autopsy report, I had a firm opinion that both bullets struck in the back, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head. When we signed the autopsy report, we did not know the sequence of shots.
Q: I see. Now, Doctor, your opinion as to the direction of these bullets and the other matter which you have testified to here today, is that an honest, professional opinion on your part, or was it in any way affected by the desires or requests of anybody of Government or any individual?
A: My opinion is an honest, professional opinion.
MR. DYMOND: We tender the witness.
THE COURT: Just a minute. It is about 10:28, we are going to take a recess at 10:30, so take the Jury upstairs and we will take a ten-minute recess.
(Whereupon, a ten-minute recess was taken.)
AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Are the State and the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. OSER: The State is ready.
MR. DYMOND: The Defense is ready.
THE COURT: I believe the Doctor has been turned over for cross-examination.
MR. OSER: Correct, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, I believe you stated you were one of the co-authors of the autopsy report? Is that correct?
A: I stated that I was one of the three authors of the autopsy report.
Q: Now, during the autopsy, Colonel, and the results of the autopsy, were there any disagreements between you and Commander Boswell and Commander Humes as to what was done and the results thereof?
A: No.
Q: Am I correct in stating, Colonel, that you agreed, as the other two commanders agreed with you, as to the results and what was done and how it was done at the autopsy? Is that correct, sir?
A: And how it should be reported.
Q: Yes, sir. Right. Now, Doctor, have you ever conducted any experiments or research on the effects of a missile penetration of the brain or the skull?
A: I did not. However, if I may --
Q: Surely.
A: -- say something, I have carried out experiments to study the effect of a bullet striking bone, and also the effects of a bullet going through or striking a gelatin block. The reason for doing so is that gelatin approximates the consistency of soft tissue, and I was interested to know what happens to bullets, in one case striking bone, or, in other cases, going through gelatin, because I have been called to testify in other cases. One of them involved a rib in the back of a fatality, and based on the crater seen in the rib of that soldier, I could determine that the wound of entry was in the back of that soldier, and I also had experiments made on the bone, on the rib, showing that when you strike that bone from the back you produce a similar lesion as that observed in the actual criminal case.
Q: Well, am I correct in saying you did not have any experiments or research in the area of a missile penetrating the brain and skull? Is that correct? Did you not tell the Warren Commission that when you were asked by them, sir?
A: This is correct, but I would like to say at this time that I have carried out experiments after my testimony before the Warren Commission.
Q: Where did you carry those experiments out after you testified before the Warren Commission?
A: Where?
Q: When.
A: When? In Edgewood Arsenal; it was in December of 1965 and January 1966, experiments -- involving bullets, and this has no connection at all with the assassination of President Kennedy, they were experiments made to study the effects of bullets. And the other experiments were made in the F.B.I. Laboratory, and again it was not connected with the assassination of President Kennedy.
Q: Therefore, Doctor, am I correct in stating that at the time of your autopsy report that you submitted along with Commanders Boswell and Humes, you primarily based your opinion on your observations made at that particular time? Is that correct, sir?
A: This is correct, and --
Q: Now --
A: And I would like to add the information obtained the day following the autopsy, which stated that there was a small wound in the front of the neck of President Kennedy and that that wound had been extended to make the surgical incision. The wound observed in the front of the neck was part of the surgical incision made by the Dallas surgeons, and I knew that at the time I signed the autopsy report.
Q: When did you all contact the doctors at Parkland Hospital?
A: Are you asking me if I contacted a Dr. Parker?
Q: No, I asked you when did you all contact the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas.
A: Oh, I did not contact them, Dr. Humes did.
Q: And did Dr. Humes relate to you what he learned from these doctors at Parkland?
A: Definitely.
Q: Do you know when Dr. Humes contacted these doctors at Parkland?
A: As far as I know, Dr. Humes called them the morning following the autopsy, as far as I know, Dr. Humes called Dallas on Saturday morning, on the 23rd of November, 1963.
Q: Doctor, can you tell me why the delay in contacting the doctors that worked on President Kennedy in Dallas until the next morning after the body was already removed from the autopsy table?
A: I can't explain that. I know that Dr. Humes told me he called them. I cannot give an approximate time. I can give you the reason why he called. As I have stated before, having a wound of entry in the back of the neck, having seen no exit in the front of the neck, nothing from the radiologist who looked at the whole body X-ray films, I have requested as there was no whole bullet remaining in the cadaver of the President, that was a very strong reason for inquiring if there were not another wound in the approximate direction corresponding to that wound of entry in the back of the neck, because in the wound of the head with entry in the back of the head and exit on the right side of the head, I never had any doubt, any question that it was a through-and- through wound of the head with disintegration of the bullet. The difficulty was to have found an entry in the back of the neck and not to have seen an exit corresponding to that entry.
Q: This puzzled you at this time, is that right, Doctor?
A: Sorry, I don't understand you.
Q: This puzzled you at the time, the wound in the back and you couldn't find an exit wound? You were wondering about where this bullet was or where the path was going, were you not?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, at that particular time, Doctor, why didn't you call the doctors at Parkland or attempt to ascertain what the doctors at Parkland may have done or may have seen while the President's body was still exposed to view on the autopsy table?
A: I will remind you that I was not in charge of this autopsy, that I was called --
Q: You were a co-author of the report though, weren't you, Doctor?
A: Wait. I was called as a consultant to look at these wounds; that doesn't mean I am running the show.
Q: Was Dr. Humes running the show?
A: Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that -- he said, "Who is in charge here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, I am." You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officers, military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions.
Q: But you were one of the three qualified pathologists standing at that autopsy table, were you not, Doctor?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Was this Army General a qualified pathologist?
A: No.
Q: Was he a doctor?
A: No, not to my knowledge.
Q: Can you give me his name, Colonel?
A: No, I can't. I don't remember.
Q: Do you happened to have the photographs and X-rays taken of President Kennedy's body at the time of the autopsy and shortly thereafter? Do you?
A: I do not have X-rays or photographs of President Kennedy with me.
Q: What time did you arrive at Bethesda Naval Hospital in regard to the autopsy? By that I mean was the autopsy already begun?
A: When I arrived, X-rays had been taken of the head. I had been told so over the phone by Dr. Humes when he called me at home, and I arrived, I would say, a short time after the beginning of the autopsy, I can't give you an exact time, it was approximately 8:00 o'clock at night.
Q: Had any work been done on President Kennedy's body in regard to the performing of the autopsy by the time you got there?
A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the eck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence.
Q: How many other military personnel were present at the autopsy in the autopsy room?
A: That autopsy room was quite crowded. It is a small autopsy room, and when you are called in circumstances like that to look at the wound of the President of the United States who is dead, you don't look around too much to ask people for their names and take notes on who they are and how many there are. I did not do so. The room was crowded with military and civilian personnel and federal agents, Secret Service agents, FBI agents, for part of the autopsy, but I cannot give you a precise breakdown as regards the attendance of the people in that autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
Q: Colonel, did you feel that you had to take orders from this Army General that was there directing the autopsy?
A: No, because there were others, there were Admirals.
Q: There were Admirals?
A: Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders, and at the end of the autopsy we were specifically told -- as I recall it, it was by Admiral Kinney, the Surgeon General of the Navy -- this is sub- ject to verification -- we were specifically told not to discuss the case.
Q: You were told not to discuss the case?
A: -- to discuss the case without coordination with the Attorney General.
Q: Colonel, can you tell me how the body got from Dallas to Washington, D.C. when the killing occurred in Dallas, Texas, if you know?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I object to that.
THE COURT: I didn't hear the question, Mr. Oser. Would you repeat it?
MR. OSER: I said: Doctor, can you tell me how the body of the President got from Dallas, Texas, to Washington, D.C., when Dallas, Texas was the scene of the homicide, if you know.
MR. DYMOND: I think that is irrelevant to the medical testimony.
THE COURT: It would be irrelevant as to his expert opinions that he is giving. I think your question is what care was taken of the body, is that what you mean, the body itself? You can rephrase your question.
MR. OSER: That is all right. I will go on to another subject.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, can you tell me how many photographs were taken of the President's body?
A: Some of the photographs were taken in my presence in the autopsy room. I can't give you the exact number, but this information is available.
Q: To who, Doctor?
A: To you.
Q: It is?
A: It is a public document.
Q: Go ahead. How many?
A: I can't give you an exact number of photographs taken or X-rays of the body of the President.
Q: Doctor, prior to your writing your report on the autopsy, did you have an occasion to view these photographs of the President that were taken?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Doctor, I direct your attention to a report allegedly signed by you on 26 January, 1967.
MR. DYMOND: What part are you talking about?
(Conference between Counsel.)
BY MR. OSER:
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Doctor, I direct your attention to a report, which I mark for identification "S-67," and I ask you to take a look at this document. Would you take a look at this particular one that I have marked, Doctor, and let me know whether it is the same as the one you have before you.
A: (Comparing documents) It is.
Q: Your answer is that it is, Doctor?
A: Yes.
Q: And it contains your signature? Am I correct, sir?
A: Yes.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit D-67.")
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, I direct your attention to the first page, the bottom of the last line of the fifth paragraph, which states, "Dr. Finck first saw the photographs on January 20, 1967," and I ask you if you would explain your answer to me, sir, just made, that you saw the photographs prior to writing your autopsy report in 1963.
A: I did not say that I had seen the photographs before writing the autopsy report of 1963.
MR. OSER: May I have my original question read back to the Doctor, please, and his answer.
(Whereupon, the aforegoing passage was read back by the Reporter as follows:
"Q: Doctor, prior to your writing your report on the autopsy, did you have an occasion to view these photographs of the President that were taken?
"A: Yes, I did.")
THE WITNESS: No, I did not, I did not see those photographs before signing my autopsy report. I may have answered "I didn't" and it was transcribed as "I did."
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, did you hear what the stenographer just read you back? That is my question that I propounded to you. Now the question is: Did you see the photographs of President Kennedy before signing your autopsy report.
A: That is correct.
Q: That is correct?
A: I was there when the photographs were taken, but I did not see the photographs of the wounds before I signed the autopsy report. I did not see those photographs in 1963.
Q: So what you said before, that you did see the photographs, that was wrong? Is that correct?
A: I never said that. It was misunderstood. I said "I did not" or I didn't." I am very firm on this point that I did not see --
Q: Is it, Doctor, the fact that I showed you the report --
THE COURT: I think you have covered the matter now.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I have a right to go into the credibility of this witness like any other witness on cross-examination.
THE COURT: I agree with you. I am not denying you that right.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: He also has a right to finish his answer once he starts.
THE COURT: I don't know what the status of the matter is.
MR. EDWARD WEGMANN: The Doctor hadn't finished answering his question when he was interrupted by Mr. Oser.
THE COURT: Doctor, let me explain to you: Any question put to you by Mr. Oser, first, if there is a yes or no answer that can be given to it, either say yes or no, and then if you want to explain your answer, you have a legal right to explain it.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. You may pose your next question.
MR. DYMOND: May he finish his last answer before he poses his next question?
THE COURT: I thought he was finished. You may proceed.
A: (Continuing) The first time I saw the photographs taken during the autopsy, the first time I saw these photographs was in January 1967 -- one nine six seven.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, Doctor, can you tell me whether or not the fact that I pointed out to you in your report, marked "S-67" for identification, the point that Dr. Finck first saw the photographs on January 20, 1967 -- is the fact that I pointed this out to you the reason that you now say the Court (sic) and the stenographer misunderstood?
A: I don't follow you.
Q: Well, I am asking you, Doctor, is the fact that I point out to you in your report signed by you, that you said --
A: Yes.
Q: -- in this report that you didn't see the photographs until January 20, 1967, the fact that I pointed this out to you, is that the reasons that you now say that somebody misunderstood you and that you did not make the statement you made before as recorded by the Court Reporter?
A: I think so. I wish to emphasize that the first time I saw the photographs was January, '67. These photographs were taken on the 22nd of November, 1963, they were turned over, as I recall, to the Secret Service so they had been exposed, but I did not see the processed photographs until January, 1967. In 1964 I saw photographs, if I may recall, but they were not from the -- from the autopsy, they were from the Zapruder film in 1964.
Q: Now, Doctor, in the area of pathology, more specifically that of performing autopsies, and arriving at conclusions from autopsies, would you say that the use of photographs and X-ray are routine and necessary parts of a pathologist arriving at his opinion?
A: It is extremely useful.
Q: Would you say that is the normal practice at autopsies, to have photographs and various X-rays made of the body that you are performing the autopsy on?
A: It is a normal practice to take X-rays and photographs of a missile wound case.
Q: Will you tell me whether or not, Doctor, if you know, whether these photographs and X-rays were ever displayed to the members of the Warren Commission.
A: Please repeat your question.
MR. DYMOND: Object unless he was present.
MR. OSER: I said tell me whether or not you know.
THE COURT: Now, this is of his own personal knowledge?
MR. OSER: Yes, sir.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Can you tell me, Doctor, whether or not, if you know, these photographs and X-rays were ever displayed to the members of the Warren Commission, if you know, Doctor?
A: What is the word you used before, "Warren Commission"?
Q: Displayed.
A: Displayed?
Q: Or shown.
A: Shown?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, unless the Doctor was present, he can't testify to this. Secondly, I think that is irrelevant to the issues in this case. We have said many times that we are not trying the Warren Commission here.
THE COURT: We can nip it, we can find out whether or not the Doctor knows of his own knowledge whether they were or were not, and that will dispose of the matter. Either he knows or he doesn't know. Do you know of your own knowledge?
THE WITNESS: When I appeared before the Warren Commission in March, 1964, the X-rays and the photographs were not available to us in the preparation of our testimony.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Am I correct in stating, Colonel, that you and Commander Humes and Commander Boswell appeared in front of the Warren Commission at the same time?
A: We did.
Q: Can you tell me why the X-rays and photographs were not available at that time?
A: I was told that it was the wish of the Attorney General.
Q: Thank you, Colonel.
A: -- who was then Robert F. Kennedy.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness.) Doctor, I show you what the State marks for purposes of identification "S-68," and I ask you if you would view this exhibit and tell the Court whether or not you have ever seen anything depicted on here as being similar to what you have seen before.
A: I recognize those drawings but I am not the author of them.
MR. DYMOND: I didn't hear the first part. I recognize what?
MR. OSER: Those drawings.
THE WITNESS: I recognize those drawings; I am not the author of them.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Were you present, Doctor, when this was done, at the time of the autopsy or shortly thereafter, in conjunction with Commander Humes and Commander Boswell?
MR. DYMOND: Object, Your Honor. There is no evidence as to when this was done, and Coun- sel's question assumes there is evidence as to when this was done.
MR. OSER: I asked if he was present when it was done.
MR. DYMOND: He went on to say when he contends it was done. That is the part I am objecting to.
THE COURT: I think the exhibit -- I cannot comment on the evidence, but you are trying to lay a predicate to see if the witness can identify it as being similar to something he has seen before?
MR. OSER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Why don't you ask him that question first?
MR. OSER: I thought I had, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Maybe you did.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, is this exhibit, which I have marked as "State-68" for purposes of identification -- I ask you if what is depicted on this particular exhibit is similar to something that you have seen before, Doctor.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time we are going to object to this testimony as to similarity. We have here sketches which purport to deal in detail, in measurements and so forth, and I submit to the Court that in that area similarity is not good enough.
THE COURT: It depends on the witness. He has stated he recognized it. The question he has not answered for Mr. Oser yet is whether or not the exhibit offered to him is similar and does he recognize it, and he has not answered that question. I would overrule your objection until he answers that question.
THE WITNESS: I recognize it for the purpose of identification. I see in the left upper corner "NMS" -- Navy Medical Sheet -- "63272," and this was the autopsy number given in Bethesda for the autopsy of President Kennedy, and these drawings may have been made by both Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. They pertain to the observations along the autopsy of President Kennedy.
THE COURT: I will permit the exhibit to be received in evidence on the ground that it is similar. From the testimony of the witness Dr. Finck, I will permit it to be received in evidence.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel for the Defense reserves a bill of exception, making the entire testimony, Counsel's objection to this exhibit "State-68," the reasons for the objection, and the ruling of the Court and the entire record parts of the bill.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, the State now wishes to offer, file and introduce into evidence "S-68."
THE COURT: It shall be admitted.
MR. DYMOND: To which offering the Defense objects, using as parts of its bill the same component parts which were set forth in the preceding bill.
(Whereupon, the diagram offered by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "State-68," and received in evidence.)
MR. OSER:
Your Honor, the State requests permission to place it on this board, if I may.
THE COURT: You may do so.
(Exhibit mounted on display board.)
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, at the time of the autopsy, was such a sheet as depicted in State Exhibit 68 prepared by either you or one of the other two members of the autopsy team of you all performing the autopsy on President Kennedy?
A: This was not prepared by me.
Q: Did you see anybody prepare this particular exhibit, or working on this particular exhibit?
A: Well, the three of us were involved in this, taking measurements and -- I did not make those drawings.
Q: Was such a sheet of paper as depicted on that particular exhibit, part of your autopsy work that the three of you all performed?
A: I would think that this was handled by Drs. Humes and Boswell. Personally, I can't -- I recall having seen this but to give an exact time, an exact hour, and what I did with this, I can't say. I don't remember. It is part of the case but I don't remember details on this.
Q: Part of the case. Fine.
A: At this time I would like to add something. As a pathologist, you put down that you find in a mock-up scene to show the location, the approximate location. There may be variations between drawings and photographs, for example, but the advantage of having those immediate records is to put down the information mentioned -- number of wounds, location of wounds, dimensions taken at the time of autopsy.
Q: Doctor, what you are talking about or commenting about is the fact that the point I am pointing to on this particular autopsy descriptive sheet, the area of the hole in the back being considerably lower and in a different position than the hole you drew on Mr. Wegmann's shirt? Is that what you are referring to, sir?
THE WITNESS: Mr. Wegmann, can you kindly show the mark?
(Whereupon, Mr. William Wegmann arose, removed his coat, and exhibited the marking on his shirt.)
THE WITNESS: I would like to repeat that the mark on the shirt of Mr. Wegmann is on his shirt, whereas the wound I saw was in the skin in the back of the neck, and I would say that the wound I saw was higher than the one I see on the drawing.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: But am I correct in stating, Doctor, that the dot that is on Mr. Wegmann's shirt corresponds to where you say the wound in the President's back of his neck was? If I drew that dot through his shirt and put it on his skin, Mr. Wegmann's skin, that would be the location that you testified to on direct examination? Am I correct?
A: Well, again I want to call your attention to the fact that we are here arguing about --
Q: I am not arguing.
A: -- the mark on the shirt.
Q: I am not arguing. Answer my question.
MR. EDWARD WEGMANN: He is answering the question.
MR. OSER: Let him answer the question.
THE COURT: Will you both speak to me.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: He doesn't like the answer so he is interrupting the witness.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I object to that statement.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I think the witness has a right to answer, and if Mr. Oser wants to cross-examine him, he can cross-examine him.
THE COURT: One thing I am going to rule is that the witness answer yes or no and then explain it. The witness can't volunteer information every time he wants to volunteer information. That is one thing that should be clarified. From now on ask him to answer yes or no, and if he wishes to explain, then he can explain, but he cannot volunteer every time he wishes to volunteer. If he wants to make an explanation, certainly he can explain.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: But also I think, Your Honor, if we are going to follow the Court's ruling, I think Mr. Oser should make his questions such that they are susceptible of a yes or no answer.
MR. OSER: Read it back.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: In effect what he is doing is arguing with the witness.
THE COURT: Let's clarify this. Ask the question again in a form that can be answered yes or no, and then if the witness wishes to explain, he may explain.
MR. OSER: I wish to have it read back.
THE COURT: No, sir. I am going to ask you to proceed. Rephrase your question and let it be answered.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, before I talked about the ink dot on Mr. Wegmann's shirt in the location that it is. I am asking you whether or not the ink dot on Mr. Wegmann's shirt is the same area -- if you carried that ink dot through and put it on his skin, would it be the area where you testified that you found the wound in President Kennedy's back of his neck?
THE WITNESS: I would like to ask Mr. Wegmann to --
THE COURT: Answer yes or no and then explain, Doctor. The question is susceptible of a yes or not answer, but you may explain it.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: May I interject myself?
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. WEGMANN: I think what he wants to do is see the shirt again. Isn't that what you wanted, Doctor?
(The witness nodded affirmatively.)
THE COURT: You may stand down if you wish to.
(Whereupon, the witness left the stand and proceeded to a position close to Mr. William Wegmann.)
A: I would say this, in relation to the drawing, the mark I have made on the shirt of Mr. Wegmann is higher than the mark seen on the drawing.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, I don't think you quite understood my question. My question was exclusively tending toward Mr. Wegmann only right now, the mark on Mr. Wegmann's shirt. Is the mark that you placed on his shirt, if you carried that mark through and put it on his skin rather than on the shirt, would that mark be in the same place that you saw the wound you said you saw on direct examination at the time of the autopsy? That is all I am asking you.
A: (Resuming the stand) But the shirt is moving on the skin.
Q: The general location then, Doctor, of where --
A: The general location of the mark I have made on the shirt of Mr. Wegmann, the general location approximately corresponds to the location on the skin.
Q: Can you tell me whether or not Mr. Wegmann is the same height as President Kennedy was?
THE WITNESS: Can you stand up, Mr. Wegmann?
(Whereupon, Mr. Wegmann complied.)
A: I think President Kennedy was taller.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I believe you said, Doctor, you measured from the tip of the mastoid bone behind the ear, down, is that correct, in one direction?
A: Well, you have to take several -- I measured a certain distance from the tip of the mastoid, and that certain distance was 14 centimeters as I recall. Let me verify this -- (referring to document) -- 14 centimeters from the right mastoid process, which is (using ruler) approximately five and a half inches.
Q: Now, the measurements, Doctor, that you placed on Mr. Wegmann when Mr. Wegmann was standing erect and facing this way, if Mr. Wegmann had turned his head either to the left or to the right, would this change the position of the mastoid bone in relation to that 13 or 14 centimeters measurement? Yes or no, Doctor, and then you can explain your answer.
A: (Moving head) The movement of the head could have changed slightly the distance between the mastoid and the wound in the back of the neck.
Q: (Exhibiting sketch to witness) Doctor, I show you what the State now marks for purposes of identification as "S-69," and I ask you whether or not you are familiar with what is depicted on this particular photograph, referring you to the previous Defense Exhibit D-27.
MR. OSER: May I have D-27 for the Doctor to compare it?
(Exhibit handed to the witness.)
A: Yes, it is.
Q: May I correct it by saying the upper half of Defense Exhibit D-27?
A: Yes, that it is.
MR. OSER: At this time, Your Honor, I offer, introduce and file into evidence the ex- hibit marked "S-69" for purposes of identification.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: It is part of the same exhibit as what?
MR. DYMOND: D-27.
MR. OSER: The upper half of D-27.
(Whereupon, the sketch offered by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "S-69" and received in evidence.)
BY MR. OSER:
Q: (Exhibiting sketch to witness) Doctor, I now show you what the State marks for purposes of identification "S-70," and I ask you if you are familiar with what is depicted in this particular exhibit?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Except, as before, being the same as D-29.
A: Please show me D-29.
THE COURT: Show the witness.
(Exhibit handed to witness.)
A: It is.
MR. OSER: The State wishes to offer, introduce and file in evidence the exhibit which is marked "S-70" for purposes of identification.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
(Whereupon, the sketch offered by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-70" and received in evidence.)
MR. OSER: May I put it on the board, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, referring to State Exhibits 69 and 70 on the large board over there, equivalent to Defense 27 and Defense 29, could you tell us who made those drawings?
A: As far as I know, they were made at the time of the preparation of our testimony before the Warren Commission in March, 1964. They were made under the direction of Dr. Humes at Bethesda Hospital, in a short period of time, as I recall approximately two days, under the supervision of Dr. Humes. As I recall, the name of the Navy enlisted man who did those was Rydberg, R-y-d-b-e-r-g, but this is subject to verification.
Q: Now, Colonel, can you tell me whether or not the person that drew these two diagrams, or the illustrator, had any of the photographs or X-rays of President Kennedy available to him?
THE COURT: He would only be able to answer that, Mr. Oser, if he knows of his own personal knowledge.
MR. OSER: I asked him if he knows, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, this Navy enlisted man did not have the photographs or X-rays available to him. Likewise they were not available to us in March 1964.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, Doctor, referring to State Exhibit 68, the descriptive sheet, and I correct in stating that the information placed on the descriptive sheet, State-68, was placed there by a qualified pathologist, either Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I think the witness already testified he did not see it made and does not know who made it.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, if the Court please, may the State be heard? The Colonel said that it was made either by Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell at the time of the autopsy, and the Colonel on the witness stand said he was one of the co-authors of the autopsy report, and I am asking him if a qualified pathologist, either Dr. Boswell or Dr. Humes, made the entries that appear on the descriptive sheet attached and concerning the autopsy of President Kennedy.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I think the relevant question is whether Dr. Finck saw these drawings made. If he did, then he can testify who made them.
THE COURT: I don't think that is the legal point. I think the legal point is whether or not Dr. Finck recognizes the autopsy descriptive figures on there, and if he has his notes, he can compare his notes with the exhibit to see if there are any differences. If there are not any differences, then he can confirm or deny whether it was a true report of what should have been made at that time.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, that wasn't the question though. The question was whether State-68 had been made by a qualified pathologist.
THE COURT: It has already been offered and accepted in evidence.
MR. DYMOND: I understand that, but unless the Doctor was there when it was made, how can he know who made it and whether the man was qualified?
MR. OSER: It is part of the report, if Your Honor please, which has been signed.
THE COURT: Let's see. Ask your question again, Mr. Oser, and I will see if we understand what is before us.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, from State Exhibit 68, the descriptive sheet on the autopsy of President Kennedy as it appears before you, can you tell us whether or not the entries made on that particular descriptive sheet were done so by a qualified pathologist?
MR. DYMOND: Now that is what I object to.
THE COURT: Unless he saw it being done, Mr. Oser, he can't answer that.
MR. OSER: Your Honor --
THE COURT: May I ask you, sir, to change the question. Ask if it is incorrect or correct. Then he can answer it.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, may I have an answer to my question?
THE COURT: I will sustain Mr. Dymond's objection. Unless he saw somebody make it, he cannot testify to it, but he can testify to the contents, if he has knowledge, from his notes.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, did such a descriptive sheet make up part of your autopsy report on President Kennedy that you signed with Commander Humes and Commander Boswell?
A: I have here a copy of the report I signed.
Q: Would you like to peruse it? If so, go ahead.
A: (Referring to document) I have with me Xerox copies from Volume XVI of the Warren Commission Hearings, page 978, 979, through page 983, and these are the pages of the autopsy report I signed. As I recall, this is part of the exhibits, and I don't recall the place of this, the page of it. I don't see this drawing between Page 978 and 983 of the autopsy report I signed. Of course I couldn't take copies of all the hearings with me.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, may I have a short delay while I send for that particular volume that the Doctor referred to? It won't take two minutes to get it.
THE COURT: Well, where is it -- in the District Attorney's Office?
MR. OSER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Well, if you are going to pursue that, we won't have time to go into it before the recess. It is four minutes to 12:00.
MR. OSER: Your Honor --
THE COURT: I think this would be a convenient time to recess for lunch. Then you can send and get your picture, and then at 1:30 when we come back you can pursue this line of questioning.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I only have one more question on this particular line, if you can allow it now.
THE COURT: I would prefer -- You think you have one question. (LAUGHTER) It has been my experience when a lawyer says one question it generally lasts a half hour. We are going to recess for lunch because it will give you an opportunity to get your picture and then to pursue this line. Gentlemen, as I have consistently, and will in the future, I must admonish you and instruct you not to discuss the case among yourselves or with any other person. That includes everybody, the Sheriffs, waiters, waitresses. We will now adjourn for lunch, and I will ask the Sheriff to have you back here for 1:30.
(Whereupon, the Jury was excused.)
THE COURT: Do you wish these exhibits to remain in the same position until we come back from lunch?
MR. OSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ask the spectators to be careful not to knock these exhibits down leaving the courtroom. Mr. Shaw, you are released under your same bond, and, Dr. Finck, I will ask you to report back to be on the stand at 1:30. We will be adjourned until 1:30.
. . . . Thereupon, at 11:58 o'clock A.m., a recess was taken until 1:30 1o'clock p.m. . . . .

C E R T I F I C A T E
I, the undersigned, Helen R. Dietrich, do hereby certify:
That the above and foregoing (88 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 Paul W. Williams and the undersigned, and transcribed under our supervision, on the day and date hereinbefore noted, before the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, in the matter of the State of Louisiana vs. Clay L. Shaw, 198-059 1326 (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 24th day of February, 1969.
/s/ Helen R. Dietrich,
HELEN R. DIETRICH, REPORTER

EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
February 24, 1969
AFTERNOON PROCEEDINGS
PIERRE A. FINCK, M.D., having been previously sworn, resumed the stand for a continuation of CROSS-EXAMINATION
THE COURT: Let it be noted the Jury has returned from lunch. The Defendant is present and Counsel for both sides are present. Is the State and is the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: We are ready, Your Honor.
MR. OSER: The State is ready, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, at the time of the autopsy, were either you or any one of your two assistants, if I may call them that, Commander Humes and Commander Boswell, making any notes of what was going on and what you all were doing, that you can recall?
A: I don't recall making notes at the time of the autopsy. As I recall, Dr. Boswell was making those notes.
Q: Can you tell me how the final draft of the autopsy report which you signed along with Commander Humes and Commander Boswell came about? How was that put together?
A: We signed that autopsy report, as I remember, on Sunday, the 24th of November, 1963, in the office of Admiral Galloway, who was one of the Admirals in charge of the Navy hospital. I had reviewed with Dr. Humes his draft of the autopsy report prior to that time, and, as I recall, the three of us, that is Humes, Boswell and myself, were present at that time in the office of Admiral Galloway on that Sunday, to the best of my recollection.
Q: Doctor, I show you from Volume 17, Page 30 through Page 47, and ask you if you would view the contents of those pages.
A: Yes, sir. This is Volume 17 of the hearings before the President's Commission on the assassination of President Kennedy. I don't recall seeing Pages 30 through 44. What Dr. Humes and I did, we were discussing the wording of the final autopsy report based on a report he had prepared through the night, I should say through Saturday, in the course of Saturday, the 23rd of November, and he worked on this, and he read over to me what he had prepared. Is included in your question?
Q: Yes, sir, Page 45 through Page 47.
A: On Page 45 I recognize the drawing which I see now in the room, and which is labeled in this volume Commission Exhibit 397. I don't recall the timing of seeing this. I have seen this at some time. I don't recall exactly when.
Q: The exhibit you are talking about right now, Doctor, Exhibit 397, is this the same exhibit you are talking about reproduced here in State 68, as best you can recall, Doctor?
A: As best as I can tell, of this volume is a reproduction of the exhibit shown in the courtroom as 68, except that at the bottom it doesn't say "Commission Exhibit 397." I remember that these drawings had been made, and you realize now I am referring to Page 45.
Q: Which is the same thing as Exhibit 68, is that right?
A: Yes, sir, it is. You will realize the drawings are made ahead of time on work sheets to be used at the time of the autopsy, and that wounds are added to these schematic representations of the front and back of a human body. I know this was involved in the discussions, in the testimony, but I can't give you any timing. As I recall, Dr. Boswell did those and discussed them but I can't recall exactly when I saw them.
Q: In other words, when an autopsy descriptive list or sheet is used at an autopsy, it is either used at the time of an autopsy or shortly thereafter as a work sheet somewhere in the autopsy room, is that right, Doctor?
A: If State 68 is an autopsy work sheet -- well, when it was done by Dr. Boswell I don't know.
Q: In referring to State Exhibit 69 and 70, Doctor, these two exhibits were not done then until sometime in March of 1964, is that correct, Doctor?
A: I wouldn't know the exact date. The first time as I recall that I saw these exhibits was in March, 1964, to the best of my recollection.
Q: But you do know, Doctor, you can testify that the photographs and X-rays were not available, to the best of your knowledge, to the illustrator of these exhibits as they were not available to you in March, 1964?
A: To the best of my knowledge the X-rays and photographs were not available to the illustrator. I know for sure that they were not available to me, the X-rays and the photographs.
Q: Can you tell me, Doctor, whether or not the illustrator was present at the autopsy when President Kennedy's body was available for viewing in order for him to make these illustrations?
A: I don't know.
Q: Do you recall seeing him there or anyone held out to be the illustrator at the autopsy?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Doctor, did you make any types of notes at all at the time of the autopsy yourself?
A: I may have written down measurements.
Q: Do you still have those measurements?
A: No. When I walked out of that autopsy room I didn't have notes with me, to the best of my recollection. I remember taking measurements and giving them to Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell.
Q: Do you know whether Commander Boswell made any particular notes at the time of the autopsy?
A: As I recall I saw Dr. Boswell taking notes. I saw both Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell taking notes at the time of the autopsy, to the best of my recollection.
Q: Would your answer be the same with regard to Commander Humes with regard to making notes at the time of the autopsy as it was with Dr. Boswell? Did he also make notes?
A: As I remember, both of them made notes during the autopsy.
Q: Were you present, Colonel, when Dr. Humes burned his original notes?
A: I was not.
Q: Doctor, the report that I showed you before --
A: I have it here.
Q: Are you in agreement with all the allegations and statements and the contents of this particular exhibit? Is there anything in there that you would change at this time?
A: I don't think so.
Q Doctor, I now show you what the State marks as "S-71" for the purpose of identification, and ask you if you would view this exhibit and tell the Court whether or not you recognize this exhibit, and, if so, how can you recognize it?
A: I recognize here Exhibit S-71 consisting of Page 978 through 983 as being six pages of the autopsy report we signed in November, 1963.
Q: Doctor, this is the autopsy report you have been referring to that you co-authored with Commander Boswell and Commander Humes, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: When was the first time you saw the Zapruder film, Doctor?
A: As I recall, it was in March, 1964, when I returned from Panama and was told I had to testify before the Warren Commission.
Q: So at the time you signed and co-authored the autopsy report, which has been marked as S-71 for identification, you had not, as of that time, seen the Zapruder film, is that correct?
A: I had not.
Q: Doctor, are you familiar in this particular report, S-71, which you co-authored with Commanders Humes and Boswell, with all the evidence upon which the report was based?
A: Please repeat your question.
Q: Are you familiar with all of the evidence upon which this report was based?
A: In the general sense, yes.
Q: Doctor, I call your attention to Page 2, under the heading of "Clinical Summary," and ask you to tell me the basis for your statement as part of your clinical summary that three shots were heard.
A: Where do you see that, that three shots were heard?
Q: The first sentence in the second paragraph on Page 2, the first four words.
A: This is the information we had by the time we signed that autopsy report.
Q: The information from whom, Doctor.
A: There were a lot of people who were asked, I wouldn't know their names. I couldn't list all the people by name.
Q: Who told you that three shots were heard? Who told you that?
A: As I recall, Admiral Galloway heard from somebody who was present at the scene that three shots had been heard, but I cannot give the details of this.
Q: I ask you, did you have an occasion to interview any of the witnesses that were present in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, you yourself, before you wrote this?
A: During the autopsy of President Kennedy there were Secret Service Agent Kellerman in that autopsy room. I asked him his name Admiral Burkley, the personal physician of President Kennedy was present, and there was a third person whose name I don't recall who said to Admiral Galloway who was there during the autopsy, thatthree shots had been fired. At the time we wrote this we had this information obtained from people who had been at the scene to the best of my recollection.
Q: Did you have any information available. Doctor, from people at the scene who heard four shots?
A: From the assassination on I heard conflicting reports regarding the number of shots.
Q: I am talking about at the time you all prepared and signed this report, Doctor, before you affixed your signature to this, did you talk to anyone or have any reports available from people who heard four shots at Dealey Plaza on November 22?
A: I don't remember any.
Q: Did you have any statements or reports available to you from people who heard two shots in Dealey Plaza on November 22 at the time you made this report?
A: At the time I made the report I don't recall having a report of two shots.
Q: Going further, Doctor, in your autopsy report, it states, "Governor Connally was seriously wounded by this same gunfire." From where did you receive this information?
A: I knew it at the time of the autopsy because of the news media who reported the President had been shot and the Governor of Texas had been wounded, as I recall.
Q: What did you mean, that Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire? What did you mean when you said the same gunfire?
A: This is the information we had at the time of the autopsy -- correction, at the time we signed the autopsy report, and because the information in the autopsy report may be obtained after the autopsy, and again I can't pinpoint the source of that information.
Q: Doctor, I now show you State Exhibit 64, and ask you if you recognize what is depicted in this particular photograph, as being similar to something you have seen before during the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: This black-and-white reproduction is similar to a bullet that, as best I can remember, I saw for the first time in March, 1964.
Q: Doctor, speaking of your statement in the autopsy report that Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire, is it not a fact that when testifying before the Warren Commission you stated that in your opinion it was impossible for Commission Exhibit 399 to do the same damage to President Kennedy as was done to Governor Connally because there were too many fragments in Governor Connally's wrist? Did you not so testify, sir?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that question. Nobody has stated the same damage was done to Governor Connally as was done to President Kennedy, and that is what this question asks.
THE COURT: I think the question was put to the Doctor, did he not make a prior contradictory statement, which is legitimate cross-examination. Let the question be read back.
(Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.)
THE COURT: I am permitting the question. I overrule your objection.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Will you answer yes or no, Doctor, then you can explain.
A: This is a difficult question to answer because there were two bullets striking President Kennedy. I have examined the wounds of President Kennedy and I would say that the bullet seen here is an entire bullet.
Q: Is what?
A: Is an entire bullet. By an entire bullet, I mean a bullet that did not disintegrate into many fragments.
Q: Let me ask you about that in this way --
THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.
MR. OSER: I thought he had finished.
THE COURT: Had you finished your answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, let me ask you this way: Speaking of State Exhibit 64, the bullet, I ask you whether or not you testified in front of the Warren Commission that that particular bullet could not have done the damage to Governor Connally as there were too many bullet fragments in Governor Connally's wrist. Did you or did you not answer that in front of the Warren Commission in answer to a question by Mr. Specter? It appears on Page 382 of your testimony of the Warren Report about the middle of the page.
A: It reads as follows: "Could that bullet possibly have gone through President Kennedy in 388," Mr. Specter's question. "Through President Kennedy's head --" what is 388?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: The one on the right.
A: (Continuing) "and remain intact in the way you see it now?" "Definitely not." "And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?" "No, for the reason there are too many fragments described in that wrist."
MR. OSER: Thank you, Doctor, that is the point I am talking about.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, referring back to that same paragraph in the clinical summary, in the next sentence you said, "According to newspaper reports (Washington Post November 23, 1963) Bob Jackson, a Dallas 'Times Herald' photographer, said he looked around as he heard the shots and saw a rifle barrel disappearing into a window on an upper floor of the nearby Texas School Book Depository Building." Can you tell me who called that particular newspaper article to your attention?
A: Are you referring to Page 979 of the Hearing?
Q: No, sir, I am back on your original autopsy report, Page 2.
A: I have it.
Q: The sentence right after you said that Governor Connally was wounded by the same gunfire.
A: What was that sentence?
Q: Right after "gunfire."
A: "Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire." This is part of the autopsy report I signed.
Q: Can you tell me who called that particular newspaper article to your attention, and why?
A: As I recall, it was Dr. Humes who mentioned this article to me.
Q: Colonel, do you customarily take notice of newspaper articles in an autopsy report?
A: At times it is done.
Q: Therefore, Doctor, am I correct in stating that particular autopsy report signed by you was based partially on hearsay evidence, is that correct? By that I mean evidence received by someone other than you having actual personal knowledge of the thing?
A: Having not been at the scene I had to get information from somebody else.
Q: Did you have occasion to read a newspaper article of November 22 or 23, which reported there were four to six shots fired and they came from the grassy knoll, being stated by Miss Jean Hill? Did you read that before you made your report?
A: I don't recall reading that before I made the report. I may have been aware at that time of conflicting reports as regards the number and the difference in the direction of the shots, but I cannot pinpoint the time.
Q: Since you are referring to the Washington Post --
A: Would you repeat that?
THE COURT: Mr. Oser, speak into the microphone, it may help a little bit.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Since you are dealing with the Washington Post article of November 23, 1963 in your autopsy report, I wondered if you had an occasion to either read the article or have it brought to your attention, that one Charles Brehm, one of the spectators close to the Presidential limousine, saw material which appeared to be a sizeable portion of President Kennedy's skull --
MR. DYMOND: Objection, that is not in evidence.
THE COURT: This is not a prior contradictory statement, Mr. Oser, is it?
MR. OSER: I am asking if he took this into account when he --
THE COURT: Where are you reading from?
MR. OSER: An article taken out of the Washington Post on the same day as the article by Bob Jackson.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, that has no place in this trial at all.
THE COURT: Mr. Oser, I think you are enlarging the scope of the prior contradictory statement unless you can allege it was made in the report.
MR. OSER: I am trying to ascertain what hearsay they used to arrive at their report.
MR. DYMOND: If you permit that you will have to permit Counsel to go through every conflicting report that was reported by every alleged eyewitness to the assassina- tion and ask this witness whether they were taken into account. It certainly has no place in this trial and is completely irrelevant to the issues and irrelevant to the credibility and qualifications of the Doctor and irrelevant to the material on which he is testifying.
THE COURT: I believe that the witness did state a few moments ago that he was not there personally and they did have to accept what Mr. Oser termed as hearsay. I believe the question being put by the District Attorney is to find out what other hearsay evidence they received.
MR. OSER: That's right.
THE COURT: Can't you ask a specific question instead of reading the article?
MR. DYMOND: The thrust of my objection is that we have nothing before the Court to show this was even a bit of hearsay without even asking the Doctor whether he heard it. This is something that is purely out of the files of the District Attorney.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, the State is attempting to ascertain from the Colonel whether or not he based his conclusions or his autopsy report on any type of hearsay other than that type of hearsay that backed up what the Warren Commission wanted it to be, or the Federal Government. Strike Warren Commission and make it Federal Government.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, what I'm trying to impress on the Court is you have nothing before you to even show there is hearsay evidence to the effect of this statement that has been made by the District Attorney. That is completely outside the scope of the evidence in this case. We don't know any such contention was ever made by anybody.
THE COURT: If the witness signed part of a three-man report and you referred to the report without using exact words, I would permit it, which you did previously. I think a general question can be asked, did they interview any other person, without saying what those persons said.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, besides what you referred to in paragraph 2 of the report, were you furnished with any other alleged statements by any of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza, namely the witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22?
MR. DYMOND: Is this question restricted to before he signed the autopsy report?
MR. OSER: I am asking about at the time he signed the report.
THE COURT: It is restricted to that period.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Were you furnished statements by anyone else?
A: We based the statement on the people who had been at the scene.
THE COURT: Let me interrupt you a second. You say "we," I presume you mean you and the other two doctors?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Oser's question is, did you and the other two persons personally inter- view these people or get it from another source?
THE WITNESS: I personally talked to Secret Service Agent Kellerman. I personally talked to Admiral Burkley, the personal physician to President Kennedy. I personally talked to Admiral Galloway, who was referring to a third witness present at the scene. There may have been others leading us to the statement that to the best of our knowledge at that time there were three shots fired.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, speaking of the wound to the throat area of the President as you described it, after this bullet passed through the President's throat in the manner in which you described it, would the President have been able to talk?
A: I don't know.
Q: Do you have an opinion?
A: There are many factors influencing the ability to talk or not to talk after a shot.
Q: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?
A: I did not dissect the track in the neck.
Q: Why?
A: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would as the Court so to direct.
THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: We didn't remove the organs of the neck.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Why not, Doctor?
A: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the --
Q: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?
THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.
THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: You have said they did not, I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?
A: I had the cause of death.
Q: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?
A: As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck.
Q: I didn't hear you.
A: I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.
Q: You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why didn't do this as a pathologist?
A: From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A: Right.
Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?
A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.
Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?
A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.
Q: Can you give me approximately how far in this probe went?
A: The first fraction of an inch.
Q: If you had dissected this area, Doctor, wouldn't you have been able to ascertain what the track was, as you have described in this courtroom, without dissecting it?
A: I don't know.
Q: You don't know?
A: I don't know. Wounds are different in one case from another, and I did not dissect --
Q: Let me ask you this, Doctor: Let me ask you whether or not in dealing with this particular back of the neck wound, as you describe it, whether you dissected the skin area, took a cross-section of the skin, submitted that to microscopic examination, to ascertain whether or not there was any singed area or burnt area as a result of a high speed bullet passing through the skin? Did you or did you not do that?
A: I remember removing skin at the entry at the back of the neck, or I was present when this was done, and microscopic examination was made of this wound of entry.
Q: Is the result of that microscopic examination in this autopsy report?
A: No. I think it is part of the supplementary report where Dr. Humes describes the microscopic appearance of the wound of entry. I made a positive identification of entry in the back of the neck based on naked eye examination. I examined that very closely and it had the gross characteristics of the wound of entry.
Q: Isn't it the more accepted pathological procedure at an autopsy to submit a wound area such as this, or a cross-section of it, to microscopic examination to ascertain whether there is a scorch area or burn area of the skin to see if there was a high speed bullet passing through the skin?
MR. DYMOND: I would ask Counsel to confine his questions to one at a time.
THE COURT: Break the question down, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Is it not better pathological practice to dissect a skin wound area and submit this cross-section to microscopic examination to determine whether or not there was any burn or signed area as a result of a high speed bullet passing through this area as opposed to a naked eye observation?
A: The microscopic examination of a wound is a supplementary examination which I have done many times, but in this case the gross characteristics were sufficient to me to make a positive identification of a wound of entry in the back of the neck. I think I saw microscopic sections. I was in the office of Dr. Humes, but again I don't remember the time of the examination of these microscopic sections.
Q: How about the results?
A: I don't remember the timing of the results of the microscopic sections.
Q: I am not asking you for the timing of the results, I am asking you for the results, Colonel.
A: From what I recall, Dr. Humes described alteration of the tissue at the level of the wound of entry. Do you have that supplementary report?
Q: I don't have it, that is why I am asking you if you have your notes here.
A: I don't have this microscopic report with me.
Q: You didn't burn your notes also, did you?
A: No.
Q: Colonel, you said you remember Agent Kellerman being in the autopsy room. Do you re- member having a conversation with Agent Kellerman at the time you were examining this wound of the President, and talking about that particular wound you said to the Agent that there were no lanes for an outlet of the shoulder wound? Do you remember telling him that, sir?
A: I remember stating that at the time I examined the wound of entry in the back I didn't find an exit corresponding to this entry. I don't remember to whom it was, it may have been Mr. Kellerman, it may have been one of the two FBI Agents.
Q: My question was, do you recall categorizing it as a shoulder wound as opposed to a neck wound to this person in the autopsy room?
A: I don't recall mentioning a shoulder wound. I am referring to a wound in the neck, in, the back of the neck, and a wound in the back of the head.
Q: If I told you, Colonel, that Agent Kellerman in his testimony --
MR. DYMOND: I object to this, Your Honor: "If I told you Agent Kellerman's testimony."
THE COURT: You cannot ask one witness to decide the credibility of another witness. I think you will have to do it a different way. The objection is sustained.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, in talking about the wound in the back of the President, can you tell me whether or not in hit any bone?
THE COURT: Why don't you identify which wound you are talking about.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: State Exhibit 69, this one right here. Can you tell me whether that hit any bone in his neck?
A: From the X-rays it was determined that this bullet entering in the back of the neck, coming out in the front of the neck, did not strike major bones.
Q: Did it strike any bones?
A: There was no evidence of bone injury from the X-ray, and the X-ray is the basis to refer to to answer such a question.
Q: Now, since I asked you before about whether or not President Kennedy could have spoken, what was your opinion as to whether or not he could have said any words after receiving the wound in his back as described and depicted in S-69?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I think this is repetitious. The Doctor has already testified --
MR. OSER: Your Honor, what I am doing is --
THE COURT: When one person makes an objection will the other person let him finish before he starts speaking.
MR. DYMOND: The Doctor has already testified he does not know whether the President could speak and there are many factors which would have to be considered. This is merely the same question.
MR. OSER: I am asking for his opinion. He has not given me his opinion.
THE COURT: I think, Mr. Dymond, that the State is going into another area, and because of that I will permit the question.
THE WITNESS: To be able to talk you need integrity of the vocal folds or vocal cords, and I didn't see the vocal folds of President Kennedy.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Why didn't you?
A: From what I remember I didn't -- well, from the best of my recollection the wound was outside of the vocal fold area.
Q: Isn't it a fact, Doctor, at the time you were performing the autopsy, or assisting in performing the autopsy, you were of the opinion the wound in the back of the President was not a through-and-through gunshot wound?
A: At the time of the autopsy on that night?
Q: Right.
A: Having a wound of entry and no wound of exit, and negative X-rays showing no bullets in the cadaver at that time, the time of the autopsy, I was puzzled by the fact of having an entry and no exit. However, this cleared up after the conversation between Dr. Humes and the surgeons at Dallas who stated that included a small wound in the front of the neck in their incision of tracheotomy to keep the breathing of the President up.
Q: On the night of the 22nd of November you did have occasion to see the wound in the area of the throat?
A: On the skin?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I examined the surgical incision, but I don't recall seeing the small wound de- scribed by the Dallas surgeons. It was part of the surgical incision and I didn't see it.
Q: You saw the incision.
A: In the front of the neck, definitely.
Q: You were puzzled by what you found in the back, is that right?
A: I was not puzzled by what I found in the back, I was puzzled by having a definite entry in the back, a bruise in the plural region, that is the region of the cavity of the chest, which was bruised, between the entry in the back and the exit in the front, and the three of us, the prosectors, we saw that bruise, and the following day knowing that a small wound had been seen in the front of the neck that made very much sense to me, an entry in the back, a wound in the front and a bruise in between due to the passage of that bullet.
Q: On the night you had the President's body on the autopsy table, if you had dissected that particular area would you not have been able to ascertain it was a through-and-through gunshot wound?
A: I could have, but it is a difficult question to answer for the reason you deal with many anatomical structures. Tissues are very tight, firm.
Q: You were a pathologist on that night, were you not?
A: Yes, I was, and still am.
Q: How was the President's body on the autopsy table? Can you give me the position it was in, if you remember?
A: He was on his back and I examined all external areas of the cadaver. While on the table I asked to have the cadaver turned over so as to make an examination of the skin of the entire cadaver.
Q: What position was the body in, or cadaver in, when you measured from the mastoid tip and from the tip of the acromion in, was it on its face, forward or back at the time?
A: I remember taking the measurements but the exact position of the cadaver I don't recall for the reason we removed the cadaver to examine it. To take measurements it had to be held to take those measurements.
Q: I will ask you, Colonel, if the cadaver had been lying on an autopsy table with its head facing to the right and the left side or its head on the table and you measured from the acromion down, from that position wouldn't the measurement be different than if the body had been lying on its right side with the mastoid turned more to the left? Wouldn't the measurements differ in a good number of centimeters?
A: There would be some variation depending on the movement of the head. From what I recall we had the measurements made with the head turned in a generally forward direction.
Q: You can't recall whether or not the President's body was on its back or stomach at the time?
A: No. The body was moved. It was not remaining in the same position all the time during the course of the autopsy.
Q: Can you define rigor mortis for me?
THE COURT: I cannot hear you, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Can you define rigor mortis for me?
A: Rigor mortis, that is r-i-g-o-r, one word and m-o-r-t-i-s is a separate word, rigor mortis means literally stiffness of death in Latin. It is a normal process that occurs after death. The degree of rigor mortis, the time of onset of rigor mortis, varies from one case to the other.
Q: In the case of President Kennedy in your autopsy report signed by you, can you tell me why the degree of rigor mortis or any mention of rigor mortis is not contained in this autopsy report?
A: There is beginning rigor mortis on of the autopsy report, and that is the only reference I find regarding rigor mortis.
Q: My question now is, would varying degrees of rigor mortis have anything to do with the measuring of wounds in the skin area of a particular body as opposed to when the body was alive?
A: Rigor mortis may make measurements difficult because of the stiffness of certain anatomic structures and you have difficulties in measuring due to that resistance of the cadaver to movement.
Q: Colonel, in speaking of State Exhibit 69, can you give me the angle of entry into the back of President Kennedy as depicted in the photograph, or as you saw it rather?
A: Does Exhibit 69 show the right side of the head and right side of the upper chest with an arrow in the back of the neck and an arrow in the front of the back?
Q: That is correct. I am pointing to it. This one here. What is this angle?
A: This shows that the wound of entry in the back of the neck is higher than the wound of exit in the front of the neck.
Q: Did you calculate what the angle was in degrees?
A: This can't be made with great precision because of variables.
Q: Did you calculate it, Colonel, was the question?
A: I remember a figure which was somewhere in the records within 45 degrees.
Q: Within 45 degrees?
A: To give a general impression this may be much less. What I am saying is that it was not beyond 45 degrees in relation to the horizontal. It may be much less than that.
Q: In referring to State Exhibit 68, and using the body form diagram in the right-hand side showing the back of an individual, if I were to draw a perpendicular line through the individual, through the mid-line, can you tell me, Doctor, what the lateral angle from right to left that this particular projectile took going through the neck as it described in S-69?
A: Mr. Oser, you have shown the neck wound on one exhibit and the head wound on another.
Q: I will restate my question. Taking this back view of an individual human, draw your line down the mid-line of this individual, can you tell me whether or not you all calculated the angle at which this bullet proceeded through this back wound area that you described in the neck, how much of an angle from right to left did this bullet go in?
A: Well --
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object to that on the ground it is a question which is impossible to answer. You couldn't have an angle between a perpendicular line and a line going in from above and behind. If you wanted to figure an angle on that you would have to have it passing between the path of the bullet and a line drawn through the center of the subject. That is the only way you can answer a question of that kind.
THE COURT: I understand it. In other words, your horizontal line down from the head through the mid-line, a fictitious mid-line, would be the straight line. You have a horizontal line so you have a right angle, and you have to have an entrance and an exit. Unless he knows where the exit is he cannot give an angle, and he hasn't testified he knows where the exit was.
MR. OSER: He testified it went out through the front.
THE COURT: He didn't tell you what part of the front it came out.
MR. OSER: His testimony was it exited where the arrow is on -69.
THE COURT: I don't recall him testifying to that. Rephrase your question. Doctor, can you give us the angle from your autopsy examination of the neck, as far as you did go, can you give us the angle of the entrance and exit of this bullet from the neck of the President, unless you knew where it came out?
THE WITNESS: In relation to the horizontal plane or in relation to the right and left?
BY MR. OSER:
Q: In relation to right and left. My original question was, did he calculate such an angle?
A: From what I recall at the angle I was referring to, it was within 45 degrees, was in relation to the horizontal as far as the difference of level between the entry in the back of the neck and the exit in the front of the neck. I don't recall angles in relation to a right and left direction.
Q: Doctor, for a bullet to pass through this particular part of the body as described in S-69, and not hit any bone, would you say that was an extremely small corridor for such a bullet to go through and not hit a bone?
A: It is possible this bullet produced an entry and exit, as I testified, without producing gross evidence of bone damage.
Q: I think you testified before, Doctor, there was no bone damage in the area of the neck?
A: Yes.
Q: Could you tell me, Colonel, from viewing the autopsy X-rays, whether or not there were any metallic fragments or deposits in the area of the wound described in S-69?
A: I don't remember seeing fragments in the area of the neck. I remember seeing numerous fragments in the X-ray of the head but that corresponded to another wound.
Q: In referring once again, Colonel to S-67 for identification, the five-page report signed by you in January, 1967, can you tell me why this report was prepared?
A: Please repeat your question.
Q: Can you tell me why this report was prepared, the one you signed in January, 1967?
A: The purpose of this, as I recall, was to correlate our autopsy report of November 1963, and the X-rays and photographs of the wounds, because we had seen the X-rays at the time of the autopsy but we hadn't seen the photographs in November 1963 or in March 1964, so in 1967 we were asked to look at those X-rays and photographs.
Q: By whom were you asked to do this?
THE COURT: Are you waiting for an answer?
MR. OSER: Yes.
THE COURT: I thought you were referring to your notes, Doctor.
MR. OSER: I asked the witness --
THE COURT: I heard your question. I was just wanting to know if you were waiting for an answer.
THE WITNESS: I think I went first to the -- I saw these photographs and X-rays to the best of my recollection at the archives of the United States in January, 1967, the photographs, for the first time.
THE COURT: He didn't ask you that question. He wanted to know who asked you to do this. Was that your question?
MR. OSER: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: As I recall it was Mr. Eardley. There are many names involved in this. I think it was Mr. Eardley at the Department of Justice and I had the authority to go there from the military.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Can you tell me whether or not you were asked to do this summary in January 1967 in regard to a panel review that was going to be done by Mr. William H. Carns, Russell S. Fisher, Mr. Russell H. Morgan and Mr. Alan R. Moritz.
A: In January 1967 when I signed S-67, to the best of my recollection, I was not aware of this panel review which took place in 1968, if you are referring to an independent panel review.
Q: I am.
A: It was composed of W.H. Carns, Russell H. Fisher, Russell H. Morgan and Alan R. Moritz.
Q: That is correct, Colonel.
A: I don't remember knowing in 1967 that these four names were reviewing the evidence to the best of my recollection.
Q: Are you familiar with their work?
A: I have read this. I was made aware of this panel review, I had received this panel review in February 1969.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I am going to a new area. Do you want to take a coffee break now?
THE COURT: Yes. Sheriff, take the Jury upstairs and we will have a 10-minute recess.
(SHORT RECESS.)
THE COURT: Are both sides ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: Yes.
MR. OSER: Yes.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, referring to the autopsy report of November 24, 1963, of the 25th, the report, the original autopsy report --
A: I signed it on Sunday, 24 November, 1963 far as I can remember.
Q: Referring to that again on in the clinical summary in Paragraph 3 you have it marked there that shortly -- in the third paragraph on of that report you state that "shortly following the wounding of the two men the car was driven to Parkland Hospital in Dallas. In the Emergency Room of that hospital the President was attended by Dr. Malcolm Perry. Telephone communication with Dr. Perry on November 23, 1963 develops the following information relative to the observations made by Dr. Perry and the procedures performed prior to death." Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have occasion, Colonel, to speak to Dr. Perry and I ask you if you did whether or not Dr. Perry classified the wound he found in the throat?
MR. DYMOND: I object on the grounds that he never --
THE COURT: First let's find out if the witness spoke with Dr. Perry.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did either you, Colonel, or one of your fellow members of the autopsy report speak to Dr. Perry in Dallas?
A: I personally did not talk to Dallas, to a Dallas doctor but Dr. Humes called him after the autopsy and he told me so.
Q: Did you have a conversation with Dr. Humes regarding what was learned in Dallas, Texas from the Dallas doctors concerning --
THE COURT: Make it one question.
MR. OSER: I just asked him whether or not he did.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you talk to Dr. Humes about his conversation?
A: I did.
THE COURT: That breaks it down.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Will you tell us whether or not you had any knowledge that the wound in the area where the tracheotomy was performed was classified as that of an entrance wound in Dallas, Texas?
A: All I learned is that the communication was between Dr. Humes and one or more of the Dallas surgeons, maybe Dr. Perry or it may be others, but they were people taking care of President Kennedy in the Emergency Room, that there was a small wound in the front of the neck of President Kennedy and that they included that small wound of approximately 5 millimeters in diameter in their tracheotomy incision.
Q: Did you have available to you a further description of this small wound that they found in Dallas, Texas prior to performing the tracheotomy?
A: Outside of the location in the anterior, in the front of the neck, and the description I don't recall there was more detail about that wound found by the Dallas surgeons.
Q: Can you tell me, Colonel, whether or not you had at your disposal any information from Dr. Kemp Clark?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we have not been objecting to hearsay but at this point any information of this type would be hearsay unless this doctor spoke with that person and even then it would still be hearsay.
MR. OSER: I didn't ask what the content was, I asked him if he had any information available from Dr. Kemp Clark.
THE COURT: He can say yes or no. Did you understand?
THE WITNESS: There was a Dr. Clark mentioned. I did not talk to him.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you have an occasion to talk to Dr. Charles Carrico from Dallas, Texas?
A: I did not.
Q: Do you know whether or not Commander Humes or Commander Boswell spoke to this doctor?
A: Again I cannot pinpoint names of these Dallas surgeons with whom Dr. Humes communicated with. I know the results of the communication but I cannot say he did or did not speak to this one or that one.
Q: Now, can you describe for me as to how large this wound was in the throat area that you saw the night of November 22, 1963?
A: It was a long sideways surgical incision.
Q: Could you tell me Colonel whether or not you could have taken this particular area, or the particular wound in the throat, and meshed the two sides of the incision back together again and ascertain whether or not this was a wound within the incision caused by some missile?
A: I examined this surgical wound and I did not see the small wound described by the Dallas surgeons along that surgical incision. I did not see it.
Q: If you did not see it then, Colonel, I take it then this was a small type of wound if it was there?
A: According to the telephone conversation it was a small wound in the front of the neck.
Q: Did you have occasion, Colonel, to dissect this particular wound area and to make a cross-section and submit it to microscopic --
THE COURT: I'm going to stop this if it is repetitious.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, he described that he tracked it from the back to the front.
MR. DYMOND: We object on the grounds it is repetitious.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, I have previously talked about dissecting and submitting to microscopic examination the wound the Colonel described in the back area and I am now on the throat area or what he alleges is the exit wound of the projectile.
MR. DYMOND: He covered that this morning and said he did not and that was covered very, very lengthy.
THE COURT: He said he did not and I don't know where you were when he said that, Mr. Oser. Go ahead and answer the question, Doctor.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you dissect any area of the neck muscles which might have been thought to be an exit wound of the President's neck.
THE COURT: He said he didn't dissect anything.
THE WITNESS: I made some measurement of, of course to determine the wound, this was the wound of entry in the back of the neck and I examined both edges of the surgeon's surgical incision in the front of the neck. I don't remember a dissection of this area. I remember a very close gross examination.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, I believe you testified before that normally in gunshot wounds, correct me if I am wrong, that when a gunshot wound enters an area of the body it leaves a relatively small hole. What happens to that wound when it exits in regard to the size in comparison to the entry wound?
A: There is a variation from one case to the other. The wound of exit may be small. It may be smaller than the wound of entry. It may be larger than the wound of entry. This, of course, depends on various factors.
Q: I believe you also testified you have done some work with firing of rifles at the Arsenal and so forth?
A: Yes.
Q: What is the usual thing that you find in comparing sizes of entry wounds as to an exit wound?
A: Again, there is a variation from one case to the other. The exit is often larger than the entry but this is not always the case.
Q: Now, Colonel, using State Exhibit 68, the diagram of the wound showing on the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet in the back area it has a description of seven by four millimeters. Can you tell me whether or not that is a correct measurement of the entrance wound into the back area of the President?
A: As I remember I took those measurements and they were from one edge of the wound in one diameter and from one edge of the wound to the other in another diameter. At this time I would like to say there is some variation in taking measurements of a wound because you may take into account the edge itself or the abrasion, the rubbing around the edge of the wound, and that may explain some differences in taking measurements.
Q: Can you give me, Colonel, the approximate size in inches or parts of inches that seven by four millimeters would be?
A: Seven millimeters is approximately one-quarter of an inch. These are approximate things.
Q: And what is your answer, Colonel, about one-quarter of an inch, you say?
A: I have to consult notes because it requires conversion from metric units to inch units. This is close enough to say that seven millimeters is approximately one-quarter of an inch.
Q: Colonel, I show you State Exhibit 66 and ask you whether or not a bullet, or the pellet contained in that particular cartridge, could have caused the hole as you have described?
A: Yes, if this is a --
Q: I am merely asking you, Colonel, from looking at that particular pellet whether or not that could have caused the hole such as you described?
A: This is compatible with it.
Q: Colonel, can you give me the measurements of the wound in the area of the front of the President's neck that I am pointing to here on State Exhibit 69?
A: As I recall, it was given by the Dallas surgeons as approximately five millimeters in diameter.
Q: Can you convert approximately five millimeters in diameter to a part of an inch for me, please?
A: Approximately three-sixteenths of one inch corresponds to five millimeters.
Q: Referring, Colonel, to your Summary Report, State-67 for purposes of identification, which you signed on 26 January, 1967, can you tell me why you did not list the size of the wound that you say is the exit wound in the throat of the President?
A: Because I did not, I did not see that wound in the front. I did not, I don't know why it is not there.
Q: You say you did not see it?
A: I did not see the wound of exit in the skin. I saw a hole of exit in the shirt of the President.
Q: But in speaking of the throat area, or skin area of the President, relative to his throat you said it was approximately five millimeters and you later said that Commander Humes received this information from Dallas.
A: The wound that was in the front of the neck I obtained that information from Dr. Humes.
Q: Therefore would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you describe it is larger than the wound in the throat area?
MR. DYMOND: We object to this. First of all, the Doctor testified that these are approximate measurements on wounds in the skin. Secondly, the doctor testified that he never saw the front bullet wound and consequently an answer on that would have to be based on measurements made by someone else, told to someone else, and then included in the report.
MR. OSER: All the results, if the Court please, from two autopsy reports signed by this witness stating that -- I believe he said everything in here is true and correct when I asked him, then I asked him if he wished to change anything in here at the beginning of his testimony and he said no. I'm trying to ascertain what he told Defense Counsel on direct examination he stated this was an exit wound and I am trying to find out whether the hole in the back is larger than the front and whether or not it is compatible with a wound from this type of bullet.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the Doctor testified what he based his conclusions on and further testified that he never did see the front wound in the neck and consequently the question is impossible of answer.
THE COURT: He has testified he is familiar with the information received from Dr. Humes from the surgeons in Dallas, Texas and he knows it was in the report and that the information was communicated to him and he was aware of it. I understand that Mr. Oser's question is whether the entrance wound from the rear was larger than the exit wound, which was the information given by the surgeon in Dallas, Texas.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor has consistently ruled throughout the trial that a witness cannot relate what someone else related to him.
THE COURT: Ordinarily, I agree but it was advised to him and he was made cognizant of it when he signed the original report, when he signed the report he either knew that as a fact which was received it from Commander Humes who received it from Dallas. I will permit the question. You are asking Dr. Finck if from the information he had whether or not the measurements of the alleged entrance wound as you wish to call it, alleged, is not larger than the information received from Dallas of the entrance wound in the front. I will permit you to ask it.
MR. DYMOND: To which Counsel respectfully objects and reserves a Bill of Exception on the grounds this is hearsay evidence making the entire line of questioning, particularly this question, the answer to the question, the objection and ruling of the Court and the entire record parts of the bill.
MR. OSER: Could I have the witness answer my question. Will you answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question.
THE REPORTER: Question: "Therefore, would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you described it is larger than the wound in the throat area?"
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, that is not the question you stated you were ruling on. You said you were ruling on the question whether it was larger than the information indicated.
MR. OSER: I will ask that question.
THE WITNESS: Whether or not it was larger?
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Than the information you received from the doctors in Dallas.
MR. DYMOND: Object now on the ground that he didn't receive the information from the Doctor.
THE COURT: I just ruled that he signed his name to the report and under that exception I will permit the question. Do you understand the question?
MR. OSER: Let me ask you again, Doctor --
THE COURT: No, because then I will have to be ruling on different things if you change the question each time.
MR. OSER: Then I'll ask that the Court Reporter read the question I asked.
THE REPORTER: Question: "Therefore, would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you described it is larger than the wound in the throat area" -- then he added the second part of the question, Your Honor, which says, "than the information you received from the doctors in Dallas?"
THE WITNESS: I don't know 'cause I measured the wound of entry whereas I had no way of measuring the wound of exit and the wound could have been slightly smaller, the same size or slightly larger because all I have is somebody saying it was approximately 5 millimeters in diameter.
THE COURT: We have covered it well and you can go on to something else now, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: You said the back wound was seven by four millimeters, Doctor?
A: Approximately, all these measurements are approximately.
Q: Why approximate, Colonel?
A: Because the edge of the wound can be measured in different ways. The edge of the wound is something that you measure with a ruler and you take approximate measurements and you write them down.
Q: Now in speaking about the head wound in State Exhibit 70, I believe you testified on direct examination that you found a wound in the back of the head approximately one inch to the right and slightly above the exterior occipital protuberance, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Does State 70 show the correct location of this measurement?
A: The profile of the head showing the wound in the back of the head and exit on the right side?
Q: I am only now speaking of the wound marked "in," does that correctly indicate, where the word "in" is on the back of the head where the wound was.
A: Again these drawings are approximate and the measurements are in relation to a bony prominence and from what I recall the wound was higher than the bony rominence, external occipital protuberance, the wound was slightly higher in relation to a traversal line running through this prominent occipital protuberance.
Q: Am I correct in saying that State Exhibit 70, the diagram, is not entirely correct in stating the letters "in"?
A: It is a diagram showing --
MR. OSER: I ask that the witness answer yes or no and then you can explain.
THE COURT: You should answer.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Am I correct in saying -- I ask that the Reporter read it back.
(Whereupon, the question was read back by the Reporter.)
A: Having seen the photographs I think that the wound was higher and therefore there is a difference between the drawing and the photograph.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Then the answer to my question is the photograph as it is drawn in State Exhibit 70 is not correct, is that correct?
A: I would not say this drawing is incorrect.
Q: Colonel, let me ask you: Is this hole right here where I am pointing to in the correct position as you saw it, right now on that diagram?
A: We are looking at things only on one plane.
Q: Yes or no, and then you can explain your answer.
A: I can't compare this with the examination done from the back looking in the back of the head. We are looking at the side of the head here with the wound visible in the back, but we are not facing the back of the head.
Q: Colonel, didn't you previously testify that that exhibit was acquired to help you in the autopsy?
A: Yes, it did. It was the only thing available to us, and for practical purposes this drawing, this drawing is adequate to show the approximate location of the wound in the head of the President.
Q: It only shows approximately and doesn't show exactly, is that correct?
A: It can't show it exactly. It is not a photograph. The word exactly is excessive.
MR. OSER: I think the question calls for a yes or no answer, and then he can explain, Your Honor.
MR. DYMOND: I submit the question is one that requires judgment of depth in a two-dimension sketch. There is nothing at all on this sketch which would permit a person to give an estimate of depth. That is the difference between the location of something laterally and from the back between this and an actual photograph.
THE COURT: If I may suggest that Mr. Dymond used himself for the witness to demonstrate on, for Dr. Finck to give the exact location of entrance and why don't you do it on you, Mr. Oser, and get it over with.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I think the State has a right to ascertain just how accurate these two exhibits were that were used by the Doctor in his testimony and this is what I am trying to do.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor --
THE COURT: I am going to rule Mr. Dymond is correct. Rephrase the question. It does not show the three dimensions, but you can bring that out in the questioning if you care to do so.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, did you use those two exhibits in your testimony in front of the Warren Commission?
A: As I recall I used those exhibits in my testimony.
Q: Did you use the descriptive sheet of the autopsy in your testimony before the Warren Commission?
A: I don't remember using it.
Q: Can you tell me, Colonel, whether or not on the Exhibit State-70, the area I am now pointing to which I believe is indicated by the letter "A," whether the location on this exhibit is in the same location as indicated in the head area as depicted in the autopsy descriptive sheet?
A: Approximately, it is in the back of the head, approximately.
Q: Approximately. All right. Now, referring to the same exhibit now pointing to an area in the neck of the sketch depicted on State-70, and I ask you whether or not the point I'm not pointing to is supposed to represent a bullet wound hole in this particular picture?
A: This represents a bullet wound in the back of the neck.
Q: I ask you whether or not the location where this particular wound is indicated on this exhibit is in the same position as exhibited on the autopsy descriptive report prepared in the morgue or on the autopsy table?
A: Approximately, yes. I would like to say that the wound on this exhibit -- What is the number of this one?
Q: 68.
A: The position of the wound of entry in Exhibit 68 was higher than shown on Exhibit 68.
Q: Colonel, will you please step down from the witness stand and indicate on State Exhibit 68, the right-hand figure drawn there, would you please with this pen mark the area on that exhibit the hole as it is depicted in State Exhibit 69 and 70?
A: I don't have here on this exhibit the acromion on the shoulder but what I can do is show an approximate location higher.
Q: Do you have the acromion shown in State Exhibit 70 -- Describe the acromion.
A: The acromion is the bony prominence in the shoulder and I can't pinpoint this on this exhibit.
Q: Well, then, from what you recall having seen, would you mark it on there?
A: Approximately?
Q: Yes.
A: I would say that the wound was higher.
Q: Now, Colonel, would you put your initials by that little mark and then you can resume your seat. Now, Colonel --
A: Mr. Oser, may I?
Q: Certainly.
A: Expand on this?
Q: Certainly.
A: On of Exhibit S-67, the paragraph entitled "The Neck Wound," "The Location," that is what you are referring to?
Q: I know what I am referring to, Colonel.
A: States the drawing itself may be somewhat misleading as to the location making it appear at a point lower than it actually was.
Q: Colonel, if the photographs were misleading then why did you use them?
MR. DYMOND: I object, Your Honor, he didn't say photographs.
THE COURT: Let him finish the question and don't answer until he finishes the question. Finish your question then, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Then, Colonel, if the photograph that you have just testified to, read from your report and it stated it was misleading then why did you use the photograph in your testimony in front of the Warren Commission and here in court today?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object on the ground that the Doctor did not testify he used photographs in his Warren Report testimony. Mr. Oser is referring to photographs.
MR. OSER: All right, Your Honor, the illustration as it appears in State-70.
THE WITNESS: I could not use photographs in my testimony.
[page is missing from transcript]
BY MR. OSER:
Q: That wasn't my question, Colonel. My question was: "If the exhibit or the drawing State 70, which I am pointing to right now, in your summary report says is misleading, why did you use this exhibit in testifying with it and about it in front of the Warren Commission and here in Court today?"
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I object again, because that is not the exhibit which the Doctor said is misleading in this report. Unless I am incorrect, the exhibit he states was misleading was State 68.
THE COURT: Let's ask the Doctor which exhibit did you refer to as being misleading?
THE WITNESS: Let me refer again to that of State-67. Photographs No. 11, 12, 38 and 39 verify the location of the wound as stated in the report. Warren Commission Exhibit 397 includes a drawing which purports to show the approximate location of the wound and specifically notes it was five and a half inches from the tip of the mastoid process behind the right ear and the same thing 14 centimeters from the tip of the right acromion. Photograph 12, 11, 38 and 39 concern the accuracy of the measurements. The drawing itself may be somewhat misleading as to the location of the wound. Now if I would know what that refers to because no one photograph shows the wound of the back of the neck and the wound of the throat. Photographs 26 and 38 show the wound in the back of the neck higher from the horizontal plane than the wound in the throat. What is Exhibit 397? Is this Exhibit 397 of the Warren Report, is State-67?
BY MR. OSER:
Q: 397, Colonel, is the handwritten --
A: It includes a drawing in Volume 17, Page 45.
Q: Yes, that is part of Exhibit 397, along with the written notes of Dr. Humes.
A: May I see it?
Q: Yes. Now, Colonel --
A: Let me answer your question now.
THE COURT: He wants to answer your question.
THE WITNESS: So, Exhibit, Commission Exhibit 397 including the drawing which you just showed to me in Volume 17, Page 45 is the drawing to which this discrepancy refers on of State-67.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Can you tell me, Colonel, when you found out about this discrepancy in that drawing, the discrepancy you have so marked on this exhibit?
A: At the time I was comparing this Exhibit 397, Volume 17, Page 45, with the photographs of the autopsy which I saw for the first time in January, 1967.
Q: So then am I correct in stating, Colonel, that approximately the discrepancies in this particular autopsy descriptive sheet, is that correct?
A: We stated so in that statement issued on the 26th of January, 1967 and I can say that you can expect differences between schematic drawings which are made ahead of time and used as a work sheet and photographs.
Q: Colonel, what do you mean by drawings made ahead of time, are you telling me the descriptive sheet was drawn before the autopsy of the President?
A: Not the wounds but the contour of the body to mark the location, the autopsy work sheet. Many pathologists use these to record their findings, work sheets that may show the front and back, the head and other things.
Q: Well, when was this writing put in here that I am now pointing to, was that put on at the time of the autopsy or before?
A: Oh, definitely around the time of examination. From my recollection this was made between the two other prosectors and I participated in this by making some measurements which I recognize here.
Q: Now, Colonel, I again, speaking about State Exhibit 70 and the hole I am now pointing to designated as "A" on this exhibit, can you tell me whether or not there were any other characteristics that you found other than the beveling or coning effect that led you to believe or state that this was an entrance wound?
A: No, and I would like to explain that the beveling in bone is among the best factors to use in determining the direction of the bullet. Having seen beveling from inside in that wound in the back of the head in the bone I made a positive identification of a wound of entrance in the back of the head. This is firm.
Q: Colonel, did you dissect the scalp area and submit a section to microscopic examination?
A: Again, I examined that wound.
Q: Yes or no and then you can explain.
A: I don't remember. I don't remember. The microscopic examination is not made at the time of the gross autopsy it is made sometime later from samples taken at the autopsy and I don't remember the details in that respect.
Q: You don't recall having seen the results of any such tests?
A: I remember reading microscopic descriptions by Dr. Humes and I believe it is in his supplemental autopsy report describing the microscopic sections taken from samples.
Q: Does it appear in your official autopsy report signed by you in November 1963?
A: I don't see a microscopic description in the autopsy report of 1963 from Page 978 through 983 of the Volume XVI.
Q: As of this date, Colonel, in February 1969 can you tell us the results or any microscopic examinations of a cross-section of the wound in the scalp of the President of the United States?
A: I have no further information beyond the description I read made by Dr. Humes.
Q: Have you ever been to Dallas, Texas, more particularly Dealey Plaza to see the site of the assassination?
A: I have not.
Q: The description on State Exhibit 68 of the head wound indicated here says, correct me if I am wrong "Ragged 15 x 6 millimeters." Is that correct as you found them?
A: For practical purposes to show the approximate -- yes, for practical purpose ragged means the edges were irregular and I testified this morning that when a bullet strikes soft tissue with underlying bone close to it that bone offers a great resistance and the appearance of the edge of the wound, and I have seen this repeatedly in many cases, the appearances of the edge of the wound is different than when there is bone close to the skin or when there was a soft tissue beneath the skin, and that explains the differences of the characteristics of those two wounds. One the wound in the neck, no immediate underlying bone and with very irregular edges and the other in the back of the head with the skull under the scalp and offering immediate resistance to the projectile.
Q: Colonel, can you give me the angle of entrance of this particular wound on a horizontal plane downward?
A: The angle of -- of the wound in the head?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: In the head. Again, this is difficult to determine because the wound of exit is very large and the best we could do is to take the approximate center of this very irregular wound and draw a line between this approximate center and the smaller wound of entry in the back of the head and draw a general direction. The --
Q: What was the angle you calculated, if you calculated one? A: Again I have that figure "within 45 degrees," an approximate measure, but the degree of 45 degrees I remember is better to quote for the neck wound than for the head wound for the reasons I mentioned. The head wound was so large, the exit, it is difficult, extremely difficult to give an angle for this.
Q: Colonel, could you tell me, using myself as an example, approximately what the loca- tion in my head would be 100 millimeters above my external occipital protuberance?
A: 100 millimeters is approximately 4 inches. This is the external occipital protuberance. My finger is approximately 4 inches and at a place here which is approximately the location here.
Q: About right here, Colonel, 'cause I can't see you.
A: Approximately here, Mr. Oser.
Q: Now, Colonel, I believe you said that you are familiar with the report of Drs. Carns, Fisher, Morgan, and Moritz, as having reviewed and returned in 1968, I ask you whether or not you disagree with their findings, Colonel, that after viewing the X-rays of the President they found a hole in the President's head 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance?
A: I can't say I agree or disagree with this for the following reasons: This measurement refers to X-ray films. On of this Panel Review -- what is the exhibit number of this?
Q: I now mark it as State-73 -- 72, I am sorry.
A: On of this Panel Review of 1968, which I read for the first time in 1969, I read: "One of the lateral films of the skull" -- and this refers to a general section heading you will find on "Examination of X-ray Films" on Page 9, as I read this, I interpret this statement of as a measurement based on X-ray films. So there was a difference between measurements made on X-ray films and photographs or photograph ual measurements on the cadaver.
Q: Do you disagree with the fact that these four doctors are qualified in the field of Pathology?
A: They are definitely, three of them, three of them are qualified pathologists, and the fourth doctor is a radiologist.
Q: Radiology is in what field of medicine?
A: Radiology is the study of X-rays for diagnostic reasons or for the reasons of treating with radiation.
Q: Would you say, Colonel, that a radiologist is the best qualified person in the field of medicine to read an X-ray?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you find in reading that report any mention by these four gentlemen, or these four doctors, of any hole in the President's head being one inch slightly above the occipital protuberance bone?
A: I do not find the measurement as one inch to the right of the external occipital protuberance in this State-72.
Q: Colonel, could you step down, and using State Exhibit 70, show me the approximate location in correlation to the size of the diagram, or the illustration, where 100 millimeters would be above the occipital protuberance bone.
A: On which one?
Q: I will repeat my question. Using State Exhibit 70, Colonel, would you show me the approximate location of 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone in relation to the size of this particular illustration as it appears in this exhibit.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, this exhibit does not purport to be a scale exhibit and as I said before, it is not a three- dimensional photograph. I doubt if the Doctor could locate this bone, and if he could, any estimate of distance would be useless because it does not purport to be to scale.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, the Doctor used this exhibit saying this is the approximate location he found, and I am now asking him the approximate location that four doctors examining X-rays said it was 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone, and I think he can tell the approximate location of that.
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond's objection is that it is not a picture of the rear of the base of the skull, and for that one reason Mr. Dymond doesn't see how the witness could put it any relation with respect to the rear of the skull and moving laterally across the skull.
MR. DYMOND: He has already done this on Mr. Oser's head, which is three dimensional.
MR. OSER: Still and all he used this exhibit showing at least a portion of the back of the skull and a line going over the top of the skull which would indicate at least to me the approximate mid-part of the head, and I fail to see why the Colonel cannot indicate the approximate location 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone. I know it is not drawn to scale, but I am only asking him for the approximate location.
THE COURT: Could he not do it better in the figure in your autopsy sheet there?
MR. OSER: But, Your Honor, that may well be, but since the Doctor has used this exhibit and said this is where he found a hole, I think the State has a right also to show as a result of the testimony where approximately 100 millimeters was.
THE COURT: You understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, but I can't see how I can be asked to place a wound that was measured on X-rays, I don't understand how I can be asked to put on a illustrative drawing showing the location of the wound as we approximately saw it and not based on measurements on X-rays. Those 100 millimeters --
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Tell me how did the illustrator do it if he didn't have the X-rays and photographs?
A: He did not.
Q: Then how did he do it?
A: Because he was told by Dr. Humes about the approximate location of that wound in the back of the head on the right side and approximately one inch from the external occipital protuberance and slightly above it.
Q: He was told by Commander Humes that?
A: To my knowledge the illustrator making those drawings made them according to the data provided by Dr. Humes.
Q: Let me ask you this then, Colonel: Am I correct in stating that you said that the area I am pointing to right now is the approximate location where four inches above my protuberance bone is?
A: On your head I agree but the measurement of 100 millimeters was made on an X-ray and that is why I am reluctant to say.
Q: Made by a radiologist, one was a member of the American Board of Radiology?
A: I don't know that. That report is signed by four people, there were four to sign it.
Q: Didn't you say one was a radiologist?
A: To my knowledge.
Q: And a radiologist deals in X-rays?
A: A radiologist deals with X-rays and the interpretation of them.
MR. OSER: Again I call for the witness to put the approximate location because there has been testimony on direct examination as well as cross-examination, and because the Defense introduced a picture of Exhibit 388 in Defense Exhibit 67 and I think the State has a right to use this for further witnesses and further cross-examination of the Doctor. I call for this location.
MR. DYMOND: The Doctor has said that he can't do it.
THE COURT: He already testified that the or that there is somewhat of a difference between locations on there and in X-rays and I am not going to force him to do it.
MR. OSER: Then I ask that he mark it on State-68.
THE COURT: If he can do it.
MR. OSER: Four inches above the external occipital protuberance on the descriptive sheet, State-68, and I, this is the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet, and I presume you have used it before for autopsies and I ask that it be so marked there.
THE COURT: If the Doctor can do it.
THE WITNESS: I don't think I can put a wound on a drawing whereas the distance of that wound on an X-ray was given as 100 millimeters I can't do that on something that is different.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, may I ask the witness --
THE COURT: Let's see if I can clarify it. Dr. Finck, on the drawing of the rear of a human being, male, can you place with some kind of a pen or what have you the correction, if one was made, as a result of the four-man panel, as to what you all originally determined. If you can do it and if you can't, you can't do it.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, may I submit the Doctor is trying to explain that the distances --
MR. OSER: I don't want Mr. Dymond to testify.
MR. DYMOND: This is in support of my objection.
THE COURT: I will listen.
MR. DYMOND: That the distances on an X-ray measurement is not compatible at all with the distances on this drawing and would be impossible to transpose.
THE COURT: I will accept that. Take the witness stand.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, you are familiar with an autopsy descriptive sheet, have you seen something similar to this before and have you ever used something like this before in an autopsy?
A: It is quite common to use worksheets in autopsies.
Q: I ask you again, that wasn't my question, have you used them before?
A: I have used worksheets in autopsies.
Q: And you are telling the Court that you can't mark 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone on that descriptive sheet that you have used before?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, it is repetitious. Your Honor has ruled on the question.
THE COURT: I will let the Doctor answer one more time. The question is -- Please read it, Mr. Reporter.
THE REPORTER: Question: "And you are telling the Court that you can't mark 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone on that descriptive sheet that you say you have used before?"
MR. OSER: What is your answer?
THE WITNESS: I could place a wound higher on that drawing but again I don't understand why I am asked to do that.
MR. OSER: I don't think it is for the witness to determine that.
MR. WEGMANN: Let the witness answer.
THE COURT: If you say you can place it, I suggest you leave the witness stand, step down and go place it.
THE WITNESS: That would not be placed on X-rays, that would be a wound higher and approximately in this location.
MR. OSER: These are approximate and we can cover the matter.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Initial that, please. Thank you, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, at this time I would like to make a comment for the record.
THE COURT: No, sir, you are not running the show. You either answer the question and give an explanation and don't comment.
MR. DYMOND: May we see whether this comment is in the form of an explanation of his answer, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is the statement that you wish to make in further explanation of your answer to this question?
THE WITNESS: Definitely.
THE COURT: You may do so.
THE WITNESS: The mark I have made --
THE COURT: You can't volunteer information just because you wish to tell us about it. You can only give us answers to a question and then an explanation. There is a difference from what you want to volunteer and what you want to explain. If you want to explain you may do it but you can't volunteer a comment and that is the legal situation of the Court. If this is in further explanation, then I will permit it.
THE WITNESS: The mark I just made on -- what is the exhibit number?
MR. OSER: 68.
THE WITNESS: On Exhibit 68 does not correspond to the wound I have seen at the time of the autopsy. The wound as seen at the time of the autopsy was not as high as that. I did so because repeatedly I am asked to show on this drawing what would the position be of a wound approximately four inches or 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, but I don't endorse the 100 millimeters for this drawing. Again the measurement was made on X-rays. I was more or less forced to put that on this exhibit.
MR. OSER: I want the record to reflect the witness was not forced.
THE WITNESS: I was asked to show on this drawing a wound four inches from the external occipital protuberance.
THE COURT: Let's go on to another area.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: How many pieces of skull, Colonel, did you have to use at the time of the autopsy being turned over to you from some other place?
A: As I recall, there were three bone fragments and on one of them I saw a definite beveling which allowed me to identify this portion of a wound of exit as part of a wound of exit. The appearances of these portions of skull had the same eneral characteristics, as far as the appearance of bone, as the lining of the skull of President Kennedy and I made a positive identity of exit seeing the beveling from outside after having oriented this specimen as regards the outer and inner surfaces of the bony specimen.
Q: Doctor, did you section and examine the left cerebral hemisphere or the left side of the brain of the President?
A: I did not.
Q: Why?
A: The most massive lesions were on the right side and the brain was preserved in formalin, which was a protective fixative used in pathology, it preserves specimens, and I did not make sections of the left side, to my recollection.
Q: Colonel, you testified on direct that in your opinion the bullet entered the President's head from above and behind and there is an arrow indicating the proposed direction on this diagram into the left side of the President's head and you are telling me now that you didn't examine the left side of the brain?
MR. DYMOND: There is no evidence of that in the record.
MR. OSER: Then I withdraw the question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: What does the arrow indicate?
A: I don't know what the arrow means on this exhibit.
Q: Let me ask you this: If an individual, Colonel, on a hypothetical question, is shot from above and to his right at some distance over 100 feet by a high speed rifle projectile traveling at approximately 2175 feet per second, carrying an energy load of approximately 1676 foot pounds, and this projectile enters this individual in the back of his head, coming in from the right and above, I ask you whether or not you deem it feasible to examine the left side of the brain area in this particular individual?
A: Yes, it would be but again the brain was removed and preserved for further sectioning and as far as the exit is concerned it is the examination of the scalp and bone which shows the lesions of the out wound or the exit wound. The brain is a structure which is different from that and I know the brain contained many fragments.
Q: How many did the left side of the brain contain?
A: What is your question?
Q: How many fragments were there in the left side of the brain or did the left side of the brain contain?
A: I don't remember the locations of these metallic fragments.
Q: Why?
A: Right now I don't remember.
Q: I thought you said, Colonel, you didn't section the brain.
A: We took X-rays of this brain, far as I remember someone did, to determine the presence of metallic fragments after it was removed, as I can remember, but I don't recall making sections of that brain. I believe Dr. Humes did section that brain.
Q: As of this date in February, February 24, 1969, can you tell me the results of that sectioning of the left side of the brain?
A: No.
Q: Can you tell me what the rectangular structure measuring approximately 13 x 20 millimeters as found by the four panelists in the brain of the President could be? A: I don't know what it means.
Q: How long is 13 x 20 millimeters?
A: 1 inch is 25 millimeters so 13 millimeters is smaller than 1 inch and 20 millimeters is almost 1 inch but not quite 1 inch because 1 inch is 25 millimeters just about.
Q: Would it be safe to say it was approximately or would be approximately 3/4 x 1/2 inch, that'd be about right?
A: 20 millimeters is approximately 3/4 of 1 inch and 13 millimeters is approximately 1/2 an inch because 25 is one inch.
Q: Now, Colonel, can -- You previously testified that you did a lot of work at the autopsy table in the area of this particular head wound. Can you tell me why you can't tell me what this 3/4 inch x 1/2 inch rectangular-shaped whatever it is, what it was in the President's brain?
A: At this time I can't interpret this. There are numerous bone fragments produced by this explosive force in the head leading to many bone fragments and I can't positively identify this structure you are referring to.
Q: Did you find any bone fragments this size?
A: Where?
Q: In the brain.
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you mention this 13 x 30 millimeters or 1/2 inch by 3/4 inch rectangular object in the brain of the President in your report of January 1967?
A: I don't think I did.
Q: Did you mention this 3/4 x 1/2 inch object in the President's brain in your autopsy report of November 24, 1963?
A: No, but we would have to refer to the supplemental report which I don't have with me involving the brain descriptions by Dr. Humes. In the report of November '63 I don't remember a fragment from the brain for the very good reason that as I remember on Sunday the 24th of November, 1963 the brain was still being preserved, fixed, as I say in formalin. To the best of my recollection it was not sectioned.
Q: What you are telling me, Colonel, is as you didn't go into the other half of the brain and completely ascertain what may have or may not have been there then you did not do a complete autopsy, is that correct? Yes or no and then you can answer the question.
A: Yes. As regards the wounds on the external aspect of the body, what we found on the 24 November '63 was adequate as regards the external wounds of the brain.
Q: Is this in your opinion a complete autopsy under the definition used by the American Board of Pathology? Yes or no and then you can explain it.
A: On -- No. On the 24th of November because to my recollection we based our autopsy report on the 24th of November on the information obtained from people at the scene. We based it on our gross autopsy findings pertaining to the wounds as they were described on the body and the X-rays taken before and during the course of the autopsy.
Q: Am I correct, Colonel, did I hear your answer that it was "no" and then you explained it?
A: I explained it because there was supplemental reports, examinations of clothing that was made at a later date.
Q: Colonel, why didn't your report of January 19, 1967 contain anything about this particular object or any further work you may or may not have done with the brain, taking into consideration you had some 3 1/2 years to go over Dr. Humes's report?
A: I don't know. I was asked to correlate the autopsy report with the photographs, I had the opportunity to see for the first time in January, 1967.
Q: Did you use Commander Humes's supplemental report in drawing up your report of January 1967?
A: I don't remember.
Q: If you had would you remember?
A: Right now I don't remember what I used and did not use.
Q: If you did not, Colonel, would you say that your report of January, 1967 was then not complete and accurate completely? Yes or no, and then you can explain.
A: No, I don't remember all the factors I used at that time. You must understand there are details I remember and others I just don't remember at this time.
Q: When did you first learn you were going to testify?
A: When did I first learn I was going to testify here?
Q: Yes.
A: I was called on the phone on Sunday, and I will give you the date -- anyway, it was in February, 1969 that I was called to this trial.
Q: Well, Colonel, can you give me an approximation of how many days before today?
A: It must have been on Sunday the 16th.
Q: Sunday, the 16th of February?
A: Of February.
Q: You did --
A: And I -- I was called by Mr. Wegmann, Mr. Wegmann must have the date he called me on the phone at home.
Q: As best you can recall it was February 16?
A: It was in February.
Q: And you did bring some notes with you, did you not?
A: Let me refer to those and we can speed it up. I found it. I was called 16 February, '69.
Q: And my next question is, Colonel: You did bring some notes with you, did you not?
A: I brought my diary.
Q: And you brought some other notes with you, didn't you?
A: I brought S-67, the report of Dr. Humes and Boswell and myself, signed on 26 January, 1967; I brought S-72, the 1968 Panel Review by Carns, Fisher, Morgan and Moritz.
Q: Colonel, if you had to say --
A: I'm not finished. I brought Xerox copies of Page 978 through 983 of Volume 16. I brought a copy of my testimony before the Warren Commission starting on Page 377 and ending on Page 384 and the notes I have here I have written here before this testimony.
Q: But you didn't have Commander Humes' supplemental autopsy report?
A: I do not.
Q: Now, Colonel, referring to autopsy report of November, 1963, again, in the second page, second paragraph, you state: "Three shots were heard and the President fell forward." What do you base "falling forward" on?
A: Repeat your question, please.
Q: Referring to your autopsy report of November, 1963 on Page 2, Paragraph 2, you state "Three shots were heard and the President fell forward." Can you tell me what you base your statement on, "The President fell forward"?
A: This, again, is information we obtained when this report was prepared. I cannot pin down the source. It may have been somebody in the car, the Presidential limousine, some witnesses of the incident, so as we put it down as somebody told us.
Q: Colonel, before in answer on direct examination to one of Mr. Dymond's last questions, you gave a description of what you saw in the Zapruder film as the President moving his hand up, going slightly forward, and then he was struck with the second shot. You could describe the President's movements at the time of the second shot and why?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object and submit this is a question impossible to answer.
MR. OSER: If the Court please --
THE COURT: Let me hear Mr. Dymond, please, Mr. Oser.
MR. DYMOND: That is my objection, is it is a question that can't be answered.
MR. OSER: The witness as author of the report said the President fell forward and I want to know what he based it on.
THE COURT: I agree with you, but he said it was from somebody in the autopsy room, it was hearsay, but he accepted it from people allegedly that were eyewitnesses, and he says that is where he got the information from.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, you did view the entire Zapruder film?
A: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: That was much after this report was given.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: As of this day and this testimony, Colonel, you have viewed the entire Zapruder film, have you not?
A: I have viewed the entire Zapruder film in March, 1964.
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 examination 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 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 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 indicates 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?
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 examination 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