Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 2
Mr. SPECTER. Would you continue to describe your observations of the President?
Dr. CARRICO. His-the President’s color-I don’t believe I said-he was an ashen, bluish, grey,
cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt and coat
and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac
beats, felt the President’s back, and detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the
examination of his head. The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more
closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral
and cerebellar tissue. The pupils were inspected and seemed to be bilaterally dilated and fixed. No pulse was present,
and at that time, because of the inadequate respirations and the apparent airway injury, a cuffed endotracheal tube was
introduced, employing a larynzo scope. Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and
immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury. The endotracheal tube was inserted past this injury,
the cuff inflated, and the tube was connected to a respirator to assist the inadequate respiration. At about this
point the nurse reported that no blood pressure was obtained.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 3
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior third of the neck which you have just
described, could you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
Dr. CARRICO. This was probably a 4-7 mm. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline,
and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate
lacerations.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 3
Mr. SPECTER. Why did you not take the time to turn him over?
Dr. CARRICO. This man was in obvious extreme distress and any more thorough inspection would have involved
several minutes-well, several-considerable time which at this juncture was not available. A thorough inspection
would have involved washing and cleansing the back, and this is not practical in treating an acutely injured patient.
You have to determine which things, which are immediately life threatening and cope with them, before attempting
to evaluate the full extent of the injuries.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you ever have occasion to look at the President’s back?
Dr. CARRICO. No, sir. Before-well, in trying to treat an acutely injured patient, you have to establish an airway,
adequate ventilation and you have to establish adequate circulation. Before this was accomplished the President’s
cardiac activity had ceased and closed cardiac massage was instituted, which made it impossible to inspect his back.
Mr. SPECTER. Was any effort made to inspect the President’s back after he had expired?
Dr. CARRICO. No, sir.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 5
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion, Dr. Carrico, as to the cause of the punctate wound in the President's
throat?
Dr. CARRICO. No; I really don't - just on the basis of what I know. We didn't make an attempt, as you know, to
ascertain the track of the bullets.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 5
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any discussion among the doctors who attended President Kennedy as to the cause of the
neck wound?
Dr. CARRICO. Yes; after that afternoon.
Mr. SPECTER. And what conversations were there?
Dr. CARRICO. As I recall, Dr. Perry, and I talked and tried after-later in the afternoon to determine what exactly
had happened, and we were not aware of the missile wound to the back, and postulated that this was either a tangential
wound from a fragment, possibly another entrance wound. It could have been an exit wound, but we knew of no other
entrance wound.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 5
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed
on the President?
Dr. CARRICO. The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would
estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I
stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the
fragments of the skull attached to the dura.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 6
Mr. SPECTER. Did you notice any other opening in the head besides the one you have just described?
Dr. CARRICO. No, sir ; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Specifically, did you notice a bullet wound below the large gaping hole which you described?
Dr. CARRICO. No, sir.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 361
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned
briefly?
Dr. CARRICO. Sure. This was a 5- by 71 [sic]-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was
an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable
slow oozing. Then after we established some circulation there was more profuse bleeding from this wound.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 361
Mr. SPECTER Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was
absent?
Dr. CARRICO. No other wound on the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any opportunity specifically to look for a small wound which was below the large opening
of the skull on the right side of the head?
Dr. CARRICO. No, sir; at least initially there was no time to examine the patient completely for all small wounds.
As we said before, this was an acutely ill patient and all we had time to do was to determine what things were
lifethreatening right then and attempt to resuscitate him and after which a more complete examination would be carried
out and we didn’t have time to examine for other wounds.
Mr. SPECTER. Was such a more complete examination ever carried out by the doctors in Parkland?
Dr. CARRICO. No, sir ; not in my presence.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 361
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned
briefly?
Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the
thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.
Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
Mr. DULLES. Where did it enter?
Dr. CARRICO. It entered?
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Dr. CARRICO. At the time we did not know-
Mr. DULLES. I see.
Dr. CARRICO. The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Mr. DULLES. I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. CARRICO. Yes, sir; just where the tie---
Mr. DULLES. A little bit to the left.
Dr. CARRICO. To the right.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; to the right.
Dr. CARRICO. Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles James Carrico on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 362
Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you
express an opinion.
First of all, assume that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet from a rifle having a
muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second at a time when the President was approximately 160 to 250
feet from the weapon, with the President being struck from the rear at a downward angle of approximately 45 degrees,
being struck on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula 14 centimeters from the
tip of the right acromion process and 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process.
Assume further that the missile passed through the body of the President striking no bones, traversing the neck
and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior aspect of the President’s body through a fascia channel
without violating the pleural cavity, but bruising only the apex of the right pleural cavity and bruising the most
apical portion of the right lung, then causing a hematoma to the right of the larynx which you have described, and
creating a jagged wound in the trachea, then exiting precisely at the point where you observe the puncture wound to
exist.
Now based on those facts was the appearance of the wound in your opinion consistent with being an exit wound?
Dr. CARRICO. It certainly was. It could have been under the circumstances.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. William Kemp Clark on March 21, 1964 -
6H, 20
Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe the President’s condition to be on your arrival there?
Dr. CLARK. The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy.
There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President’s respirations through a tube in his
trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously.
The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted in withdrawing the endotracheal tube
from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube. I then examined the President briefly.
My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward
with a slight skew deviation.
I then examined the wound in the back of the President’s head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior
part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the
floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.
As I was examining the President’s wound, I felt for a carotid pulse and felt none. Therefore, I began external
cardiac massage and asked that a cardiotachioscope be connected. Because of my position it was difficult to administer
cardiac massage. However, Dr. Jones stated that he felt a femoral pulse.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. William Kemp Clark on March 21, 1964 -
6H, 21
Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?
Dr. CLARK. I described the President’s wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it
here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound,
but I felt it was a tangential wound.
Mr. SPECTER. Which wound did you refer to at this time?
Dr. CLARK. The wound in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you describe at that time what you meant by "tangential"?
Dr. CLARK. Yes, sir ; I did.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. William Kemp Clark on March 21, 1964 -
6H, 21
Mr. SPECTER. What definition of "tangential" did you make at that time?
Dr. CLARK. As I remember, I defined the word "tangential" as being-striking an object obliquely, not squarely or
head on.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe at this time in somewhat greater detail the consequences of a tangential wound as
contrasted with another type of a striking?
Dr. CLARK. Let me begin by saying that the damage suffered by an organ when struck by a bullet or other missile--
Mr. SPECTER. May the record show that I interrupted the deposition for about 2 minutes to ascertain what our
afternoon schedule would be here because the regular administration office ordinarily closes at 12 o'clock, which was
just about 15 minutes ago, and then we resumed the deposition of Dr. Clark as he was discussing the concept of
tangential and other types of striking. Go ahead, Doctor.
Dr. CLARK. The effects of any missile striking an organ or a function of the energy which is shed by the missile
in passing through this organ when a bullet strikes the head, if it is able to pass through rapidly without shedding
any energy into the brain, little damage results, other than that part of the brain which is directly penetrated by the
missile. However, if it strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore,
is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow.
Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and
thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through
or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual direct line it was proceeding.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. William Kemp Clark on March 21, 1964 -
6H, 22
Mr. SPECTER. And what else did you state at the press conference at 2:30 on November 22?
Dr. CLARK. I stated that the President had lost considerable blood, that one of the contributing causes of death was this
massive blood loss, that I was unable to state how many wounds the President had sustained or from what angle they could have
come.
I finally remember stating that the President's wound was obviously a massive one and was insurvivable.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. William Kemp Clark on March 21, 1964 -
6H, 25
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe, to make my question very specific, a bullet hole or what appeared to be a bullet
hole in the posterior scalp, approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right, slightly above the external occipital
protuberant, measuring 15 by 6 mm.
Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not. This could have easily been hidden in the blood and hair.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any bullet wounds or any other wound on the back side of the President?
Dr. CLARK. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the President ever turned over while he was in the emergency room?
Dr. CLARK. Not in my presence; no, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And did you leave before, with, or after all the other doctors who were in attendance?
Dr. CLARK. I left after all the other doctors who were in attendance, because I stayed with Dr. Burkley until
we had the death certificate signed and the arrangements had been made to transport the President’s body out of
Parkland Hospital.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. William Kemp Clark on March 21, 1964 -
6H, 25
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Clark, would your observations be consistent with some other alleged facts in this matter, such
as the presence of a lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 mm. on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital proturberant - that is to say, could such a hole have been present
without your observing it?
Dr. CLARK. Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it
and the brief period of time available for examination-yes, such a wound could be present.
Mr. SPECTER. The physicians, surgeons who examined the President at the autopsy specifically, Commander James J.
Humes, H-u-m-e-s (spelling); Commander J. Thornton Boswell, B-o-s-w-e-l-l (spelling), and Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck,
F-i-n-c-k (spelling), expressed the joint opinion that the wound which, I have just described as being 15 by 6 mm.
and 2.5 cm. to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberant was a point of entrance of a bullet
in the President’s head at a time when the President’s head was moved slightly forward with his chin dropping
into his chest, when he was riding in an open car at a slightly downhill position. With those facts being supplied to
them in a hypothetical fashion, they concluded that the bullet would have taken a more or less straight course, exiting
from the center of the President’s skull at a point indicated by an opening from three portions of the skull
reconstructed, which had been brought to them-would those findings and those conclusions be consistent with your
observations if you assumed the additional facts which I have brought to your attention, in addition to those which
you have personally observed?
Dr. CLARK. Yes, sir.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. William Kemp Clark Resumed on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 28
Dr. CLARK. Yes, sir. Furthermore, let me say that the presence of the deviation of the trachea, with blood in the
strap muscles, are by no means diagnostic of penetration of the chest, and the placing of the chest tubes was
prophylactic had such an eventuality occurred.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any external indication that there was a missile in the chest?
Dr. CLARK. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Was it the preliminary thought that the missile might have been in the chest by virtue of the fact
that this wound was noted on the neck?
Dr. CLARK. Yes ; with the other factors I have enumerated.
Mr. SPECTER. And at that time, not knowing what the angle might have been or any of the surrounding circumstances,
then you proceeded to take precautionary measures as if there might have been a missile in the chest at some point?
Dr. CLARK. That is correct. Measures were taken, assuming the worst had happened.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. William Kemp Clark Resumed on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 29
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Clark, while you are here again, I would like to ask you a few additional questions.
Let the record show that since I have taken your deposition, I have taken the depositions of many additional
witnesses and none has been transcribed, so I am not in a position to refer to a record to see what I asked you before
or to frankly recollect precisely what I asked you before, so, to some extent these questions may be overlapping.
Did you observe the President’s back at that time when he was in the emergency room?
Dr. CLARK. Ko, sir.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 129
Mr. SPECTER. Will you state your full name for the record, please?
Governor CONNALLY. John Bowden Connally.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 132
Mr. SPECTER. As the automobile turned left onto Elm from Houston, what did occur there, Governor?
Governor CONNALLY. We had - we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get
on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun
to thin, and we could - I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we
turned on Elm Street.
We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a
rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to
look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except, just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President
in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
I immediately - the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him.
I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in
the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 133
Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span
between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?
Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of
thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that
this-that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed because of the amount of blood, and in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest, that I had probably been fatally hit.
So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I
just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of
course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open ; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again-it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I
assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.
I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said,"My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie,
when she pulled me over into her lap --
Mr. SPECTER. Nellie is Mrs. Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. Mrs. Connally. When she pulled me over into her lap, she could tell I was still breathing and moving, and she said, "Don't worry. Be
quiet. You are going to be all right." She just kept telling me I was going
to be all right.
After the third shot, and I heard Roy Kellerman tell the driver, "Bill, get out
of line." And then I saw him move, and I assumed he was moving a button
or something on the panel of the automobile, and he said, "Get us to a hospital
quick." I assumed he was saying this to the patrolman, the motorcycle police who were leading us.
At about that time, we began to pull out of the cavalcade, out of the line, and I lost consciousness and didn't regain consciousness until we got to the hospital.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 135
Mr. SPECTER. Can you dscribe [sic] the nature of the wound in the thigh?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, just a raw, open wound, looked like a fairly deep penetration.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 inches?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I would say about an inch, an inch and a quarter long is all; fairly wide, I would say a quarter of an
inch wide, maybe more, a third of an inch wide, and about an inch and a quarter, an inch and a half long.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 135
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the
shot. In the first place, I don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity
that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or
it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot. I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I
felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from
something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I
didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 136
Mr. SPECTER. What was the nature of the exit wound on the front side of your chest, Governor?
Governor CONNALLY. I would say, if the Committee would be interested, I would just as soon you look at it. Is there any
objection to any of you looking at it?
The CHAIRMAN. No.
Governor CONNALLY. You can tell yourself. I would say, to describe it for the record, however, that it, the bullet went in my
- back just below the right shoulder blade, at just about the point that the right arm joins the shoulder, right in that groove,
and exited about 2 inches toward the center of the body from the right nipple of my chest. I can identify these for you.
The bullet went in here - see if I properly describe that - about the juncture of the right arm and the shoulder.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 136
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe the location, Doctor, of that wound on the Governor's back?
Dr. SHAW. Yes. It is on the right shoulder, I will feel it, just lateral to the shoulder blade, the edge of which is about
2 centimeters from the wound, and just above and slightly medial to the crease formed by the axilla or the armpit, the arm against
the chest wall.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 137
Mr. SPECTER. Can you estimate that angle for us, Doctor?
Dr. SHAW. We are talking about the angle now, of course, with the horizontal, and I would say - you don't have a caliper there,
do you?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes.
Dr. SHAW. I was going to guess somewhere between 25° and 30°.
Mr. DULLES. Sorry to ask these questions.
Governor CONNALLY. That is fine. I think it is an excellent question.
Dr. SHAW. Well, this puts it right at 25°.
Mr. SPECTER. That is the angle then of elevation as you are measuring it?
Dr. SHAW. Measuring from back to front, it is the elevation of the posterior wound over the anterior wound.
The CHAIRMAN. The course being downward back to front?
Dr. SHAW. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. Back to front.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Dr. SHAW. At the time of the initial examination, as I described, this portion of the Governor's chest was mobile, it
was moving in and out because of the softening of the chest, and that was the reason I didn't want the skin incision to be
directly over that, because to get better healing it is better to have a firm pad of tissue rather than having the incision
directly over the softened area.
Mr. DULLES. Doctor, would the angle be the same if the Governor were seated now the way he was in the chair?
Dr. SHAW. That is a good question. Of course, we don't know exactly whether he was back or tipped forward. But I don't
think there is going to be much difference.
Mr. DULLES. Were you seated in about that way, Governor?
Governor CONNALLY. Mr. Dulles. I would say I was in about this position when I was hit with my face approximately
looking toward you, 20° off of center.
Dr. SHAW, Yes; I got 27°. That didn't make much difference.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that reading taken then while the Governor is in a seated position, Doctor?
Dr. SHAW. Yes. seated; yes.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 138
Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, can you recreate the position that you were sitting in in the automobile, as best you can
recollect, at the time you think you where struck?
Governor CONNALLY. I think, having turned to look over my right shoulder, then revolving to look over my left shoulder, I threw
my right wrist over on my left leg.
Mr. SPECTER. And in the position you are seated now, with your right wrist on your left leg, with your little finger being an
inch or two from your knee?
Governor CONNALLY. From the knee.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 138
Mr. DULLES. How did you happen to turn then to the left, do you remember why that was?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I know exactly. I turned to the right both to see, because it was an instinctive movement,
because that is where the sound came from, but even more important, I immediately thought it was a rifleshot, I immediately
thought of an assassination attempt, and I turned to see if I could see the President, to see if he was all right. Failing to
see him over my right shoulder, I turned to look over my left shoulder.
Mr. DULLES. I see.
Governor CONNALLY. Into the back seat, and I never completed that turn. I got no more than substantially looking forward, a
little bit to the left of forward, when I got hit.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 139
Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, this is the exhibit which I was referring to, being 689. Was that your approximate position
except - that is the alinement with your right hand being on your left leg as you have just described?
Governor CONNALLY. No; it looks like my right hand is up on my chest. But I don't know. I can't say with any degree of
certainty where my right hand was, frankly.
Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally ---
Governor CONNALLY. It could have been up on my chest, it could have been suspended in the air, it could have been down on
my leg, it could have been anywhere. I just don't remember.
I obviously, I suppose, like anyone else, wound up the next day realizing I was hit in three places, and I was not conscious
of having been hit but by one bullet, so I tried to reconstruct how I could have been hit in three places by the same bullet, and
I merely, I know it penetrated from the back through the chest first.
I assumed that I had turned as I described a moment ago, placing my right hand on my left leg. that it hit my
wrist, went out the center of the wrist, the underside, and then into my leg, but it might not have happened that way at all.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 143
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any recollection of your arrival at the hospital itself, at the Parkland Hospital?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes. I think when the car stopped the driver was obviously driving at a very rapid rate of speed, and
apparently, as he threw on the brakes of the car, it brought me back to consciousness.
Again, a strange thing-strange things run through your mind and, perhaps, not so strange under the circumstances, but I
immediately - the only thought that occurred to me was that I was in the jump seat next to the door, that everyone concerned,
was going to be concerned with the President; that I had to get out of the way so they could get to the President. So although I
was reclining, and again Mrs. Connally holding me, I suddenly lurched out of her arms and tried to stand upright to get myself
out of the car.
I got - I don't really know how far I got. They tell me I got almost upright, and then just collapsed again, and someone
then picked me up and put me on a stretcher. I again was very conscious because this was the first time that I had any real
sensation of pain, and at this point the pain in the chest was excruciating, and I kept repeating just over and over, "My God,
it hurts, it hurts," and it was hurting, it was excruciating at that point.
I was conscious then off and on during the time I was in the emergency room. I don't recall that I remember everything, but
I remember quite a bit. I remember being wheeled down the passageway, I remember doctors and various people talking in the
emergency room. I remember them asking me a number of questions, too, which I answered, but that was about it.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 145
Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this
morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?
Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the
slides.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took - you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was
hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don’t remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when
you come out of the sign, which was -
Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200,
I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier -
3H, 411
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation crosshair was defective at the time of the assassination,
in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead
which needed to be given to the target?
Mr. Frazier. Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism
does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. As to how that would affect the lead -
the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right.
If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be
necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the
flight of the bullet would move a certain distance. The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any
lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be
necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you. I might
also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 -
5H, 59
Mr. SPECTER. Would you refer at this time to the coat, if you please, which, may the record show, has heretofore
been marked as
Commission Exhibit 393. And by referring to that coat will you describe what, if anything, you observed on the rear side of
the coat?
Mr. FRAZIER. There was located on the rear of the coat 5 3/8 inches below
the top of the collar, a hole, further located as 1 3/4 inches to the right of
the midline or the seam down the center of the coat; all of these being as you look at the back of the coat.
Mr. SPECTER. What characteristics did you note, if any, on the nature of that hole?
Mr. FRAZIER. I noticed that the hole penetrated both the outer and lining areas of the coat, that it was roughly
circular in shape. When I first examined it it was approximately one-fourth of an inch in diameter, and the cloth fibers
around the margins of the hole were pushed inward at the time I first examined it in the laboratory.
Mr. SPECTER. Did any tests conducted on the coat disclose any metallic substance on that area of that hole?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. I had a spectrographer run an analysis of a portion of the hole which accounts for its
being slightly enlarged at the present time. He took a sample of cloth and made an analysis of it. I don't know actually
whether I am expected to give the results of his analysis or not.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 -
5H, 59
Mr. SPECTER. Would you then please tell us what those tests disclose?
Mr. FRAZIER. Traces of copper were found around the margins of the hole in the back of the coat, and as a control, a very
small section under the collar was taken, and no copper being found there, it was concluded that the copper was foreign to the
coat itself.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all of the characteristics of that hole, which you consider to be important for the
Commission's consideration?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that those clothes, that jacket, specifically, at this juncture, was worn by President Kennedy, and was
in the same condition when that hole was made as it is now, and at the time when you made your examination, do you have a
professional opinion as to what caused that hole in the back of the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; I would say that it was an entrance hole for a bullet.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the reason for that conclusion, please?
Mr. FRAZIER. It has all the physical appearance characteristics which are considered when examining holes, such as its shape,
its size, and in particular the fact that the fibers around the margins of the hole were all pushed inward where the cloth was torn
by the object which passed through, and the fibers were unraveled as they were pushed inward, which is characteristic of a entrance
type bullet hole.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 -
5H, 60
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it may be.
Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, did you observe then on the back side of the shirt, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. I found on the back of the shirt a hole, 5 3/4 inches below
the top of the collar, and as you look at the back of the shirt 1 1/8 inch to
the right of the midline of the shirt, which is this hole I am indicating.
Mr. SPECTER. May the record show the witness is examining the shirt, as he has the coat, to indicate the hole to the
Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. The record may show that.
Mr. FRAZIER. In connection with this hole, I made the same examination as I did on the coat,
Exhibit 393.
I found the same situation to prevail, that is the hole was approximately circular in shape, about one-fourth inch in diameter,
and again the physical shape of it is characteristic of a bullet hole, that is the edges are frayed, and there are
slight radial tears in the cloth, which is characteristic of a bullet having passed through the cloth, and further, the
fibers around the margin of the hole were-had been pressed inward, and assuming that, when I first examined the shirt it
was in the same condition as it was at the time the hole was made, it is my opinion that this hole, in addition, was
caused by a bullet entering the shirt from the back at that point.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 -
5H, 63
Mr. SPECTER. What did your examination reveal with respect to the back side of the coat?
Mr. FRAZIER. There was found on the coat by me when I first examined it, near the right sleeve l l
/8 inches from the seam where
the sleeve attaches to the coat, and 7 1/4 inches to the right of the midline
when you view the back of the coat, a hole which is elongated in a horizontal direction to the length of approximately five-eights
of an inch and which had an approximate one-quarter inch height.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 -
5H, 63
Mr. SPECTER. All right. Will you now turn to the front side of the coat and state what, if any, damage you observed on the
body of the garment?
Mr. FRAZIER. When considered from the wearer’s standpoint, on the right chest area of the coat there is a hole through
the lining and the outer layer of the coat which is located 6 1/2 inches from the
right side seam line and also 6 1/2 inches from the armpit which places this hole
approximately 5 inches to the right of the front right edge of the coat.
This hole was approximately circular in shape, three-eights of an inch in diameter, and again possibly because of the cleaning
and pressing of the garment, I could not determine whether it actually was a bullet hole or whether or not it entered or exited if
it were a bullet hole.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 -
5H, 64
Mr. SPECTER. Did you find any damage on the right sleeve of the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; on more or less the top portion of the right sleeve very near the end of the sleeve there is a very
rough hole which penetrates both the outside layer, the lining and the inside layer of the sleeve.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 -
5H, 64
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to examine the shirt, which was purportedly worn by Governor Connally, and which has
heretofore been identified by the Governor in Commission proceedings, as that worn by him on November 22, 1963?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. May the record show at this point that Mr. Frazier is examining the shirt heretofore identified on the back side
with a photograph marked
Commission Exhibit 685 and on the front side with a photograph marked
Commission Exhibit 686.
Now, referring to that shirt, Mr. Frazier, what, if anything, did you observe on the rear side by way of an imperfection, hole
or defect?
Mr. FRAZIER. I found a hole which is very ragged. An L-shaped tear actually is what it amounted to in the back of the shirt
near the right sleeve, 2 inches from the seam line where the sleeve attaches to the shirt, and 7 1/
2 inches to the right of the midline of the shirt, the right side being as you look at the back of
the shirt. This tear amounted to a five-eights of an inch long horizontal and approximately one-half inch long vertical break in the
cloth, with a very small tear located immediately to its right, as you look at the back of the shirt, which was approximately
three-sixteenths of an inch in length. This hole corresponds in position to the hole in the back of the coat, Governor
Connally’s coat, identified as Commission No. 683.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 -
5H, 67
Mr. SPECTER. Now, where, according to information provided to you then, was the fragment designated
Commission Exhibit 567 found?
Mr. FRAZIER. That was found by the Secret Service upon their examination of the limousine here in Washington when it first
arrived from Dallas, and Commission No. 567 was delivered by Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and by a White House detail chief, Floyd
M. Boring, to a liaison agent of the FBI, Orrin Bartlett, who delivered them to me in the laboratory at 11:50 p.m., on November
22, 1963
Mr. SPECTER. Does that constitute the total chain of possession then from the finder with the Secret Service into your
hands, as reflected on the records of the FBI?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there another fragment, was there any other fragment found in the front seat of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. Alongside the right side of the front seat, Commission Exhibit No. 569, which is the base portion of the
jacket of a bullet, was found, and handled in identical manner to the Exhibit 567.
Mr. DULLES. And the front seat is the seat which would be the driver's seat?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. And the Secret Service man on his right, I believe?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman.
Mr. DULLES. That was the seat from which this came?
Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit 567 was found on the seat right beside the driver, and
Exhibit 569 was found on the floor beside the right side of the front seat.
Mr. SPECTER. The right side of the front seat, Mr. Dulles, as the prior testimony shows was occupied by Roy Kellerman and
the driver was William Greer.
Mr. DULLES. Right. Thank you.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you state what the chain of possession was from the time of discovery of Exhibit 569 until the time it
came into your possession,based on the records of the FBI, please, if you have those records available?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. It was delivered by Secret Service Deputy Chief Paul Paterni, and SAC of the White House detail Floyd
M. Boring of the Secret Service again, to Special Agent Orrin Bartlett of the FBI who delivered it to me at 11:50 p.m. on
November 22, 1963.
Mr. SPECTER. Are the records which you have just referred to relating to the chain of possession of Exhibits 567 and 569
maintained by you in the normal course of your duties as an examiner of those items?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 -
5H, 72
Mr. SPECTER. Referring back for just a moment to the coat identified as that worn by Governor Connally, Mr. Frazier, was there
any observable angle of elevation or declination from the back side of the Governor’s coat to the front side of the
Governor’s coat?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir ; there was, approximately a 35-degree downward angle.
Mr. SPECTER. Measuring from -
Mr. FRAZIER. That is -
Mr. SPECTER. Back to front or front to back?
Mr. FRAZIER. From back towards the front.
Mr. SPECTER. How about the same question as to the Governor’s shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was approximately the same angle or slightly less. I think we measured approximately 30 degrees.
Mr. SPECTER. Was that from the front to back or from the back to front of the Governor’s shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER. That would be from the back towards the front. Downward from back towards the front.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 -
5H, 73
Mr. SPECTER. Moving back to 843 will you describe those fragments indicating their weight and general composition?
Mr. FRAZIER. These fragments consisted of two pieces of lead, one weighed 1.65 grains. The other weighed .15 grain. They
were examined spectrographically so their present weight would be somewhat less since a very small amount would be needed
for spectrographic analysis.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 167
Mr. SPECTER - Could Governor Connally have taken a shot in the range of frames 207 to 210 which would have traversed his body
with the entry and exit points being approximately what they were shown to be through the medical records? Preliminarily, let me
ask you if, for the record, you had seen or had made available to you the contents of the medical records showing the point of
entry on the back of the Governor and the point of exit on the front side of his chest?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don’t recall having seen the medical testimony. However, information has been furnished to me by
Commission members as to the relative positions on the back and the front of the Governor.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you in addition had an opportunity to examine personally the clothing worn by the Governor consisting of
his jacket and shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER - Based on the Governor’s position then in frames 207 and 210, was he lined up so that a bullet fired from
the sixth floor would have passed through his body in about the way that the entry and exit holes were described to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I would say that this could have happened at these two frames. However, this would assume that the path of
the bullet through the Governor’s body was the same as the path of the bullet before it struck, that is, there was no
appreciable deflection in the body itself. Since I have no actual technical evidence available to me that there was no deflection, I
can only say that it is a possibility under the circumstances as set up in these photographs.
Mr. SPECTER - You would state that as a possibility based upon the observations you made and the facts provided to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 169
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the position of Governor Connally as depicted in the Zapruder slides at frames 222 and 225, could he
have taken a shot, assuming the firing point to have been the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which
entered and exited from his body in accordance with the known medical evidence?
Mr. FRAZIER I have not made a very thorough study of the Zapruder film which I understand you mentioned in this particular
question with reference to the Zapruder film itself.
Mr. SPECTER - We will take it with reference to the reconstructed positions of Governor Connally in frames 222 and 225, which
you have testified you did observe at the time the measurements and photographs were taken.
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say, yes, under the conditions that I mentioned previously, that the reconstruction would represent the
Governor as it was in November, then he could have been struck anywhere in that frame area of from 207 to 225.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 170
Mr. SPECTER - How about the same question in frames 231, 235, 240 and thereafter?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is only one position beyond frame 225 at which the Governor could have been struck according to the
information furnished to me and from my examination of his clothing that he was struck near the right sleeve seam and that the
bullet came out through the inside pocket of his jacket. At frame 231 the Governor is, as I saw it from the window on that date,
turned to the front to such an extent that he could not have been hit at that particular frame.
Mr. SPECTER - Why not, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - The angle through his body, as I measured it on the coat is approximately 20° from the right toward the left.
On May 24 in our reconstruction I found that the Governor had turned farther to the front from a position slightly facing the
right than he was in at frame 225. He had turned back to the front so that a shot which struck him in this shoulder in the
back ----
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating the right shoulder?
Mr. FRAZIER - Indicating the right shoulder near the seam would have come out much further to his right than the actual exit
hole described to me as being just under the right nipple.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 170
Mr. SPECTER - How would the bullet have passed through his body based on his position as shown in frame 235?
Mr. FRAZIER - In frame 235 which is Commission Exhibit No. 897, the Governor in our reconstruction, according to the Zapruder
film was also facing too far, too much towards the front. The angle of the bullet through his body, assuming no deflection, would
not have corresponded to the angle through his clothing or according to the information furnished from the medical examiners.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 170
Mr. SPECTER - How about the Governor’s position in frame 240?
Mr. FRAZIER - In
frame 240
the Governor again could not have been shot, assuming no deflection of the bullet prior to its striking his body, from the window
on the sixth floor because he is turned in this case too far to the right. Now, this obviously indicates that the Governor in
between frame 235 and frame 240 has turned from facing completely forward in the car around to the right to the point that a
bullet entering his back on the right shoulder area would have exited in my opinion somewhere from his left chest area rather
than from his right chest area.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 170
Mr. SPECTER - How about the Governor’s position at frame 249?
Mr. FRAZIER - In frame 249 a similar situation exists in that the Governor, as represented by his stand-in in our
reconstruction, has turned too far to the right, even further than frame 240, so that in frame 249 represented by Commission
Exhibit No. 899, he again could not have been hit by a bullet which came from the window on the sixth floor and struck him in an
undeflected fashion and passed through his body undeflected.
Mr. SPECTER - How about frame 255?
Mr. FRAZIER - On frame 255 which is in Commission Exhibit No. 901 the Governor is turned again too far to the right, and the
same situation would hold true as to what we saw in frame 249. The bullet would have exited too far on his left side, provided
there was no deflection between the window and the point of exit from the Governor’s body.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 171
Mr. McCLOY - As I get it, Mr. Frazier, what you are saying is there is only a certain point at which the bullet could pass
through the President, could have hit Mr. Connally, and that is at a point when he is not sitting full face forward and at a
point when he is not too far turned around.
Mr. FRAZIER - That is exactly right.
Mr. McCLOY - Somewhere when he is turning to the right.
Mr. FRAZIER - He was placed approximately 20° to the right.
Mr. McCLOY - To the right.
Mr. FRAZIER - That is 20° according to my examination of his clothing but I don’t know the exact figures of the angle
through his body.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of William Robert Greer on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 117
Mr. SPECTER. Now, would you tell us just what occurred as you were proceeding down Elm Street at that time?
Mr. GREER. Well, when we were going down Elm Street, I heard a noise that I thought was a backfire of one of the
motorcycle policemen. And I didn’t - it did not affect me like anything else. I just thought that it is what it
was. We had had so many motorcycles around us. So I heard this noise. And I thought that is what it was. And then I
heard it again. And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was starting to fall. Then I
realized there was something wrong. I tramped on the accelerator, and at the same time Mr. Kellerman said to me,
"Get out of here fast." And I cannot remember even the other shots or noises that was. I cannot quite remember any
more. I did not see anything happen behind me any more, because I was occupied with getting away.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of William Robert Greer on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 118
Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how much time elapsed from the first noise
which you have described as being similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn’t say. Three or four seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to estimate and recollect, between the time of
the second noise and the time of the third noise?
Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other, but I don’t recollect just
how much, how many seconds were between the two. I couldn’t really say.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of William Robert Greer on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 119
Mr. SPECTER. When you started that glance, are you able to recollect whether you started to glance before, exactly
simultaneously with or after that second shot?
Mr. GREER. It was almost simultaneously that he had-something had hit, you know, when I had seen him. It seemed like in the
same second almost that something had hit, you know, whenever I turned around. I saw him start to fall.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you step on the accelerator before, simultaneously or after Mr. Kellerman instructed you to accelerate?
Mr. GREER. It was about simultaneously.
Mr. SPECTER. So that it was your reaction to accelerate prior to the time --
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. You had gotten that instruction?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; it was my reaction that caused me to accelerate.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you recollect whether you accelerated before or at the same time or after the third shot?
Mr. GREER. I couldn’t really say. Just as soon as I turned my head back from the second shot, right away I accelerated right
then. It was a matter of my reflexes to the accelerator.
Mr. SPECTER. Was it at about that time that you heard the third shot?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; just as soon as I turned my head.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the speed of the car at the time of the first, second, or third shots?
Mr. GREER. I would estimate my speed was between 12 and 15 miles per hour.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of William Robert Greer on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 119
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any radio communication between your automobile and any of the other automobiles?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Who made that radio communication?
Mr. GREER. Kellerman.
Mr. SPECTER. Tell us as precisely as you can when he made that radio communication.
Mr. GREER. After he had said to me, "Get out of here fast." He got the radio and called to the lead car, "Get us
to a hospital fast, nearest hospital fast."
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of William Robert Greer on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 120
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Greer, would you on Commission’s Exhibit 347, mark with an "A" as best you can indicate the
position of the President’s automobile at the time of the first shot?
Mr. GREER. Do you want me to mark it on this exhibit?
Mr. SPECTER. Right there, that is right, that red pencil with an "A", a small "A."
Mr. GREER. This is the center, I would say [indicating].
Mr. SPECTER. Will you mark your best estimate as to the position of the automobile at the time of the second shot
with the letter "B"?
Mr. GREER. I would have to guess how far I had traveled at that time. I really wouldn’t know. It was
probably a little farther, only guessing how far I would go. I am guessing as to the distance between them. Maybe
farther but I am only guessing to say at that. I wouldn’t have any definite reason.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you make that "B" a little plainer, if you can?
Mr. GREER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you give us the best estimate in feet as to the distance you traveled from the time of the
first shot to the time of the second shot?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I don’t believe I could. Anything I would say would be guessing.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you be able to give us a meaningful mark on the overhead photograph as to the position of your
car at the time of the third shot?
Mr. GREER. From this overhead. I probably was where this mark is here.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you mark it?
Mr. GREER. I will put it alongside.
Mr. SPECTER. Put a little "C."
Mr. GREER. This was for the third shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. GREER. This is "C." This not having an idea really of how much footage is in there at all. I wouldn’t -
The CHAIRMAN. I didn’t understand.
Mr. GREER. I said I wouldn’t probably know, Mr. Chief Justice, how many feet would be in that distance, I
would be guessing how many feet.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes ; I understand.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of William Robert Greer on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 124
Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe with respect to President Kennedy’s condition on arrival at the Parkland
Hospital?
Mr. GREER. To the best of my knowledge he was laying, it seemed across Mrs. Kennedy, looked like laying across her
lap or in front of her, I am not too sure which, I opened the doors-the doors were opened before I got to it, someone
else had opened the doors and they were trying to get Connally out, and Mrs. Connally out of the seats so they could
get to the President.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe about the President with respect to his wounds?
Mr. GREER. His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of William Robert Greer on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 128
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe in very general terms what injury you observed as to the President’s head
during the course of the autopsy?
Mr. GREER. I would-to the best of my recollection it was in this part of the head right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Upper right?
Mr. GREER. Upper right side.
Mr. SPECTER. Upper right side, going toward the rear. And what was the condition of the skull at that point?
Mr. GREER. The skull was completely-this part was completely gone.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, aside from that opening which you have described and you have indicated a circle with a diameter
of approximately 5 inches, would you say that is about what you have indicated there?
Mr. GREER. Approximately I would say 5 inches; yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other opening or hole of any sort in the head itself?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn’t. No other one.
Mr. SPECTER. Specifically did you observe a hole which would be below the large area of skull which was absent?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn’t.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to look in the back of the head immediately below where the skull was missing?
Mr. GREER. No; I can’t remember even examining the head that close at that time.
Source: Report of William R. Greer -
18H,723
The President’s automobile was almost past this building and I was looking at the overpass that we were about
to pass under in case someone was on top of it, then I heard what I thought was the backfire of a motorcycle behind the
President’s automobile. After the second shot, I glanced over may right shoulder and saw Governor Connally start to
fall, I knew then that something was wrong and I immediately pushed the accelerator to the floor and Mr. Kellerman said,
get out of here.
We rushed up to the police escort and I called to the motorcycle police, hospital. Mr. Kellerman was calling to the
lead automobile on the radio to get to the nearest hospital fast.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 97
Mr. SPECTER - What observations did you have with respect to his wound in the chest?
Dr. GREGORY - I had none, really, for the business of prepping and draping was underway at that time, and I did not intrude
other than to observe very casually, and I don't remember any details of it.
Now, I did see in the course of the operation the wound in his chest, the wound of entry, and its posterior surface and the
wound of exit on the anterior surface.
Mr. SPECTER - What did the wound of entry look like, Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - It appeared to me that the wound of entry was sort of a linear wound, perhaps three-quarters of an inch in length
with a rounded central portion. Whereas, the wound of exit was rather larger than this, perhaps an inch and a half across.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 97
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe with respect to the wound of his wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - I didn't see the wound of his wrist until after the chest operation had been completed, because his
arm was covered by the operation drapes, the surgical drapes for the chest procedure.
Mr. SPECTER - And when you did have an opportunity to observe the wound of the wrist, what did you then see?
Dr. GREGORY - I observed the wound on the dorsal aspect of his wrist, which was about 2 cm. in length, ragged, somewhat
irregular, and lay about an inch and a half or 2 inches above the wrist joint. It was a little to the radial side of the wrist
area.
There was a second wound in the wrist on the volar surface, about a centimeter and a half proximal to the distal
flexion crease and this wound was a transverse laceration no more than a centimeter in length and did not gape.
Mr. SPECTER - When you say on the dorsal aspect, what is that?
Dr. GREGORY - In lay terms, that’s equivalent to the back of the hand.
Mr. SPECTER - And the volar is equivalent to what?
Dr. GREGORY - The palm surface of the hand.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 98
Mr. SPECTER - What conclusion, if any, did you reach as to which was the wound of entry and exit on the wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Based on certain findings in the wound at the time the debridement was carried out--
Mr. SPECTER - Will you define debridement before you proceed with that?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes; debridement is a surgical term used to designate that procedure in attending a wound which
removes by sharp excision all nonvital tissue in the area together with any identifiable foreign objects.
In attending this wound, it was evident early that cloth had been carried into the wound from the dorsal
surface to the bone and into the fracture. This would imply that an irregular missile had passed through the wrist
from the dorsal to the volar aspect.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, were there any characteristics in the volar aspect which would indicate that it was a wound of exit?
Dr. GREGORY - No; there were none, really. It was my assumption that the missile had expended much of its
remaining energy in passing through the radius bone, which it did before it could emerge through the soft tissues.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 99
Mr. SPECTER. What other wounds, if any, did you notice on the Governor at that time?
Dr. GREGORY. In addition to the chest wound and the wound just described in his right forearm there was a wound in the medial
aspect of his left thigh. This was almost round and did not seem to have disturbed the tissues badly, but did definitely
penetrate and pass through the skin and to the fascia beneath. I could not tell from the superficial inspection whether
it had passed through the fascia. An X-ray was made of his thigh at that time and there was not present in his thigh
any missile of sufficient magnitude, in my opinion, to have produced the wound observed on his medial aspect. Repeat
X-rays failed to reveal any such missile and an additional examination failed to reveal any wound of exit.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 101
Mr. SPECTER. Now, Dr. Gregory. I turn to
Diagram No. 5, which depicts a seated man and what does Diagram No. 5
depict to your eye with respect to what action is described on the seated man?
Dr. GREGORY. Well, I should say that this composite has aligned the several parts of the body demonstrated in such
a way that a single missile following a constant trajectory could have accounted for all of the wounds which are shown.
Moreover, this is consistent with the point of entry which is depicted on the side views showing the angle of
declination. I submit that the angle of declination in passing through the chest could be very simply altered by
having an individual lean forward a few degrees, and similarly could be made much deeper by having him lean backward
without really changing the basic relationship between the parts, nor in any way affecting the likelihood that all
parts could have come into this same trajectory.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Charles Francis Gregory on March 23, 1964 -
6H,101
Mr. SPECTER - Would you consider it possible, in your professional opinion, for the same bullet to have inflicted
all of the wounds which you have described on Governor Connally?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes; I believe it very possible, for a number of reasons. One of these is the apparent loss of energy
manifested at each of the various body surfaces, which I transacted, the greatest energy being at the point of entry on
the posterior aspect of the chest and of the fifth rib, where considerable destruction was done and the least
destruction having been done in the medial aspect of the thigh where the bullet apparently expended itself.
Mr. SPECTER - What destruction was done on the fifth rib, Dr. Gregory?
Dr. GREGORY - It is my understanding from conversations with Dr. Shaw, and I believe his medical reports bear this
out, that the fifth rib was literally shattered by the missile.
We know that high velocity bullets striking bone have a strong tendency to shatter bones and the degree to
which the fifth rib was shattered was considerably in excess of the amount of shattering which occurred in the radius --
the forearm.
Mr. SPECTER. And what conclusion, if any, did you draw as to the velocity of the missile, as to the time it struck each of
those bony portions?
Dr. GREGORY. I think that the missile was continually losing velocity with each set of tissues which it encountered and
transected, and the amount of damage done is progressively less from first entrance in the thorax to the last entrance in the
thigh.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 102
Mr. SPECTER - Do you think it possible that Governor Connally was shot by two bullets, with one hitting in the
posterior part of his body and the second one striking the back side of his wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - The possibility exists, but I would discount it for these reasons -- ordinarily, a missile in flight ---
I'll qualify that --- a high velocity missile in flight does not tend to carry organic material into the wound which it
creates.
I believe if you will inspect the record which was prepared by Dr. Shaw, there is no indication that any clothing
or other organic material was found in the chest wound.
An irregular missile can carry debris into a wound and such debris was carried into the wound of the wrist. I
would have expected that an undistorted high velocity missile striking the wrist would not have carried material into
it.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 103
Dr. GREGORY - A tumbling is a second --- it actually is a third component of motion that a missile may go through in
its trajectory. First, there is a linear motion from muzzle to target on point of impact. In order to keep a missile on
its path, there is imparted to it a rotary motion so that it is spinning. Now, both of these are commensurate with the
constant trajectory. A third component, which is tumbling, and is literally the end over end motion, which may be
imparted to a missile should it strike something in flight that deflects but does not stop it---in this circumstance
the wound of entry created by such a missile usually is quite large and the destruction it creates is increased, as a
matter of fact, by such tumbling, and I would have therefore expected to see perhaps some organic material carried into
a large wound of entry in Governor Connally's back. These are only theoretical observations, but these are some of the
reasons why I would believe that the missile in the Governor behaved as though it had never struck anything except him.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe the nature of the wound in the Governor's back?
Dr. GREGORY - Only so far as I saw it as Dr. Shaw was preparing to operate on it, but I was unable to see the
nature of the wound as he carried out his operation. I did, however, specifically question him about this matter of
containing foreign material, clothing, etc.
Mr. SPECTER - What did he say about that?
Dr. GREGORY - Well, as I recall it, he said none was found, and I would not have expected any to be found as I
explained to you, if this was the initial impact of that missile.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 118
The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In
lay terms this is the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5 centimeters above the wrist joint.
There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in the midline of the wrist on its palmar
surface about 2 centimeters, something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 120
Mr. SPECTER - Would you elaborate on just what do you mean by "this fashion," indicating the distinctions on the
level of the air which suggest that conclusion to you?
Dr. GREGORY - Recall that I suggested that the wound of entrance, certainly the dorsal wound lay some distance,
5 cm. above the wrist joint, approximately here, that the second wound considered to be the wound of exit was only 2
cm. above this point, making the pathway an oblique one.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 121
Mr. SPECTER - What opinion, if any, do you have as to whether that bullet could have produced the wound on the
Governor's right wrist and remained as intact as it is at the present time?
Dr. GREGORY - In examining this bullet, I find a small flake has been either knocked off or removed from the
rounded end of the missile. (At this point Representative Boggs entered the room.) I was told that this was removed
for the purpose of analysis. The only other deformity which I find is at the base of the missile at the point where it
joined the cartridge carrying the powder, I presume, and this is somewhat flattened and deflected, distorted. There is
some irregularity of the darker metal within which I presume to represent lead. The only way that this missile could
have produced this wound in my view, was to have entered the wrist backward. Now, this is not inconsistent with one of
the characteristics known for missiles which is to tumble. All missiles in flight have two motions normally, a linear
motion from the muzzle of the gun to the target, a second motion which is a spinning motion having to do with
maintaining the integrity of the initial linear direction, but if they strike an object they may be caused to turn in
their path and tumble end over, and if they do, they tend to produce a greater amount of destruction within the strike
time or the target, and they could possibly, if tumbling in air upon emergence, tumble into another target backward.
That is the only possible explanation I could offer to correlate this missile with this particular wound.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 122
Mr. SPECTER. Is the back of that bullet characteristic of an irregular missile so as to cause the wound in the
wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. I would say that the back of this being flat and having sharp edges is irregular, and would possibly
tend to tear tissues more than does an inclined plane such as this.
Mr. SPECTER. Would the back of the missile he sufficiently irregular to have caused the wound of the right wrist,
in your opinion?
Dr. GREGORY. I think it could have; yes. It is possible.
Mr. SPECTER. Would it be consistent with your observations of the wrist for that missile to have penetrated and
gone through the right wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. It is possible; yes. It appears to me since the wound of exit was a small laceration, that much of
the energy of the missile that struck the Governor’s wrist was expended in breaking the bone reducing its velocity
sufficient so that while it could make an emergence through the underlying soft tissues on his wrist, it did not do
great damage to them.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 122
Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other X-rays of the Governor’s wrist which would aid the Commission in its
understanding of the injuries to the wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. Only to indicate that there were two fragments of metal retrieved in the course of dealing with this
wound surgically. For the subsequent X-rays of the same area, after the initial surgery indicate that those fragments
are no longer there.
And as I stated, I thought I had retrieved two of them. The major one or ones now being missing. The small one
related to the bone or most closely related to the bone, and I will put back up here ---
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 123
Mr. DULLES - Was the wound of exit in the wrist also jagged like the wound of entry or was there, what
differences were there between the wound of entry and the wound of exit?
Dr. GREGORY - The wound of exit was disposed transversely across the wrist exactly as I have it marked here. It
was in the nature of a small laceration, perhaps a centimeter and a half in length, about a half an inch long, and it
lay in the skin creases so that as you examined the wrist casually it was a very innocent looking thing indeed, and it
was not until it was probed that its true nature in connection with the remainder of the wound was evident.
. . .
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, what was then the relative size of the wounds on the back and front side of the wrist
itself?
Dr. GREGORY - As I recall them, the wound dimensions would be so far as the wound on the back of the wrist is
concerned about a haft a centimeter by two and a half centimeters in length. It was rather linear in nature. The upper
end of it having apparently lost some tissue was gapping more than the lower portion of it.
Mr. SPECTER - How about on the volar or front side of the wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - The volar surface or palmar surface had a wound disclosed transversely about a half centimeter in
length and about 2 centimeters above the flexion crease to the wrist.
Mr. SPECTER - Then the wound on the dorsal or back side of the wrist was a little larger than the wound on the
volar or palm side of the wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes; it was.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 124
Mr. SPECTER - Have you now described all of the characteristics on the Governor's wrist which indicate either the
point of entry or the point of exit?
Dr. GREGORY - There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence but I don't know how effectively
it can be applied to the nature of the missile. That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory
nerve in this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon leading to the thumb, which was
totally transected. This could have been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion, undisturbed,
undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure
rather than push it aside.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 124
Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the X-ray with you?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. On what date was that X-ray taken?
Dr. GREGORY. This X-ray is marked as having been taken on November 22, 1963. It indicates that it was made of the left thigh,
and it belongs to John Connally, John G. Connally.
Mr. SPECTER. That says "G" instead of "C"?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes. It appears to me to be a "G." The number again is 219-922.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 124
Dr. GREGORY - I was apprized that the Governor had a wound of the thigh, and I did examine it immediately the limb was available
for it after Dr. Shaw had completed the surgery. The wound was located on the inner aspect of the thigh, a little to the front
surface about a third of the way up from the knee. The wound appeared to me to be rounded, almost a puncture type of wound in
dimension about equal to a pencil eraser, about 6 mm.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 125
Dr. GREGORY. Careful examination of this set of X-rays illustrated or demonstrates, I should say, a number of artificial lines,
this is one and there is one. These lines I think represent rather hurried development of these films for they were taken under
emergency conditions. They were intended simply to let us know if there was another missile in the Governor's limb where it might
be located. The only missile turned up is the same one seen in the original film which lies directly opposite the area indicated
as the site of the missile wound or the wound in the thigh, but a fragment of metal, again microscopic measuring about five-tenths
of a millimeter by 2 millimeters, lies just beneath the skin, about a half inch on the medial aspect of the thigh.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 125
Mr. SPECTER - Would the wound that you observed in the soft tissue of the left thigh be consistent with having
been made by a bullet such as that identified as Commission
Exhibit 399?
Dr. GREGORY - I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion
and have shed a bit of its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the thigh
sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged and was found in the clothing.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 127
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, could all of the wounds which were inflicted on the Governor, that is those described
by Dr. Shaw and those which you have described during your testimony, have been inflicted from one missile if that
missile were a 6.5 millimeter bullet fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per
second at a distance of approximately 160 to 250 feet, if you assumed a trajectory with an angle of decline
approximately 45 degrees?
Dr. GREGORY - I believe that the three wounds could have occurred from a single missile under these specifications.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Charles Francis Gregory on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 127
Mr. SPECTER - Let me make those a part of the record here, and ask if those are the missiles which have
heretofore been identified as Commission Exhibit 568 and Commission Exhibit 570.
Dr. GREGORY - These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket in one case, and part of a jacket and a
lead core in the other. These are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned earlier, which tend to carry
organic debris into wounds and tend to create irregular wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could
conceivably have produced the injury which the Governor incurred in his wrist.
Mr. DULLES - In his wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - And in his thigh?
Dr. GREGORY - I don't know about that, sir. It is possible. But the rather remarkably round nature of the wound
in the thigh leads me to believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact missile.
Statement of Clinton J. Hill on November 30, 1963 -
18H, 742
As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was
missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in
the seat. The time of the shooting was approximately 12:30 p.m., Dallas time. I looked forward to the jump seats and
noticed Governor Connally’s chest was covered with blood and he was slumped to his left and partially covered up
by his wife. I had not realized until this point that the Governor had been shot.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Clinton J. Hill on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 138
Mr. SPECTER. Now, as the motorcade proceeded at that point, tell us what happened.
Mr. HILL. Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to
be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to
me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right, and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential
limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left.
Mr. SPECTER. Why don’t you just proceed, in narrative form, to tell us?
Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot?
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was
wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than
the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object-it
seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile,
and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about
three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car.
Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy-the second noise
that I heard had removed a portion of the President’s head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs.
Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper
of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car. She turned toward me and I
grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Clinton J. Hill on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 139
Mr. SPECTER. Now, referring to Commission
Exhibit No. 354, would you mark an "X", as best you can, at the spot
where the President’s automobile was at the time the first shot occurred?
Mr. HILL. Approximately there.
Mr. SPECTER. And would you mark a "Y" at the approximate position where the President’s car was at the
second shot you have described?
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Clinton J. Hill on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 139
Mr. SPECTER Did you hear any more than two shots?
Mr. HILL. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your best estimate of the speed of the President’s automobile at the time of the second shot?
Mr. HILL. Approximately the same speed as that of the first-although at the time that I jumped on the car, the car had surged
forward. The President at that time had been shot in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. When, in relationship to the second shot, did the car accelerate that is, the President’s car?
Mr. HILL. Almost simultaneously.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Clinton J. Hill on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 141
Mr. HILL. At the time of the shooting. when I got into the rear of the car, she said, "My God, they have shot his head off."
Between there and the hospital she just said, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you," and sobbed.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any conversation by anybody else in the President’s automobile from the time of the shooting to
the arrival at Parkland Hospital?
Mr. HILL. I heard Special Agent Kellerman say on the radio, "To the nearest hospital, quick."
Mr. SPECTER. Any other comment?
Mr. HILL. He said, "We have been hit."
Mr. SPECTER. Now, was there any other comment you heard Special Agent Kellerman make?
Mr. HILL. Not that I recall.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Clinton J. Hill on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 141
Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy’s condition on arrival at the hospital?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was
exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely
covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for
the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Clinton J. Hill on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 143
Representative BOGGS. At this time did you see the whole body?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. Did you see any other wound other than the head wound?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the
spinal column.
Representative BOGGS. Was there a frontal neck injury?
Mr. HILL. There was an area here that had been opened but-
Mr. SPECTER. You are indicating-
Mr. HILL. In the neck. It was my understanding at that time that this was done by a tracheotomy.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Clinton J. Hill on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 144
Mr. SPECTER. And did you have a reaction or impression as to the source of point of origin of the second shot that you
described?
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was-it had a different
sound, First of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound-as though you were standing
against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting
the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what
caused it.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 351
Commander HUMES - These exhibits again are schematic representations of what we observed at the time of examining
the body of the late President.
Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I wish to get the
measurements correct. This wound was situated just above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4
millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of vertical column.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 352
Commander HUMES - Turning now to Commission
Exhibit 388, where we have depicted in the posterior right portion of
the skull a wound which we have labeled "in" or a wound of entrance and a large roughly 13 cm. diameter defect in the
right lateral vertex of the skull. I would go into some further detail in describing these wounds. The scalp, I
mentioned previously, there was a defect in the scalp and some scalp tissue was not available. However, the scalp was
intact completely past this defect. In other words, this wound in the right posterior region was in a portion of scalp
which had remained intact. So, we could see that it was the measurement which I gave before, I believe 15 by 6
millimeters. When one reflected the scalp away from the skull in this region, there was a corresponding defect through
both tables of the skull in this area.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe what you mean by both tables, Dr. Humes?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. The skull is composed of two layers of bone. We will put the scalp in in dotted lines.
The two solid lines will represent the two layers of the skull bone, and in between these two layers is loose somewhat
irregular bone. When we reflected the scalp, there was a through and through defect corresponding with the wound in the
scalp. This wound had to us the characteristics of a wound of entrance for the following reason : The defect in the
outer table was oval in outline, quite similar to the defect in the skin.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 352
Commander HUMES - Experience has shown and my associates and Colonel Finck, in particular, whose special field of interest
is wound ballistics can give additional testimony about this scientifically observed fact.
This wound then had the characteristics of wound of entrance from this direction through the two tables of the skull.
Mr. SPECTER - When you say "this direction," will you specify that direction in relationship to the skull?
Commander HUMES - At that point I mean only from without the skull to within.
Mr. SPECTER - Fine, proceed.
Commander HUMES - Having ascertained to our satisfaction and incidentally photographs illustrating this phenomenon from both
the external surface of the skull and from the internal surface were prepared, we concluded that the large defect to the upper
right side of the skull, in fact, would represent a wound of exit. A careful examination of the margins of the large bone
defect at that point, however, failed to disclose a portion of the skull bearing again a wound of -- a point of impact on the skull
of this fragment of the missile, remembering, of course, that this area was devoid of any scalp or skull at this present time.
We did not have the bone.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 353
Commander Humes - . . . In further evaluating this head wound, I will refer back to the X-rays which we had previously
prepared. These had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of radio opaque material traversing a line from the wound in the
occiput to just above the right eye, with a rather sizable fragment visible by X-ray just above the right eye. These tiny
fragments that were seen dispersed through the substance of the brain in between were, in fact, just that extremely minute, less
than 1 mm. in size for the most part.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 354
Mr. SPECTER. When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right
above the President’s right eye?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President’s eye.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. We dissected carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a
defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.
Mr. SPECTER. How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes?
Commander HUMES. I refer to my notes for the measurements of that fragment. I find in going back to my report, sir, that we
found, in fact, two small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of these measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 357
Mr. McCLOY - Was the bullet moving in a direct line or had it begun to tumble?
Commander HUMES - To tumble? That is a difficult question to answer. I have the opinion, however, that it was
more likely moving in a direct line. You will note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on
Exhibit
388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet discussed in the low neck. We believe that
rather than due to a tumbling effect, this is explainable on the fact that this missile struck the skin and skull at a
more tangential angle than did the other missile, and, therefore, produced a more elongated defect, sir.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 357
Commander HUMES. As I mentioned previously, at one angle of this largest pyramidal shaped fragments of bone
which came as a separate specimen, we had the portion of the perimeter of a roughly what we would judge to have been
a roughly circular wound of exit. Judging from that portion of the perimeter which was available to us, we would have
judged the diameter of that wound to be between 2.5 and 3 cm.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 358
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, would you elaborate a bit on the differences in the paths, specifically why the bullet went in one
direction in part and in part in the second direction, terminating with the fragment right over the right eye?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. I will make a drawing of the posterior portion of the skull showing again this beveling which we
observed at the inner table of the skull. Our impression is that as this projectile impinged upon the skull in this fashion, a
small portion of it was dislodged due to the energy expended in that collision, if you will, and that it went off at an angle, and
left the track which is labeled 388, which is labeled on
Exhibit 388 from "A", point "A" to the point where the fragment was found behind the eye.
Why a fragment takes any particular direction like that is something which is difficult of scientific explanation. Those of us
who have seen missiles strike bones, be it the skull or a bone in the extremity have long since learned that portions of these
missiles may go off in various directions and the precise physical laws governing them are not clearly understood.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 359
Commander HUMES - The size of the defect in the scalp, caused by a projectile could vary from missile to missile because of
elastic recoil and so forth of the tissues.
However, the size of the defect in the underlying bone is certainly not likely to get smaller than that of the missile which
perforated it, and in this case, the smallest diameter of this was approximately 6 to 7 mm., so I would feel that that would be
the absolute upper limit of the size of this missile, sir.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 360
Mr. SPECTER - Now, on one detail on your report, Dr. Humes, on
page 4,
on the third line down, you note that there is a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 mm. which on the smaller size is, of course,
less than 6.5 mm.?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - What would be the explanation for that variation?
Commander HUMES - This is in the scalp, sir, and I believe that this is explainable on the elastic recoil of the
tissues of the skin, sir. It is not infrequent in missile wounds of this type that the measured wound is slightly
smaller than the caliber of the missile that traversed it.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 361
Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low
posterior neck of the President. The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with the long axis being in accordance with the
long axis of the body, 44 [sic] mm. wide, in other words, 7 mm. long. We attempted to locate such wounds in soft tissue
by making reference to bony structures which do not move and are, therefore, good reference points for this type of
investigation. We then ascertained, we chose the two bony points of reference we chose to locate this wound, where the
mastoid process, which is just behind the ear, the top of the mastoid process, and the acromion which is the tip of
the shoulder joint. We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm. from the
tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion was its central point--
Mr. SPECTER - That is the right acromion?
Commander HUMES - The tip of the right acromion, yes, sir, and that is why we have depicted it in figure 385 in
this location. This wound appeared physically quite similar to the wound which we have described before in 388 "A,"
with the exception that its long axis was shorter than the long axis of the wound described above. When the tissues
beneath this wound were inspected, there was a defect corresponding with the skin defect in the fascia overlying the
musculature of the low neck and upper back.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 363
Commander HUMES - . . . In attempting to relate findings within the President’s body to this wound which we had observed
low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his
lungs. We found that there was, in fact no defect in the pleural lining of the President’s chest. It was completely intact.
However, over the apex of the right pleural cavity, and the pleura now has two layers. It has a parietal or a layer which lines
the chest cavity and it has a visceral layer which is intimately in association with the lung. As depicted in figure 385, in the
apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the
upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung. It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating
physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised either the missile itself, or the force of its passage through the
tissues, bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura.
The area of discoloration on the apical portion of the right upper lung measured five centimeters in greatest diameter, and
was wedge shaped in configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apex down towards the substance of the lung.
Once again Kodachrome photographs were made of this area in the interior of the President’s chest.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 364
Commander HUMES - We reached the conclusion that point "C" was a Point of entry.
Mr. SPECTER - What characteristics of that wound led you to that conclusion?
Commander HUMES - The characteristics here were basically similar to the characteristics above, lacking one very
valuable clue or piece of evidence rather than clue, because it is more truly a piece of evidence in the skull. The
skull as I mentioned before had the bone with the characteristic defect made as a missile traverses bone. This
missile, to the best of our ability to ascertain, struck no bone protuberances, no bony prominences, no bones as it
traversed the President’s body. But it was a sharply delineated wound. It was quite regular in its outline. It
measured, as I mentioned, 7 by 4 mm. Its margins were similar in all respects when viewed with the naked eye to the
wound in the skull, which we feel incontrovertibly was a wound of entrance. The defect in the fascia which is that
layer of connective tissue over the muscle just beneath the wound corresponded virtually exactly to the defect in the
skin. And for these reasons we felt that this was a wound of entrance.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 365
Mr. SPECTER - Taking 393 at the start, Doctor Humes, will you describe for the record what hole, if any, is
observable in the back of that garment which would be at or about the spot you have described as being the point
of entry on the President’s back or lower neck.
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day
of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of
which is semicircular. Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect. It is our opinion that the
lower of these defects corresponds essentially with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C on
Exhibit 385.
Mr. SPECTER - Would it be accurate to state that the hole which you have identified as being the point of entry
is approximately 6 inches below the top of the collar, and 2 inches to the right of the middle seam of the coat?
Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.
Attached to this garment is the memorandum which states that one half of the area around the hole which was presented
had been removed by experts, I believe, at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and also that a control area was taken
from under the collar, so it is my interpretation that this defect at the top of this garment is the control area taken
by the Bureau, and that the reason the lower defect is not more circle or oval in outline is because a portion of that
defect has been removed apparently for physical examinations.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, does the one which you have described as the entry of the bullet go all the way through?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes through both layers.
Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have described, does that go all the way through?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through. It is not--wait a minute, excuse me it is not so clearly
a puncture wound as the one below.
Mr. SPECTER - Does the upper one go all the way through in the same course?
Commander HUMES - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Through the inner side as it went through the outer side?
Commander HUMES - No, in an irregular fashion.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 365
Mr. SPECTER - Would it be accurate to state that the hole in the back of the shirt is approximately 6 inches
below the top of the collar and 2 inches to the right of the middle seam of the shirt?
Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, how, if at all, do the holes in the shirt and coat conform to the wound of entrance which you
described as point "C" on Commission
Exhibit 385?
Commander HUMES - We believe that they conform quite well. When viewing--first of all, the wounds or the defects
in 393 and 394 coincide virtually exactly with one another. They give the appearance when viewed separately and not as
part of the clothing of a clothed person as being perhaps, somewhat lower on the Exhibits 393 and 394 than we have
depicted them in Exhibit No. 385. We believe there are two reasons for this. 385 is a schematic representation, and
the photographs would be more accurate as to the precise location, but more particularly the way in which these
defects would conform with such a defect on the torso would depend on the girth of the shoulders and configuration of
the base of the neck of the individual, and the relative position of the shirt and coat to the tissues of the body at
the time of the impact of the missile.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H,369
Senator COOPER - What would be the relation of the bruise at the apex of the pleural sac to such a line?
Commander HUMES - It would be exactly in line with such a line, sir. exactly.
Senator COOPER - What was the character of the bruise that you saw there?
Commander HUMES - The bruise here, photographs are far superior to my humble verbal description, but if I let my hand in cup
shaped fashion represent the apical parietal pleura, it was an area approximately 5 cm. in greatest diameter of purplish blue
discoloration of the parietal pleura. Corresponding exactly with it, with the lung sitting below it, was a roughly pyramid-shaped
bruise with its base toward the surface of the upper portion of the lung, and the apex down into the lung tissue, and the whole
thing measured about 5 cm. which is a little 2 inches in extent, sir.
Senator COOPER - What would be the -- can you describe the covering around the apex of the pleural sac, the nature of its
protection. My point is to get your opinion as to whether some other factor, some factor other than the missile could have caused
this bruise which you saw.
Commander HUMES - A couple of ways we might do this, sir. One with regard to temporal, it was quite fresh. When examined
under the microscope, the lung in this area had recent hemorrhaging in it. The red blood cells were well-preserved, as they would
be if it happened quite recently before death as was the red blood cells where they had gotten out into the lung tissue near there.
The discoloration was essentially of the same character as the discoloration in the muscles adjacent thereto, which would roughly
again place it temporally in approximately the same time since bruises change color as time goes. by, and these appeared quite fresh.
This is with regard to time -- I don’t know whether that is the right parameter in which you wished to study it, Senator.
Senator COOPER - My question really went to this point: Considering the location of the bruise at the apex of the pleural
sac --
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H,370
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Humes, can you compare the angles of declination on 385, point "C" to "D", with 388 "A" to "B"?
Commander HUMES - You will note, and again I must apologize for the schematic nature of these diagrams drawn to a certain
extent from memory and to a certain extent from the written record, it would appear that the angle of declination is somewhat
sharper in the head wound, 388, than it is in 385. The reason for this, we feel, by the pattern of the entrance wound at 388
"A" causes us to feel that the President’s head was bent forward, and we feel this accounts for the difference in the angle,
plus undoubtedly the wounds were not received absolutely simultaneously, so that the vehicle in which the President was
traveling moved during this period of time, which would account for a difference in the line of flight, sir.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Commander James J. Humes on March 16, 1964 -
2H, 370
Mr. SPECTER - Could you state for the record an approximation of the angle of decline?
Commander HUMES - Mathematics is not my forte. Approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you elaborate somewhat, Doctor Humes, on why the angle would change by virtue of a tilting of
the head of the President since the basis of the computation of angle is with respect to the ground?
Commander HUMES - I find the question a little difficult of answering right off, forgive me, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - I will try to rephrase it. Stated more simply, why would the tilting of the President's head affect
the angle of the decline? You stated that was --
Commander HUMES - The angle that I am making an observation most about is the angle made that we envisioned
having been made by the impingement of the bullet in its flight at the point of entry. This angle we see by the
difference of the measurement of the two wounds.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 47
Mr. SPECTER. Now, going back to the wound which you observed in the neck, did you see that wound before the
tracheotomy was performed?
Dr. JENKINS. Yes; I did, because I was just connecting up the endotracheal tube to the machine at the time and
that's when Dr. Carrico said there was a wound in the neck and I looked at it.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe that wound as specifically as you can?
Dr. JENKINS. Well, I'm afraid my description of it would not be as accurate, of course, as that of the surgeons
who were doing the tracheotomy, because my look was a quick look before connecting up the endotracheal tube to the
apparatus to help in ventilation and respiration for the patient, and I was aware later in the day, as I should have
put it in the report, that I thought this was a wound of exit because it was not a clean wound, and by "clean" clearly
demarcated, round, punctate wound which is the usual wound of an entrance wound, made by a missile and at some speed.
Of course, entrance wounds with a lobbing type missile, can make a jagged wound also, but I was of the impression and
I recognized I had the impression it was an exit wound. However, my mental appreciation for a wound - for the wound in
the neck, I believe, was sort of - was overshadowed by recognition of the wound in the scalp and skull plate.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 48
Mr. SPECTER. Now, will you now describe the wound which you observed in the head?
Dr. JENKINS. Almost by the time I was-had the time to pay more attention to the wound in the head, all of these
other activities were under way. I was busy connecting up an apparatus to respire for the patient, exerting manual
pressure on the breathing bag or anesthesia apparatus, trying to feel for a pulse in the neck, and then reaching up and
feeling for one in the temporal area, seeing about connecting the cardioscope or directing its being connected, and
then turned attention to the wound in the head.
Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound,
because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain
was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part
of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any wounds immediately below the massive loss of skull which you have described?
Dr. JENKINS. On the right side?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir.
Dr. JENKINS. No-I don’t know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left
temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 48
Mr. SPECTER. Was President Kennedy ever turned over during the course of this treatment at Parkland?
Dr. JENKINS. No.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 49
Mr. SPECTER. Was any examination of his back made before death, to your knowledge?
Dr. JENKINS. No, no; I’m sure there wasn’t.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 51
Mr. SPECTER. Have you ever changed any of your original opinions in connection with the wounds received by
President Kennedy?
Dr. JENKINS. I guess so. The first day I had thought because of his pneumothorax, that his wound must have
gone-that the one bullet must have traversed his pleura, must have gotten into his lung cavity, his chest cavity, I
mean, and from what you say now, I know it did not go that way. I thought it did.
Mr. SPECTER. Aside from that opinion, now, have any of your other opinions about the nature of his wounds or the
sources of the wounds been changed in any way?
Dr. JENKINS. No; one other. I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right
above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound
there (indicating).
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the left temporal area?
Dr. JENKINS. Yes ; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating), but
you have answered that for me. This was my only other question about it.
Mr. SPECTER. So, that those two points are the only ones on which your opinions have been changed since the views
you originally formulated?
Dr. JENKINS. Yes, I think so.
CE 1024 - Statement of Roy H. Kellerman on November 29, 1963 -
18H, 724
We departed Love Field at 11:55 am, along the planned motorcade route, enroute to a luncheon at the Trade Mart,
given by the Democratic Citizens Council, scheduled for 12:30 pm cst. As the motorcade completed the main thoroughfare
through Dallas, we made a sharp right turn, for about a 1/2 block, then a
curved left turn into a slight downhill grade entering an area with little or no spectators. We were still traveling at the
normal rate of speed of from 12 to 15 miles per hour when I heard a noise, similar to a firecracker, exploding in the area to
the rear of the car, about 12:30 pm.
Immediately I heard what I firmly believe was the President’s voice, "My God, I’m hit!"
I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs. Kennedy’s
lap and Governor Connally fell to Mrs. Connally’s lap. I heard Mrs. Kennedy shout, "What are they doing to you?"
I yelled at William Greer (the driver) to "Step on it, we’re hit!" and grabbed the mike from the car radio,
called to SA Lawson in the police lead car that we were hit and to get us to a hospital.
Warren Commission Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 68
Mr. SPECTER. You described a radio. Will you tell us a little more fully what radio transmission there was in the
motorcade, please?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. This lead car which Mr. Lawson was in has a portable radio. The President’s car is
next. This is equipped with a permanent set radio on the same frequency as that gentleman up front. The next car is
our Secret Service followup car which has a permanent installation. The Secret Service car, as I say, is equipped with
a permanent installation which connects the President’s car and the lead car. The next ear in back of our Secret
Service car was the then Vice President Johnson. The Secret Service agent in that car had a portable radio that he could
read all three of us ahead. His car following was a small Secret Service followup car, and they, too, had a portable
set, which could read all four.
So we had a net of five on our own frequency. In the police cars they had their own city police frequency
radios.
Mr. SPECTER. How many frequencies were used by your own network?
Mr. KELLERMAN. One.
Representative FORD. Do you have an alternative frequency, emergency frequency?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; we do. We have two of them.
Warren Commission Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 74
Mr. SPECTER. All right. Now, describe what occurred as you proceeded down Elm Street after turning off of Houston.
Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we
were away from buildings, and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don’t recall what it was or what it
said, but we no more than passed that and you are out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I turned
my head to the right because whatever this noise was I was sure that it came from the right and perhaps into the rear, and as
I turned my head to the right to view whatever it was or see whatever it was, I heard a voice from the back seat and I firmly
believe it was the President’s, "My God, I am hit," and I turned around and he has got his hands up here like this.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating right hand up toward his neck?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir. In fact, both hands were up in that direction.
Senator COOPER. Which side of his neck?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Beg pardon?
Senator COOPER. Which side of his neck?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Both hands were up, sir; this one is like this here and here we are with the hands--
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the left hand is up above the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. In the collar section.
Mr. SPECTER. As you are positioning yourself in the witness chair, your right hand is up with the finger at the ear level
as if clutching from the right of the head; would that be an accurate description of the position you pictured there?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back
and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson,
this is Kellerman," -- this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the
seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding
on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into the back
seat.
Warren Commission Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 76
Mr. SPECTER. All right. Now, when the flurry occurred then, were you still facing forward talking into the microphone to
Lawson?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.
Mr. SPECTER. All right. Then precisely what was your next movement after completing the delivery of that message to Lawson?
Mr. KELLERMAN. When I completed the delivery of those instructions to Lawson, I just hung up the receiver and looked back.
Mr. SPECTER. To your right this time -- to your left; pardon me.
Mr. KELLERMAN. To my left; that is right. This is when I first viewed Mr. Hill, who was on the back of the --
Mr. SPECTER. Precisely where was he in that instant?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Lying right across the trunk of the car with Mrs. Kennedy on the left rear, Mr. Hill's head was right up in
back of her.
Mr. SPECTER. When you describe the left rear you mean as the car was facing?
Mr. KELLERMAN. As the car is traveling, sir; yes, sir. He was lying across the trunk of this car, feet on this side.
Mr. SPECTER. Was he flat across the trunk of the car?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Flat; that is right.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the position of Mrs. Kennedy's body at that time?
Mr. KELLERMAN. She was sitting up in the corner of this back seat, like this.
Mr. SPECTER. So that she was on the buttocks area of her body at that time?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And what movement, if any, did you observe Mrs. Kennedy make at that time?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I never did see Mrs. Kennedy leave that back seat, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say the back seat, are you referring --
Mr. KELLERMAN. The seat she was sitting on.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 80
Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President
Kennedy.
Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound
this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately
correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back?
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the
doctor?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him.
Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of
the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was the position of that opening with respect to the portion of the skull which you have
described as being removed or absent?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, I am going to have to describe it similar to this. Let's say part of your skull is removed
here; this is below.
Mr. SPECTER. You have described a distance of approximately an inch and a half, 2 inches, below.
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is correct; about that, sir.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 81
Mr. SPECTER. All right. What other wounds, if any, did you notice on the President?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The other wound that I noticed was on his shoulder.
Mr. SPECTER. Which shoulder.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right shoulder.
Mr. SPECTER. And was it - what was its general position with respect to the breadth of the back?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right straight.
Mr. SPECTER. No. Upper shoulder, lower shoulder; how far below the lower neckline would you say?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The upper neckline, sir, in that large muscle between the shoulder and the neck, just below it..
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that opening?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Again about the size of a little finger.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 92
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, referring to
Commission Exhibit No. 347, will you pinpoint as precisely as you can on that aerial shot, aerial picture, where the
President’s car was at the time of the first shot? And mark that, if you would, please, with an "X" in red pencil.
Mr. KELLERMAN. My guess would be right in here, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, would you mark as closely as you can where the President’s car was at the time of the
second shot and mark that with a "Y" in red.
(Mr. Kellerman marking the picture.)
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you have marked the cars being in approximately the middle of the road ; is that accurate, as
you recollect it?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is the general procedure, Mr. Specter; they were traveling in the center of the road.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the time of the third shot, would your marking be any different from the "Y"
position?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No; it would not.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 93
Mr. SPECTER. You were interviewed, however, by Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Sibert on Sovember 22, 1963?
Mr. KELLERMAN. November what?
Mr. SPECTER. November 22.
Mr. KELLERMAN. No. November 22 is when they were in the morgue with me. They interviewed me in the office that - it
was around the 27th. This was after the funeral.
Mr. SPECTER. Did they have any conversation with you about these events in the morgue?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not that I recall, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have a discussion with either of those gentlemen about anything while you were at the morgue
on November 22?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The only thing I can recall discussionwise - just forget which one it was, one of the two - this was
before we even knew that a shell had been found from the hole in the President’s shoulder. We couldn’t
determine what happened to it. They couldn’t find it in the morgue; they couldn’t find any leeway as to
whatever happened to the shell when it hit the President’s shoulder; where did it go. So our contention was that
while he was on the stretcher in Dallas, and the neurosurgeon was working over him no doubt with pressure on the heart,
this thing worked itself out.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say "our contention," what do you mean by that?
Mr. KELLERMAN. One of these agents - I forget which one it was; it could have been Sibert or O’Neill, but I am
not sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Did what?
Mr. KELLERMAN. We - our discussion or my discussion.
Mr. SPECTER. You had a discussion and when you say "our contention" by that do you mean that was the conclusion
you came to?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Conclusion - that is right, sir - as to where this bullet went into the shoulder and where did it
go.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 93
Mr. SPECTER. While you are on that subject, was there any conversation at the time of the autopsy on that matter
itself?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Very much so.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you relate to the Commission the nature of that conversation and the parties to it?
Mr. KELLERMAN. There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel Finck - during the
examination of the President, from the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we were standing right
alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go?" He
said, "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man’s shoulder."
Mr. SPECTER. Did you say anything in response to that?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I said, "Colonel, would it have been possible that while he was on the stretcher in Dallas that
it works itself out?" And he said "Yes."
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any additional conversation between you and Colonel Finck at that time?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not on that point; no, sir; not on that point.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman on March 9, 1964 -
2H, 93
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any conversation of any sort between you and Colonel Finck which would be helpful to us
here?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, from Humes, who was the other gentleman out there, from the entry of the skull, from this
hole here.
Mr. SPECTER. You are now referring to the hole which you describe being below the missing part of the skull?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; it was confirmed that the entry of the shell here went right through the top and removed
that piece of the skull.
Mr. SPECTER. And who confirmed that?
Mr. KELLERMAN. One of the three gentlemen; I don’t recall.
Mr. SPECTER. You don’t recall which one, but it was one of the three doctors doing the autopsy?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.
Mr. SPECTER. So you are saying it confirmed that the hole that was below the piece of skull that was removed, was
the point of entry of the one bullet which then passed up through the head and took off the skull?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right, sir. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Then that was all done by one bullet, based on what you are telling us at this moment?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.
Mr. SPECTER. From the confirmation that one of the three doctors made?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, was there any other conversation between you and Colonel Finck or Commander Humes-
Mr. KELLERMAN. No.
Mr. SPECTER. At that time, which was important on the subject we are discussing?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Actually, from all the X-rays that were taken, and we viewed them all together; when I say "we,"
I am saying the medical people who were in the morgue at the time, the two Bureau agents, myself, and also Mr.
Greer, who was in there with me, naturally, they were looking for pieces of fragmentation of this bullet. There was
none; only one piece to my knowledge. That was removed inside above the eye, the right eye.
Mr. SPECTER. You have now told us all about the conversations between you and Colonel Finck and Commander
Humes and anyone else at the autopsy which are important on the positions of the hole and the wounds in the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right, sir.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland on March 21, 1964 -
6H, 32
Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe, if anything, as to the status of the neck wound when you first arrived?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. The neck wound, when I first arrived, was at this time converted into a tracheotomy incision. The
skin incision had been made by Dr. Perry, and he told me-although I did not see that-that he had made the incision
through a very small, perhaps less than one quarter inch in diameter wound in the neck.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you recall whether he described it any more precisely than that?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. He did not at that time.
Mr. SPECTER. Has he ever described it any more precisely for you?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. He has since that time.
Mr. SPECTER. And what description has he given of it since that time?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. As well as I can recall, the description that he gave was essentially as I have just described,
that it was a very small injury, with clear cut, although somewhat irregular margins of less than a quarter inch in
diameter, with minimal tissue damage surrounding it on the skin.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, was there anything left for you to observe of that bullet wound, or had the incision obliterated
it?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. The incision had obliterated it, essentially, the skin portion, that is.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland on March 21, 1964 -
6H, 33
Mr. SPECTER. Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more
fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described to help out with the
tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right
posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot
so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right
posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the
bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that
probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had
been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in
the skull which had been blasted open.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland on March 21, 1964 -
6H, 34
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe anything in the nature of a wound on his body other than that which you have already
described for me?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. No.
Dr. MCCLELLAND. No.
Mr. SPECTER. In what position was President Kennedy maintained from the time you saw him until the pronouncement
of death?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. On his hack on the cart.
Mr. SPECTER. On his what?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. On his back on the stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER. Was he on the stretcher at all times?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. In the trauma room No. 1 you described, is there any table onto which he could be placed from the
stretcher?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. No; generally we do not move patients from the stretcher until they are ready to go into the
operating room and then they are moved onto the operating table.
Mr. SPECTER. Well. in fact, was he left on the stretcher all during the course of these procedures until he was
pronounced dead?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. That’s right.
Mr. SPECTER. Then, at any time was he positioned in a way where you could have seen the back of his body?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any gunshot wound on his back?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. No.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland on March 21, 1964 -
6H, 35
Mr. SPECTER. You saw a large opening which you have already described?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. I saw the large opening which I have described.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any other wound on the back of the head?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe a small gunshot wound below the large opening on the back of the head?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. No.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland resumed on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 36
Dr. MCCLELLAND. The main point he seemed to be making was to attempt to define something about the wound, the
nature of the wound, and as near as I can recall, I indicated to him that the wound was a small undamaged - appearing
punctate area in the skin of the neck, the anterior part of the neck, which had the appearance of the usual entrance
wound of a bullet, but that this certainly could not be - you couldn't make a statement to that effect with any
complete degree of certainty, though we were, as I told him, experienced in seeing wounds of this nature, and usually
felt that we could tell the difference between an entrance and an exit wound, and this was, I think, in essence what I
told him about the nature of the wound.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, had you actually observed the wound prior to the time the tracheotomy was performed on that neck
wound?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. No ; my knowledge of the entrance wound, as I stated, in my former deposition, was merely from
what Dr. Perry told me when I entered the room and began putting on a pair of surgical gloves to assist him with the
tracheotomy.
Statement of William Eugene Newman, Jr. on November 22, 1963 -
19H, 490
Today at about 12:45 pm I was standing in a group of people on Elm Street near the west end of the concrete
standard when the President’s car turned left off Houston Street onto Elm Street. We were standing at the edge of
the curb looking at the car as it was coming toward us and all of a sudden there was a noise, apparently gunshot [sic].
The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he
had realized it. It was just like an explosion and he was standing up. By this time he was directly in front of us and
I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. Then he fell back and Governor Connally was
holding his middle section. Then we fell down on the grass as it seemed we were in direct path of fire. It looked like
Mrs. Kennedy jumped on top of the President. He kinda [sic] fell back and it looked like she was holding him. Then the
car sped away and everybody in that area had run upon [sic] top of that little mound. I thought the shot had come from
the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall
looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vacinity [sic] of the garden.
Q: Would you tell us in as much detail as you can recall about the impact which you may have observed from the
shots.
A: Yes, sir. you want me to start with the first two shots?
Q: Start right from the beginning and just tell us as you recall.
A: Okay. My wife and myself were watching the parade come toward us. We had to more or less step off the curb to
look up the street, and as the car was approaching I heard two shots -- BOOM, BOOM -- and when the first shot was fired
the President threwed his hands up like this (demonstrating), and at the time what we thought had happened, somebody
threwed firecrackers or something under the automobile and he was protecting his face. At the time of the first shot
Governor Connally turned in his seat in this manner (demonstrating), to look back at the President I suppose, and then
the second shot was fired, and then as the car approached us to where we were standing, I could see Governor Connally
leaning back in his seat holding his hands down like this (demonstrating), and at that time I could see blood on his
shirt, and that is when I actually realized that it appeared, you know, he had been shot. The President all the time
was staying in an upright position in his seat and it looked like he was looking into the crowd of people as if he was
trying to see someone. I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and
then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the
side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off. Now, it is my opinion at the time --
MR. DYMOND: I object to what his opinion is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Tell us what you saw.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Just tell us what you observed.
A: Well, I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red,
and the President, when the third shot hit him he just went stiff like a board and fell over to his left in his
wife’s lap, and I told my wife, "That is it, hit the ground," and that is when we hit the ground because I
thought the shots were coming over our heads. And then I looked back and I saw Mrs. Kennedy jumping up on the back
end of the car and the Secret Service man or whoever it was into the car, and then they shot on off, took off.
Q: Approximately how far were you from the President when the third shot hit him?
A: I was the width of one lane, approximately 10 or 15 feet. I was standing on the
curb’s edge, edge of the curb. They were in the second lane.
Q: What was the reaction which you observed to the President’s head on the third shot?
A: The only reaction that I can recall -- I don’t recall whether his head went
back or forward, but I do recall when the impact hit him that he just stiffened and he went to the left, real hard to
the left and into her lap, and --
Q: From your position, did he come toward you or away from you?
A: He went away from me.
Q: Did you give any statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A: Yes, sir, I did, and also to the Sheriff’s Office after the assassination. A news reporter carried me to
the FAA, and then from that point went to the Sheriff’s Office and I give a written statement.
Q: Were you called as a witness to the Warren Commission?
A: No, sir, I wasn’t.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 9
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe that wound as precisely as you can, please?
Dr. PERRY. The wound was roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punchedout wound, actually, nor was it
particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut, but the blood obscured any detail about the edges of the wound exactly.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the condition of the edges of the wound, if you can recollect?
Dr. PERRY. I couldn’t state with certainty, due to the fact that they were covered by blood and I did not
make a minute examination. I determined only the fact that there was a wound there, roughly 5 mm. in size or so.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described it as precisely as you can; that wound?
Dr. PERRY. I think so.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 11
Mr. SPECTER. What do you observe as to the President’s head, specifically?
Dr. PERRY. I saw no injuries other than the one which I noted to you, which was a large avulsive injury of the
right occipitoparietal area, but I did not do a minute examination of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you notice a bullet hole below the large avulsed area?
Dr. PERRY. No; I did not.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 13
Dr. Perry. . . . As regards the cause of death, Dr. Clark and I concurred that massive brain trauma with attendant severe
hemorrhage was the underlying cause of death, and then there were questions asked in regard to what we did, and I described
as I have for you, although not in such detail --- essentially the resuscitative measures that were taken at that time; namely,
the reinfusion of a balanced salt solution of blood, Solucortef, assisting of respiration with oxygen and pressure apparatus the
tracheotomy, and the chest tubes and the monitoring with the cardiotachioscope.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 16
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the information in the autopsy report about a 6- by 15-mm. hole in the lower part of the
President’s skull on the right side in conjunction with the large part of the skull of the President which you
observed to be missing, would you have an opinion as to the source of the missile which inflicted those wounds?
Dr. PERRY. Since I did not see the initial wound which you mentioned, the smaller one, and only saw the large
avulsive wound of the head and the scalp, there is no way for me to determine from whence it came.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, if you assume the presence of the first small wound, taking as a fact that there was such a
wound, now, would that present sufficient information for you to formulate an opinion as to source or trajectory?
Dr. PERRY. Well, I couldn’t testify as to exact source, but if the wound, the smaller wound that you noted
were present, it could certainly result in the large avulsive wound as it exited from the skull. As to the ultimate
source, there would still be no way for me to tell.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, could you tell sufficient to comment on whether it came from the front or back of the
President?
Dr. PERRY. In the absence of other wounds of the head, the presence of the small wound which you described, in
addition to the large avulsive wound of the skull and the scalp which I observed would certainly indicate that the two
were related and would indicate both an entrance and an exit wound, if there were no other wounds.
Mr. SPECTER. And which would be the wound of entrance, then?
Dr. PERRY. The smaller wound-the smaller wound.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 25, 1964 -
6H, 16
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you have occasion to talk via the telephone with Dr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval
Hospital?
Dr. PERRY. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. And will you relate the circumstances of the calls indicating first the time when they occurred.
Dr. PERRY. Dr. Humes called me twice on Friday afternoon, separated by about 30-minute intervals, as I recall. The
first one, I. somehow think I recall the first one must have been around 1500 hours, but I’m not real sure about
that; I’m not positive of that at all, actually.
Mr. SPECTER. Could it have been Saturday morning?
Dr. PERRY. Saturday morning-was it? It’s possible. I remember talking with him twice. I was thinking it was
shortly thereafter.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, the record will show.
Dr. PERRY. Oh, sure, it was Saturday morning-yes.
Mr. SPECTER. What made you change your view of that?
Dr. PERRY. You mean Friday?
Mr. SPECTER. Did some specific recollection occur to you which changed your view from Friday to Saturday?
Dr. PERRY. No, I was trying to place where I was at that time-Friday afternoon, and at that particular time, when
I paused to think about it, I was actually up in the operating suite at that time, when I thought that he called
initially. I seem to remember it being Friday, for some reason.
Mr. SPECTER. Where were you when you received those calls?
Dr. PERRY. I was in the Administrator’s office here when he called.
Mr. SPECTER. And what did he ask you, if anything?
Dr. PERRY. He inquired about, initially, about the reasons for my doing a tracheotomy, and I replied, as I have to
you, during this procedure, that there was a wound in the lower anterior third of the neck, which was exuding blood
and was indicative of a possible tracheal injury underlying, and I did the tracheotomy through a transverse incision
made through that wound, and I described to him the right lateral injury to the trachea and the completion of the
operation.
He subsequently called back-at that time he told me, of course, that he could not talk to me about any of it and
asked that I keep it in confidence, which I did, and he subsequently called back and inquired about the chest tubes,
and why they were placed and I replied in part as I have here. It was somewhat more detailed. After having talked to
Drs. Baxter and Peters and I identified them as having placed it in the second interspace, anteriorly, in the
midclavicular line, in the right hemithorax, he asked me at that time if we had made any wounds in the back. I told
him that I had not examined the back nor had I knowledge of any wounds of the back.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 368
Mr. SPECTER. Will you continue, then, Dr. Perry, as to what you observed of his condition?
Dr. PERRY. Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.
I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the
lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from
which blood was exuding slowly.
I did not see any other wounds.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 370
Mr. SPECTER Dr. Perry, you mentioned an injury to the trachea. Will you describe that as precisely as you can,
please?
Dr. PERRY. Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary
to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was
noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other
side to reach the trachea.
I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. I could see the
endotracheal tube which had been placed by Dr. Carrico in the wound, but there was evidence of air and blood around
the tube because I noted the cuff was just above the injury to the trachea.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 371
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you described a condition in the right mediastinum. Would you elaborate on what your views were
of the condition at the time you were rendering this treatment?
Dr. PERRY. The condition of this area?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir.
Dr. PERRY. There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is
located between the lungs and the heart at that level.
As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs
themselves. But in the presence of this large amount of blood in this area, one would be unable to detect small
injuries to the underlying structures. The air was indicated by the fact that there was some frothing of this blood
present, bubbling which could have been due to the tracheal injury or an underlying injury to the lung.
Since the morbidity attendant upon insertion of an anterior chest tube for sealed drainage is negligible and the
morbidity which attends a pneumothorax is considerable, I elected to have the chest tube put in place because we
were giving him positive pressure oxygen and the possibility of inducing a tension on pneumothorax would be quite high
in such instances.
Mr. SPECTER. What is pneumothorax?
Dr. PERRY. Hemothorax would be blood in the free chest cavity and pneumothorax would be air in the free chest
cavity underlying collapse of the lungs.
Mr. SPECTER. Would that have been caused by the injury which you noted to the President’s trachea?
Dr. PERRY. There was no evidence of a hemothorax or a pneumothorax through my examination; only it is sufficient
this could have been observed because of the free blood in the mediastinum.
Mr. SPECTER. Were the symptoms which excited your suspicion causable by the injury to the trachea?
Dr. PERRY. They were.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 372
Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe as specifically as you can, the injury which you noted in the President’s
head?
Dr. PERRY. As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory examination of the President’s
head. I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were
absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. My examination did not go any further than that.
Mr. Specter. Did you, to be specific, observe a smaller wound below the large avulsed area which you have
described?
Dr. PERRY. I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there blood in that area of the President’s head?
Dr. PERRY. There was.
Mr. SPECTER. Which might have obscured such a wound?
Dr. PERRY. There was a considerable amount of blood at the head of the cartilage.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 372
Mr. SPECTER. Would you now describe as particularly as possible the neck wound you observed?
Dr. PERRY. This was situated in the lower anterior one-third of the neck, approximately 5 mm. in diameter.
It was exuding blood slowly which partially obscured it. Its edges were neither ragged nor were they punched out,
but rather clean.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described the neck wound as specifically as you can ?
Dr. PERRY. I have.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 373
Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true
for purposes of having you express an opinion.
Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5-mm. copper-jacketed bullet tired from a gun having a
muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the
President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President
on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the
right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process,passing through the President’s
body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the
President’s body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right
pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the
larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then
exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.
Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent
with an exit wound under those circumstances?
Dr. PERRY. Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 374
Mr. SPECTER. And based on the additional factors which I have provided to you by way of hypothetical assumption,
and the factors present in the autopsy report from your examination of that report, what does the source of the bullets
seem to have been to you?
Dr. PERRY. That I could not say. I can only determine their pathway, on the basis of these reports within the
President’s body.
As to their ultimate source not knowing any of the circumstances surrounding it, I would not have any
speculation.
Mr. SPECTER. From what direction would the bullets have come based on all of those factors?
Dr. PERRY. The bullets would have come from behind the President based on these factors.
Mr. SPECTER. And from the level, from below or above the President?
Dr. PERRY. Not having examined any of the wounds with the exception of the anterior neck wounds, I could not say.
This wound, as I noted was about 5 mm., and roughly circular in shape. There is no way for me to determine.
Mr. SPECTER. Based upon a point of entrance in the body of the President which I described to you as being 14 cm.
from the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process and coupling that with your
observation of the neck wound, would that provide a sufficient basis for you to form an opinion as to the path of the
bullet, as to whether it was level, up or down?
Dr. PERRY. Yes, it would. In view of the fact there was an injury to the right lateral portion of the
trachea and a wound in the neck if one were to extend a line roughly between these two, it would be going slightly
superiorly, that is cephalad toward the head, from anterior to posterior, which would indicate that the missile entered
from slightly above and behind.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 380
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the
Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY. My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression
that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn’t recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY. No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding that weekend were very kaleidoscopic,
and I talked with Dr. Humes on two occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes or an
hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY. Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER. Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY. He did.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY. He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of necropsy, that he had a few questions
he would like to clarify. The initial phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the
incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for them to ascertain the exact nature of this
wound. Of course, that did not occur to me at the time. I did what appeared to me to be medically expedient. And when
I informed him that there was a wound there and I suspected an underlying wound of the trachea and even perhaps of the
great vessels he advised me that he thought this action was correct and he said he could not relate to me any of the
other findings.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you relate to me in lay language what necropsy is?
Dr. PERRY. Autopsy, postmortem examination.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the content of the second conversation which you had with Comdr. Humes, please?
Dr. PERRY. The second conversation was in regard to the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest
cavity. And I related to him, as I have to you, the indications that prompted me to advise that this be done at that
time.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 382
Mr. SPECTER. Was the President ever turned over at any time?
Dr.PERRY. Not by me nor did I see it done.
Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry on March 30, 1964 -
3H, 388
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Perry, was the chest tube inserted in the President’s chest abandoned or was that operation
or operative procedure completed?
Dr. PERRY. The chest tube, to be placed there, was supposedly placed into the pleural cavity. However, I have
knowledge that it was not.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was the reason for its not being placed into the plueral cavity?
Dr. PERRY. I did not speak with certainty but at that point I think that we were at the end of the procedure and
they just did not continue with it.
Mr. SPECTER. Had it become apparent at that time that the President expired?
Dr. PERRY. That, I think, is probably true, but I did not state that with certainty because I cannot state the
exact sequence. I was employed myself at the time, and I think if it had been determined that this was not in, it
would have been completed, if there was still time, but I am not sure of that.
That is speculation.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 154
Mr. SPECTER. At frame 249 was Governor Connally in a position where he could have taken a shot with the bullet entering at the
point immediately to the left under his right armpit with the bullet then going through and exiting at a point immediately under
his right nipple?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; Governor Connally has begun to turn in his seat around in this manner, in such a way, turn to his right so
that his body is in a position that a shot fired from the sixth floor window could not have passed through the path that it
reportedly took through his body, if the bullet followed a straight, undeflected path.
Mr. DULLES. I don’t quite get that. You mean because of his having turned this way, the shot that was then - had then been
fired and apparently had hit the President could not have gone through him at that point?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct under the stated conditions. Even a shot, independent of the shot that hit the President,
could not have gone through in that manner, coming from the sixth floor window, because the window was almost directly behind the
automobile at that time and the Governor was in a position where the bullet couldn’t have gone through his body in the manner
that it reportedly did. It would have come in through his shoulder and out through the other shoulder, in the way that he was lined
up with the window.
Mr. SPECTER. So you say it could have gone through him, but it could not have passed through him with the angle of entry as
disclosed in the Parkland Hospital records and described by Dr. Shaw?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, if it followed a straight path.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 154
Mr. SPECTER. Could you elaborate just a little further on the observations and reasoning which you have undertaken to come to
the conclusion which you have just expressed?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We are speaking of frame 249, are we?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir, frame 249.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Could I see that exhibit? The photograph in the lower left corner of
Commission
Exhibit No. 899 is the photograph taken through the scope of the rifle on the sixth floor window when the car was stationed in
this frame number position. It is noted from this photograph that the rifle is not quite directly behind the car but very nearly
directly behind the car. Governor Connally’s body is turned. We have duplicated the position in the Zapruder photographs of
Governor Connally and the President in the reenactment photograph, as nearly as possible, duplicated the same body position, and
from the sixth floor window then you can see from the photograph that the Governor’s body is turned to the Governor’s
right in such a fashion that an undeflected shot would not go through in the path as described by the Parkland doctors.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 154
Mr. McCLOY. I don’t quite follow that yet. The President has been shot at frame 249, according to your theory.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Might he not also have been shot at some earlier frames - in the indications are the reactions are shown
considerably ahead of that frame.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. So, for example, at frame 237 and at frame 237 Governor Connolly [sic] hasn’t turned to the right.
Mr. DULLES. But a shot has been fired at this time.
Mr. McCLOY. But a shot has been fired at that time.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. So at that point he could have been hit; Governor Connally could have been hit.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Governor Connally could have been hit by frame 238.
Mr. McCLOY. But your point is when he gets farther along, he couldn’t have been hit, let’s say at frame 249 in the
same spot where he was hit.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. He made the turn later than those frames you have been discussing at the time apparently of the first shot at the
President.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes; the first shot, but according to these frames, the first, shot hit the President considerably before this.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And at a time again when Governor Connally’s back was square to the window.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, not exactly square. I believe he was turned slightly to the right as he went behind the sign.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 155
Senator COOPER. Would you identify the frame in which Governor Connally started turning to the right?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that as - in the motion picture - as the car comes out from behind the signboard, the Governor is
turned slightly to his right in this manner. This would be in the first frame, in frame 222, he is turned just slightly to his
right, and from there on he turns almost square, straight on with the car momentarily, and there is a jerking motion there at one
point in the film about there, at which time he starts to turn this way and continues to turn.
Mr. DULLES. Jerky motion in Connally in the film.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. There is - it may be merely where he stopped turning and started turning this way. It is hard to analyze.
Mr. DULLES. What I wanted to get at - whether it was Connally who made the jerky motion or there was something in the film
that was jerky. You can’t tell.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. You can’t tell that.
Mr. McCLOY. Certainly the film is jerky at that point. I mean there is a big blur.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 156
Representative FORD. Whereas Governor Connally actually turns his body rather sharply?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he turns as they go behind the signboard, he turns this way and he is turning a little bit this way and
as he comes out of the signboard he is facing slightly to the right, comes around straight on and then he turns to his left
straight on, and then he turns to his right, continues to turn around and falls over in Mrs. Connally’s lap. But in the motion
picture it is a continuous movement as he goes around and falls.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 158
Mr. SPECTER. And was
frame 235
selected as a basis of analysis because that was one point at which a number of the viewers, including staff and agents of the
FBI and Secret Service thought that might be the last frame at which Governor Connally had turned enough to the right to still
take a shot and have the bullet pass through his body from the sixth floor window at the angle described in the medical reports
and by his doctors.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct on the basis of an undeflected path. That is the frame that the doctors selected as the frame
beyond which he could not have received this shot and have it travel in the path that it reportedly traveled.
Mr. SPECTER. Was
frame 240
selected for analysis as being the absolutely last time, based on the observations of those whom you have described as seeing the
films, that the Governor could have conceivably taken a shot from the sixth floor window and have it pass through the body of the
Governor in the way described in the medical reports and by the Governor’s doctors?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the analysis, made on the ability of the Governor to take the shot at each of the positions, based on the
position he had at that particular frame in accordance with the amount of turn to the right which he had made at that particular
time?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 160
Mr. McCLOY. Would you read off those dimensions from that?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The dimensions from the surveyor on frame 313 of the distance from the wound mark on the President's stand-in
to station C is 230.8 feet. Distance to the rifle in the window is 265.3 feet. The angle to rifle in window is 15° 21' and this
is based on the horizontal. Distance to the overpass is 260.6 feet, the angle to the overpass is 1° 28'.
Mr. SPECTER. What would the angle be considering the adjustment on the angle of the street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It would be less 3° or 12° 21', approximately.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say approximately is that because the adjustment is somewhat greater than 3°?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. How much is it exactly, if you know?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is 3.9. It is almost 4.
Mr. SPECTER. Three degrees nine minutes?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Three degrees nine minutes, I am sorry.
Mr. DULLES. Would you have to make a similar adjustment to the overpass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because the angle to the overpass is based on the horizontal. The overpass, you would have to add the
3° 9'.
Mr. DULLES. From the overpass, is this an angle up or angle down?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an angle down.
Mr. DULLES. So it is an angle down in both cases?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say that you are reducing the angle of 15° 21' by 3° 9' to an angle of 12° 12', is that as
the shot passes through the body of the President?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. It is at that point.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 -
5H, 162
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat, even though you have heretofore mentioned them, the angles between the spot on the back of
President Kennedy's neck which was marked with a white chalk mark and the muzzle of the rifle when the car was positioned at frame
210?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The angle, based on the horizontal at frame 210, to the rifle in the window was 21° 34'.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the comparable angle at frame 225?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 20° 11'.
Mr. SPECTER. So what would be the average angle then between those two points?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The average angle, allowing for the 3° 9' street grade results in an average angle between frame 210 and
frame 225 of 17° 43' 30".
Mr. SPECTER. And that is the average angle from the muzzle to President Kennedy as he sat in the car or President Kennedy's
stand-in as he sat in the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. To the wound entrance.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the average angle of 17° 43' 30" measured from the muzzle to the President's body as the President would be
seated in the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is out on the street in those frame positions, yes. It is measured to the point of the wound on the back
of the President.
. . . It was found that the wound of entrance was just lateral to the right scapula close the [sic] the, axilla yet had passed
through the latysmus dorsi muscle shattered approximately ten cm of the lateral and anterior portion of the right fifth rib and
emerged below the right nipple. The wound of entrance was approximately three cm in its longest diameter and the wound of exit was
a ragged wound approximately five cm in its greatest diameter. The skin and subcutaneous tissue over the path of the missile
moved in a paradoxical manner with respiration indicating softening of the chest. The skin of the whole area was carefully cleansed
with Phisohex and Iodine. The entire area including the wound of entrance and wound of exit was draped partially excluding the
wound of entrance for the first part of the operation.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 85
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe Governor Connally's condition, Dr. Shaw, directing your attention first to the
wound on his back?
Dr. SHAW - When Governor Connally was examined, it was found that there was a small wound of entrance, roughly elliptical in
shape, and approximately a cm. and a half in its longest diameter, in the right posterior shoulder, which is medial to the fold
of the axilla.
Mr. SPECTER - What is the axilla, in lay language, Dr Shaw?
Dr. SHAW - The arm pit.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 85
Mr. SPECTER - What was the line of trajectory, Dr. Shaw, between the point in the back of the Governor and the
point in the front of the Governor, where the bullet wounds were observed?
Dr. SHAW - Considering the wound of entrance and the wound of exit, the trajectory of the bullet was obliquely
downward, considering the fact that the Governor was in a sitting position at the time of wounding.
Mr. SPECTER - As an illustrative guide here, Dr. Shaw --
Dr. SHAW - May I add one sentence there?
Mr. SPECTER - Please do.
Dr. SHAW - The bullet, in passing through the Governor's chest wall struck the fifth rib at its midpoint and
roughly followed the slanting direction of the fifth rib, shattering approximately 10 cm. of the rib. The intercostal
muscle bundle above the fifth rib and below the fifth rib were surprisingly spared from injury by the shattering of
the rib, which again establishes the trajectory of the bullet.
Mr. SPECTER - Would the shattering of the rib have had any effect in deflecting the path of the bullet from a
straight line?
Dr. SHAW - It could have, except that in the case of this injury, the rib was obviously struck so that not too
dense cancellus portion of the rib in this position was carried away by the bullet and probably there was very little
in the way of deflection.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 86
Mr. SPECTER. At this time, Dr. Shaw, I would like to call your attention to an exhibit which we have already had marked as
Dr.
Gregory's Exhibit No. 1, because we have used this in the course of his deposition earlier today and this is a body diagram,
and I ask you, first of all, looking at Diagram No. 1, to comment as to whether the point of entry marked on the right shoulder of
Governor Connally is accurate?
Dr. SHAW. Yes. The point of entry as marked on this exhibit I consider to be quite accurate.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the size and dimension of the hole accurate on scale, or would you care to make any adjustment or modification
in that characterization by picture?
Dr. SHAW. As the wound entry is marked on this figure, I would say that the scale is larger than the actual wound or the actual
depicting of the wound should be. As I described it, it was approximately a centimeter and a half in length.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you draw, Dr. Shaw, right above the shoulder as best you can recollect, what that wound of entry appeared
at the time you first observed it? Would you put your initials right beside that?
(The witness, Dr. Shaw, complied with the request of Counsel Specter.)
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert R. Shaw on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 88
. . . The remaining portion of the serratus anterior muscle was then approximated across the closure of the intercostal
muscles. The laceration at the latissimus dorsi muscle was then approximated with No. O chromic guts suture. Before closing the
skin and subcutaneous tissue a stab wound approximately 2 cm. in length was made near the lower tip of the right scapula and a
latex rubber drain was drawn up through this stab wound to drain subscapular space. This drain was marked with a safety pin. The
subcutaneous tissue was then closed with interrupted sutures of No. O chromic gut, inverting the knots. The skin was closed with
interrupted vertical mattress sutures of black silk.
Attention was next turned to the wound of entrance. The skin surrounding the wound was removed in an elliptical fashion,
enlarging the incision to approximately 3 cm. Examination of the depths of this wound reveal that the latissimus dorsi muscle
alone was injured, and the latex rubber drain could be felt immediately below the laceration in the muscle. A single mattress
suture was used to close the laceration in the muscle. The skin was then closed with interrupted vertical mattress sutures of
black silk. The drainage tubes going into the pleura cavity were then secured with safety pins and adhesive tape and a dressing
applied to the entire incision. This concluded the operation for the wound of the chest, and at this point Dr. Gregory and Dr.
Shires entered the operating room to care for the wounds of the right wrist and left thigh.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor Robert R. Shaw on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 91
I am referring to the wound of the thigh--was made in a tangential manner, it did not go in at a direct right angle, the
slit in the skin in the thigh could be considerably longer than the actual size of the missile itself, because this is
a sharp fragment that would make a cutting--it would cause a laceration rather than a puncture wound.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 95
Mr. SPECTER - As to the wound on the back of Governor Connally, was there any indication that the bullet was tumbling prior
to the time it struck him?
Dr. SHAW - I would only have to say that I'm not a ballistics expert, but the wound on his chest was not a single
puncture wound, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling.
Mr. SPECTER - You mean the wound on his back?
Dr. SHAW - The wound on his back--yes, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling. In other
words, it was not a spherical puncture wound.
Mr. SPECTER - So it might have had some tumbling involved, or it might not have?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; I don't know whether the clothes would have occasioned this or not.
Mr. SPECTER - My question would be that perhaps some tumbling might have been involved as a result of decrease in
velocity as the bullet passed through President Kennedy, whether there was any indication from the surface of the
wound which would indicate tumbling.
Dr. SHAW - The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter.
It didn't have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other
words, a puncture wound. Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right
angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance.
Mr. SPECTER - So, would you say in net that there could have been some tumbling occasioned by having it pass
through another body or perhaps the oblique character of entry might have been occasioned by the angle of entry.
Dr. SHAW - Yes; either would have explained a wound of entry.
Mr. SPECTER - Fine, thank you very much, Doctor.
Dr. SHAW - Thank you.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 102
Mr. SPECTER. Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John B. Connally on that day?
Dr. SHAW. Yes.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 104
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound on the posterior side of the Governor’s
chest?
Dr. SHAW. This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly
elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound,
the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.
Mr. SPECTER. What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated to you that it was a wound of entrance then?
Dr. SHAW, Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound as compared to the usual more ragged wound of
exit.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, I hand you a diagram which is a body diagram on Commission
Exhibit No. 679, and ask you if, on
the back portion of the figure, that accurately depicts the point of entry into Governor Connally’s back?
Dr. SHAW. Yes. The depiction of the point of entry, I feel is quite accurate.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 105
Mr. SPECTER. Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in the thoracic cage as a result of the passage of
the bullet through the Governor’s body?
Dr. SHAW. So. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found
none during the operation.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 106
Mr. SPECTER. Would it be useful - As to that X-ray, Dr. Shaw, will you tell us what identifying data, if any, it has in the
records of Parkland Hospital, for the record?
Dr. SHAW. On this X-ray it has in pencil John G. Connally.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that G or C?
Dr. SHAW. They have a "G" November 22, 1963, and it has a number 218-922.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 107
. . . Attention was then turned to the wound of entrance which, as previously described, was about a centimeter and a half in its
greatest diameter, roughly elliptical in shape. The skin edges of this wound were incised excised, I beg your pardon--I have to go
back just a little bit.
Prior to examination of this wound, a stab wound was made at the angle of the scapula to place a drain in the subscapular
space. In the examination of the wound of entrance, the examining finger could determine that this drain was immediately under the
wound of entrance, so that it was adequately draining the space. Two sutures were placed in the facia of the muscle, and the skin
was closed with interrupted vertical matching sutures of black silk. That concluded the operation. Both tubes were connected to a
water seal bottle, and the dressing was applied.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 111
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, what wounds, if any, did the Governor sustain on his left thigh?
Dr. SHAW. He sustained a small puncture-type wound on the medial aspect of the left thigh.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to examine that closely?
Dr. SHAW. No.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 112
Mr. SPECTER - Looking at Commission
Exhibit No. 689, is that a drawing which was prepared, after consultation with
you, representing the earlier theory of all of the Governor’s wounds having been inflicted by a single missile?
Dr. SHAW - That is Correct.
Mr. SPECTER - With reference to that diagram, would you explain the position that you had earlier thought the
Governor to have been in when he was wounded here?
Dr. SHAW - We felt that the Governor was in an upright sitting position, and at the time of wounding was turning
slightly to the right. This would bring the three wounds, as we know them, the wound in the chest, the wound in the wrist,
and the wound in the thigh into a line assuming that the right forearm was held against the lower right chest in front.
The line of inclination of this particular diagram is a little more sharply downward than is probably correct in
view of the inclination of the ribs of the chest.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you redraw that line, Dr. Shaw, to conform with what you believe to be----
Dr. SHAW - The fact that the muscle bundles on either side of the fifth rib were not damaged meant that the
missile to strip away 10 centimeters of the rib had to follow this rib pretty much along its line of inclination.
Mr. DULLES - I wonder if you could use that red pencil to make it a little clearer for us?
Dr. SHAW - I think these would probably work well on this paper. Perhaps this isn’t a tremendous point but it
slopes just a little too much.
Mr. SPECTER - You have initialed that to show your incline?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 112
Mr. SPECTER - Is it possible that the bullet which went through the Governor's chest could have emerged being as
fully intact as that bullet is?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; I believe it is possible because of the fact that the bullet struck the fifth rib at a very acute
angle and struck a portion of the rib which would not offer a great amount of resistance.
Mr. SPECTER - Does that bullet appear to you to have any of its metal flaked off?
Dr. SHAW - I have been told that the one point on the nose of this bullet that is deformed was cut off for purposes
of examination. With that information, I would have to say that this bullet has lost literally none of its substance.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 113
Mr. SPECTER - Now, as to the wound on the thigh, could that bullet have gone into the Governor's thigh without
causing any more damage than appears on the face of that bullet?
Dr. SHAW - If it was a spent bullet; yes. As far as the bullet is concerned it could have caused the Governor's
thigh wound as a spent missile.
Mr. SPECTER - Why do you say it is a spent missile, would you elaborate on what your thinking is on that issue?
Dr. SHAW - Only from what I have been told by Dr. Shires and Dr. Gregory, that the depth of the wound was only
into the subcutaneous tissue, not actually into the muscle of the leg, so it meant that missile had penetrated for a
very short period. Am I quoting you correctly, Dr. Gregory?
Mr. SPECTER - May the record show Dr. Gregory is present during this testimony and----
Dr. GREGORY - I will say yes.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 116
Mr. MCCLOY. Is it possible that it could have not, the actual bullet could not have hit the rib at all but it
might have been the expanding flesh that would cause the wound or the proper contusion, I guess you would call it on
the rib itself?
Dr. SHAW. I think we would have to postulate that the bullet hit the rib itself by the neat way in which it
stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 117
Senator COOPER. I think, of course, it is evident from your testimony you have had wide experience in chest
wounds and bullet wounds in the chest. What experience have you had in, say, the field of ballistics? Would this
experience-you have been dealing in chest wounds caused by bullets-have provided you knowledge also about the
characteristics of missiles, particularly bullets of this type?
Dr. SHAW. No; Senator. I believe that my information about ballistics is just that of an average layman, no more.
Perhaps a little more since I have seen deformed bullets from wounds, but I haven’t gone into that aspect of
wounds.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw on April 21, 1964 -
4H, 137
Mr. SPECTER. Can you estimate that angle for us, Doctor?
Dr. SHAW. We are talking about the angle now, of course, with the horizontal, and I would say - you don’t have a
caliper there, do you?
Dr. GRERORY. Yes.
Dr. SHAW. I was going to guess somewhere between 25° and 30°.
Mr. DULLES Sorry to ask these questions.
Governor CONNALLY. That is fine. I think it is an excellent question.
Dr. SHAW. Well, this puts it right at 25°.
Mr. SPECTER. That is the angle then of elevation as you are measuring it?
Dr. SHAW. Measuring from back to front, it is the elevation of the posterior wound over the anterior wound.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor George T. Shires on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 106
Mr. SPECTER. And what did you observe as to the wound on the thigh?
Dr. SHIRES. The wound on the thigh was a peculiar one. There was a 1 cm. punctate missile wound over the junction of the
middle and lower third of the leg and the medial aspect of the thigh. The peculiarity came in that the X-rays of the
left leg showed only a very small 1 mm. bullet fragment imbedded in the femur of the left leg. Upon exploration of
this wound, the other peculiarity was that there was very little soft tissue damage, less than one would expect from
an entrance wound of a centimeter in diameter, which was seen on the skin. So, it appeared, therefore, that the skin
wound was either a tangential wound or that a larger fragment had penetrated or stopped in the skin and had
subsequently fallen out of the entrance wound.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor George T. Shires on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 109
Mr. SPECTER - Now, looking again at
Diagram No. 5, what is your professional opinion, if you have one, as to
whether Governor Connally's chest injury, wrist injury, and thigh injury were caused by the same bullet?
Dr. SHIRES - Well we all thought, me included, that this was probably one missile, one bullet.
Mr. SPECTER - When you say "we all thought," whom do you mean by that?
Dr. SHIRES - Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory---as we were reconstructing the events in the operating room in an attempt to
plot out trajectory as best we could, this appeared to be our opinion.
Mr. SPECTER - Did any of your assistants consult with you in those calculations?
Dr. SHIRES - I guess nearly all of them we have listed.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. McClelland, Dr. Baxter and Dr. Patman?
Dr. SHIRES - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - How about Dr. Osborne and Dr. Parker?
Dr. SHIRES - They were working with Dr. Gregory. If they discussed it, I'm sure they did---it was before I got there.
Mr. SPECTER - How about Dr. Boland and Dr. Duke who worked with Dr. Shaw?
Dr. SHIRES - Now, again, I talked to them and they were discussing it as they did the chest procedure, and again
thought the same thing. Everyone was under the impression this was one missile---through and through the chest, through
and through the arm and the thigh.
Mr. SPECTER - Was there any one of the doctors on either of these three teams who had a different point of view?
Dr. SHIRES - Not that I remember.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor George T. Shires on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 110
Mr. SPECTER. Is the postulation of a turning by Governor Connally necessary to explain the point of entry in the
back, exit in the chest, entry in the wrist,and exit in the wrist, and entry into the thigh, in order to have that
line-to state it differently, is it necessary to postulate turning by the Governor?
Dr. SHIRES. Depending upon the angle of the trajectory-I suppose not. I don’t know what the angle of the trajectory was
from where the bullet was fired.
Mr. SPECTER. Assuming an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees?
Dr. SHIRES. This, I don’t know without drawing it out, but as long as his right arm is drawn in front of him next
to the exit wound on the chest, he is in a sitting position, if the angle of declination was right, then I think he
could have received this facing straight forward.
Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Doctor George T. Shires on March 23, 1964 -
6H, 111
Mr. SPECTER - What opinion do you have, if any, Dr. Shires, as to whether the wound in the thigh might have been
inflicted from a missile that did not pass through any other part of the Governor's body, assuming that it was a
6.5-mm. bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second, traveling approximately 160 to 250 feet between the end
of the weapon and the point of impact on the thigh?
Dr. SHIRES - Well, again, in that wound --- it was strange in that the hole in the skin was too large for the amount
of damage inflicted on the underlying tissues, so that had this been the case, this would have had to have been a
tangential wound. Had it been a tangential wound, then it's possible that small fragments could have gone into bone as
it did and that the damage to the soft tissues was done only by that small fragment, so that the major portion of the
bullet simply hit the skin in a tangent and went on in its course elsewhere.
Mr. SPECTER - Well, is it possible that the bullet could have hit Governor Connally with the thigh being the
initial point of impact and do the damage which was done there with the high velocity missile that I have just
described for you?
Dr. SHIRES - Is it possible to get a wound like that?
Mr. SPECTER - Yes, sir.
Dr. SHIRES - Yes; as long as it’s on a tangent.
Mr. SPECTER - Is it likely to receive a wound like that from a high velocity weapon of 2,000 feet per second and
at about 160 to 250 feet?
Dr. SHIRES - If it’s a tangential wound, tangential wounds can be very strange. A large bullet can cause a small
hole if its on a tangent or a small bullet can rip out a fairly large hole on a tangent. It just depends on the time of
contact and the angle of contact with the skin. That's why it's awfully hard to predict.
Mr. SPECTER - So that wound could have either been the first striking of the Governor from the bullet, or it could
have been from a missile whose velocity was spent after going through President Kennedy and through the Governor's body
and wrist and then caused that wound in the thigh?
Dr. SHIRES - That’s right, if it was a tangential bullet.
There was a 1 cm. punctate missile wound over the juncture of the middle and lower third, medial aspect, of the left thigh.
X--rays of the thigh and leg revealed a bullet fragment which was imbedded in the body of the femur in the distal third. The leg
was prepared with Phisohex and I.O. Prep and was draped in the usual fashion.
Following this the missile wound was excised and the bullet tract was explored. The missile wound was seen to course through
the subcutaneous fat and into the vastus medialis. The necrotic fat and muscle were debrided down to the region of the femur. The
direction of the missile wound was judged not to be in the course of the femoral vessel, since the wound was distal and anterior to
Hunter's canal. Following complete debridement of the wound and irrigation with saline, the wound was felt to be adequately debrided
enough so that three simple through-and-through, stainless steel Aloe #28 wire sutures were used encompassing skin, subcutaneous
tissue, and muscle fascia on both sides. Following this a sterile dressing was applied. The dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial
pulses in both legs were quite good. The thoracic procedure had been completed at this time, the debridement of the compound
fracture in the arm was still in progress at the time this soft tissue injury repair was completed.
Warren Commission Testimony of Abraham Zapruder on July 22, 1964 -
7H, 571
Mr. LIEBELER. As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on
Elm Street, did it not?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. That’s right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. That’s correct. I started shooting - when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted
to get it coming in from Houston Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - Tell us what happened as you took these pictures.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and
I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about -- I imagine it was around here --
I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right --- something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after
the shot he just went like that.
Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning -- leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it
was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot -- you’ve heard these expressions and then I
saw --- I don’t believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my
mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started -- I
can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].
Warren Commission Testimony of Abraham Zapruder on July 22, 1964 -
7H, 575
Mr. LIEBELER - And let's look at No. 213 --- as we go along here -- then he does start moving sharply to the left.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes; when you take it frame by frame, it could have been just 2 or 3 seconds, but the impression was that
he was leaning over and not just sitting there and looking over that and grabbing himself at the left side.
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; moving toward Mrs. Kennedy.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That’s what impressed me. Now, what number are you on?
Mr. LIEBELER - 313 -- you remember that one?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - That was -- that was the horrible one.
Mr. LIEBELER - It appears to you then, that this book of pictures here as you look through it, are your pictures?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes.
Shaw trial testimony of Abraham Zapruder on February 13, 1969
Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury.
A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning
left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass. As they were approaching where I was standing I heard a shot
and noticed where the President leaned towards Jackie. Then I heard another shot which hit him right in the head, over
here, and his head practically opened up and a lot of blood and many more things came out.
Q: At the time, Mr. Zapruder, you heard the first shot were you able to see what reactions,
if any, President Kennedy made at the time you heard this first shot? What did he do, sir, as you saw it?
A: As I said, he grabbed himself with his hand towards his chest or throat and leaned
towards Jackie.
Q: At the time you heard the second shot, would you describe the reactions of President Kennedy as you saw them?
A: He leaned about the same way in falling towards Jacqueline, forward, down towards the bottom of the car.
Q: What happened at the time of the second shot in regard to President Kennedy?
A: What happened -- I don’t understand.
Q: As you saw it, what happened at the time the second shot went off in regard to President Kennedy? What did you
see?
A: I thought I just described what I saw. You mean where it hit him?
Q: Yes.
A: I saw the head practically open up and blood and many more things, whatever it was, brains, just came out of
his head.
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 81
(237) Two defects are noted in the back of the jacket. The defect caused by the missile is described in an FBI
report as follows. Examination of the President’s clothing revealed the presence of a small hole in the back of
the coat and shirt. The hole in the back of the coat is positioned approximately 5 3/
8 - inches below the top of the collar and 1 3/4
- inches to the right of the middle seam.
(238) The second defect was artificially created in the FBI laboratory to obtain a sample of material for
subsequent studies. It is located just below the collar and 3.3 centimeters to the right of the midline. It measures
0.9 centimeter in vertical diameter and 0.8 centimeter in transverse diameter. This defect does not penetrate the full
thickness of the coat and was identified in the testimony of Special Agent R. A. Frazier of the FBI laboratory as the
site of a control cloth sample removed and analyzed by the laboratory.
(239) The panel locates the defect created by the missile at 5 centimeters (approximately 2 inches) to the right of
the middle of the coat and 13.5 centimeters (5 .3 inches) below the top margin of the collar and identifies it as a
gunshot defect measuring 1.5 centimeters in vertical diameter and 1 centimeter in transverse diameter and passing
through all layers of cloth.
(240) Correspondence from J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, to J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, Warren
Commission, characterized the posterior holes in the clothing as follows. The hole in the back of the coat and the hole
in the back of the shirt were, in general, circular in shape and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were bent
inward. These characteristics are typical of bullet entrance holes.
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 83
(242) The shirt is white with a thin triple gray stripe alternating with a thin triple brown stripe. The back,
collar and upper sleeves are stiff and stained with a dark brown substance resembling dried blood.
(243) There is a defect in the shirt measuring 1.2 centimeters in vertical diameter and 0.8 centimeter in
transverse diameter. It is in a location corresponding to the defect in the jacket, with its upper margin 14 centimeters
(5 .5 inches) below the upper margin of the shirt collar and 2.5 centimeters (approximately 1 inch) to the right of the
midline of the shirt. This defect is also described in the FBI report.
The hole in the shirt back is located in the same relative area, being 5 3/4
inches below the top of the collar and 1 1/3 inches to the right of
the middle.(5)
(244) A second defect was created in the shirt in order to obtain control cloth for FBI spectrographic analysis,
as described in the above-referenced report. This manmade defect measures 1.7 centimeters (approximately 0.7 inch) in
vertical diameter and 0.3 centimeter in horizontal diameter, and is located 14 centimeters below the upper collar
border and 2.5 centimeters to the right of the midline of the shirt. (See
fig. 3,
a photograph of the missile defect in the back of the shirt.)
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 84
(245) The Panel examined photographs of the upper right back with the body on its left side; these included 8 inch
by 10 inch black and white negatives and prints Nos. 11 and 12 and 4 inch by 5 inch positive color transparencies and
prints Nos. 38 and 39. (All photographs and X-rays were examined with and without the aid of a 10X magnifying lens.)
Stereoscopic visualization of paired photographs Nos. 38 and 39 revealed a slight change in the position of the
camera between the two exposures. Essentially the photographs consist of a view of the right upper posterior thorax
(back), with the camera in a position such that it would be approximately horizontal to the body if the body were
erect, or at right angles to the skin surface and parallel to a sagittal plane of the body. Within each photograph is
a centimeter ruler which overlies the midline of the back, extending approximately 2.5 centimeters above the upper wound
margin and 2 centimeters below the lower wound margin, with its edge approximately 2.5 centimeters medial to the wound
margin. The ruler is in the plane of focus of the wound, enabling reasonably accurate measurement of the wound, which
is oval, with one end of the long axis between 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock and the opposite end between 8 o'clock and 9
o'clock. The maximum wound diameter, determined by interpolation from the photos, is 0.9 [sic] by 0.9 [sic] centimeter. The
midpoint is estimated to be 13.5 centimeters below the right mastoid process, with the head and neck, as positioned
within the photograph, 6 centimeters below the most prominent neck crease and 5 centimeters below the upper shoulder
margin. (See
fig. 4, a drawing of this wound, and
fig. 5, a close-up photograph of it.)
(246) There is a sharply outlined area of red-brown to black around the wound in which there is dried, superficial
denudation of the skin, representing a typical abrasion collar resulting from the bullet’s scraping the margins of the
skin at the moment of penetration. This is characteristic of gunshot wounds of entrance and not typical of exit wounds.
This abrasion extends around the entire circumference, but is most prominent between 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock about the
defect (with the head at 12 o'clock). In addition, there are several small linear, superficial lacerations or tears of
the skin extending radically from the margins of the wound at 10 o'clock, 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock. These measure 0.1,
0.2 and 0.1 centimeter respectively. Photographically enhanced prints of photographs Nos. 38 and 39 reveal much more
sharply contrasted color determination and, to some degree, more sharply outlined detail of the abrasion collar
described above.
(247) Several members of the panel believe, based on an examination of these enhancements, that when the body is
repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in
the body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward
direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward.
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 93
(262) There is a semicircular missile defect near the center of the lower margin of the tracheotomy incision, approximately in
the midline of the neck, with margins which are slightly denuded and reddish-brown.
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 103
(295) The panel examined photographs of the back of the head, including Black and white negatives and prints Nos. 15 and
16; color transparencies Nos. 42 and 43; and correspondingly numbered color prints of the back of the head. These were
studied with both the naked eye and 10X magnification. The photographs again all appear to have been taken from
approximately the same position, and stereoscopic visualization of the two 4 by 5 inch color transparencies enables
three-dimensional perception. In the center of the photographs is a vertical centimeter ruler, which, by stereoscopic
visualization, is demonstrated to be slightly closer to the camera than the adjacent skin surface. The upper portion of
the ruler, which is in sharpest focus, is adjacent to a slightly oval scalp defect located in the "cowlick" area of the
scalp just above or superior to a line drawn between the superior or upper margins of the area. (See
fig. 13,
a drawing of the back of the President’s head.) This defect is partially covered by hair and dried blood. This wound is
located considerably above the occipital protuberance, slightly to the right of the midline, and approximately 13 centimeters
above the most prominent neck crease. It has a maximum vertical diameter in the photograph of approximately 1.5 to 2
centimeters, and a maximum transverse diameter of approximately 0.9 centimeter.
(296) Accurate reconstruction of the exact dimensions of the wound is difficult because the ruler and wound are in
different planes of focus. The long axis of the wound more closely approximates a vertical angle than that depicted
within the "Autopsy Descriptive Sheet." (See fig. 6.)
The inferior margin of this wound, from 3 to 10 o'clock, is surrounded by a crescent-shaped reddish-black area of
denudation, again presenting the appearance of an abrasion collar, resulting from the rubbing of the skin by the bullet
at the time of penetration. From 12 to 3 o'clock, there is a suggestion of undermining, that is, tunneling of the
tissue between the skin surface and the skull. Three small linear lacerations or tears of the skin, measuring less than
0.2 centimeter, in length, extend radially from the margins of the defect at 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 3 o'clock.
(See fig. 14, a
close-up photograph of this wound.)
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 138
(364) The suit is of lightweight, black, closely woven fabric; the jacket is three-buttoned, single-breasted, size 42 tall.
There is an irregularly shaped oval defect perforating all layers of the jacket on the right back, with its midpoint 19.5
centimeters to the right of the midline and 13.6 centimeters below the upper shoulder-seam, measuring approximately 1.7 by 1.2
centimeters. (See
fig. 33,
a photograph of the back of Governor Connally’s jacket.) Further characterization of this and other defects in Governor
Connally’s clothing was not undertaken prior to the garments being cleaned. (The Connally clothing was cleaned, presumably
to make it more presentable, before any members of the original investigative team determined that scientific examination might
be of value.) There was never any attempt to preserve the chain of custody of this evidence, an essential procedure if it were to
be used in a subsequent criminal proceeding.
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 141
(368) The shirt is long-sleeved, French-cuffed, white dress, size 16-35. A defect in the back measuring up to 0.8 centimeter
in vertical diameter and 1.3 centimeters in transverse diameter is in a position corresponding to the defect in the jacket, with
its upper margin 12 centimeters below the shoulder seam and 5 centimeters medial to the right shoulder seam (See
fig. 34,
a photograph of the back of Governor Connally's shirt.)
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 144
(377) There is an irregularly round defect measuring 1 by 1 centimeters in maximum diameter, penetrating all layers of the
coat on its right front side. The midpoint of the defect in the jacket is 34.5 centimeters below the upper border of the collar,
49 centimeters above the lower margin of the coat, and 15 centimeters to the right of the midline. (See
fig. 36,
a photograph of the front of Governor Connally’s coat, illustrating the location of the anterior exit bullet hole.)
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 157
(404) There is a defect of the left pant leg 61.5 centimeters below the top of the trousers and 6.4 centimeters medial
(inward) to the crease of the pants; it measures 0.7 by 0.9 centimeter and is rectangular in shape. (See
fig. 42,
a photograph of the defect in Governor Connally’s trousers.)
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 164
(424) The characteristics of the abrasion collar surrounding the entrance perforation reflect the direction of the
bullet at the instant of impact with the skin and the angle of the trajectory prior to contact with the skin, as well
as the shape of the missile itself. If the trajectory is perpendicular to the surface of the skin, the hole is usually
round and the abrasion collar correspondingly symmetrical around it. (See
fig. 45,
a picture of an abrasion collar when the missile was perpendicular to the target.) If the angle of the trajectory of the
missile to the skin surface is other than perpendicular, the abrasion collar may be asymmetrical, that is, more prominent
on the surface with the most acute angle between the skin and the bullet, and less apparent on the opposite surface,
where there may be undermining of the tissues. (See
fig. 46
showing an abrasion collar produced by a missile striking at an acute area.)
(425) If a missile strikes an intervening target, its normal yaw may be exaggerated, or it may begin to tumble. The
entry wound in subsequent target might reflect this distortion in trajectory by anything from a very slight asymmetry to an
ovoid or virtually rectangular entry wound. The latter would be the case if the missile were to strike sideways and is
somewhat similar to what was described in some of the initial medical reports on the wound in the posterior thorax of
Governor Connally. (See fig. 47,
a drawing showing yawing or tumbling.) Such a subsequent entry wound might show no wipe residue in the skin because of
the missile's prior passage through skin and tissue. Some small fragments of the metal from the missile's surface might
break off as the missile strikes, however, and adhere to the margins of the defects in either the clothing or skin.
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 175
(464) . . . The wound in the upper right midback measures approximately 0.9 by 0.9 centimeter in maximum diameter and was
located approximately 5 centimeters below the shoulder and 5 centimeters to the right of the midline of the back. The wound cannot
be located more precisely from the available evidence because the autopsy pathologists failed to measure it with reference to
standard fixed body landmarks and did not dissect the missile track.
(465) A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was
caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of
entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the
instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body.
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 176
(471) The panel notes that the skull X-rays, photographs of the head and photographs of the brain substantiate this location.
The scalp wound, as it appears in the photographs, has many of the features described in the autopsy report, including size, an
abrasion cuff which is more prominent on the lower margin than the upper, and linear tears extending radially from the upper
margins of the wound. The scalp wound overlays skull damage characteristic of an entrance wound (inward beveling), also
described in the autopsy report.
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 176
(472) The majority of the panel concludes that only one missile caused the damage to the head. The nature of the damage is
consistent with that caused by a jacketed missile. The X-ray evidence indicates that the missile fragmented on impact, produced a
number of outwardly radiating fractures, and proceeded in an essentially straight and forward path and to the right, paralleling
the upper surface of the head. This type of missile fragmentation is consistent with a jacketed missile. The main core mass
probably existed in a single fragment that remained intact until striking the automobile, causing it to fragment into several
pieces. The small missile fragment present at the margin of the entrance wound was probably a portion of the missile jacket and
indicates that the skull might have slightly deflected the course of the missile and its fragments through the head.
(473) The bullet exited in the top front area of the skull (right frontoparietal portion) adjacent to the coronal suture.
There is a considerable loss of bone in the area where the bullet exited, with multiple fractures extending from the defect. In
the photographs, part of the perimeter of the 2.5 centimeters, beveled exit hole is visable[sic] along the margin of the defect
and is somewhat larger than the diameter of the bullet itself. On the basis of these photographs and simulated skull reconstruction,
the panel was able to determine the location of the point of exit within a reasonable margin of error.
Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel -
7HSCA, 178
(486) The majority of the panel concludes that the evidence on the nature of the wounds suffered by Governor Connally to his
torso, wrist and thigh provides strong support for the conclusion that the wounds were caused by one bullet. The ovoid shape of
the entrance wound on Governor Connally's back, described by one of the doctors at Parkland Hospital who treated the Governor, was
most probably caused by a yaw or tumble in the flight of the bullet, which was deviating from its normal flight characteristics and
path because of passing through President Kennedy. The majority does not feel, however, that the evidence is sufficient to
eliminate entirely the possibility that the wobble was caused by a different intervening object.
Source: HSCA testimony of Doctor Michael Baden on September 7, 1978 -
1HSCA, 192
Mr. KLEIN. And the panel found an abrasion collar on the wound of the President's back of the kind you have shown
us in these drawings?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. This represents a diagram, a blowup of the actual entrance perforation of the skin showing an
abrasion collar. The abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9 o'clock, which would indicate a
directionality from right to left and toward the middle part of the body, which was the impression of the doctors on
reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives.
Source: HSCA testimony of Doctor Michael Baden on September 7, 1978 -
1HSCA, 217
Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, directing your attention to the clothing already received as exhibits, would you tell us what the panel
learned from that clothing with respect to the wound of the President’s neck?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, Sir. On examining the clothing of the President, there is present in the left upper portion of the shirt, just
beneath the left shirt collar, a slit-like tear. This slit-like tear corresponds directly with the area of perforation in the
anterior neck seen on the photographs taken prior to the autopsy and is characteristic of a bullet perforation of exit in which the
perforation is not necessarily as round as the entrance perforation.
The entrance perforation on the back is a round perforation typical for an entrance wound. The perforation in the front of
the shirt, slit-like, is typical for an exit perforation of a missile.
Source: HSCA testimony of Doctor Michael Baden on September 7, 1978 -
1HSCA, 241
Mr. KLEIN. Do you recognize those X-rays and those blowups?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, I do.
This is X-ray labeled "No. 2" by the tag applied by Dr. Ebersole and identified to the panel members by
Dr. Ebersole as an X-ray he took at the time of the autopsy of President Kennedy; it shows a side view of the
President's head and is preserved in the Archives. This is an enlarged copy of that specific X-ray showing a side view
of the skull of the President with the back of the head to your left,the front of the head to your right. Because of
the difficulty interpreting some of the subtle features on the X-ray, the X-rays were further examined using
enhancement techniques to increase the image contrast. This is a computerized enhancement on your right of the same
X-ray showing the same structures but bringing out some of the details of the X-ray more clearly by the enhancement
techniques.
Mr. KLEIN. What did the panel learn from those X-rays?
Dr. BADEN. The panel learned from these X-rays that there was extensive fracturing of the bones of the skull of
the President as manifested by these various lines and irregularities, that there was displacement of some bony
fragments as a result of this explosive-type injury to the skull as seen on the X-ray, and that there are many small
white areas in the X-ray film that are metallic fragments resulting from a bullet having passed through the skull and
fragmenting to some small degree.
Source: HSCA testimony of Doctor Michael Baden on September 7, 1978 -
1HSCA, 256
Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, at this point, I would ask you to direct your attention to the wounds received by Governor Connally. What
was the nature of the injuries received by the Governor?
Dr. BADEN. The Governor suffered injuries also of the right upper back region, more to the side, than the President. The bullet
exited. It entered near the top of the armpit on the Governor,exited beneath the right nipple. There was another bullet path
through the right wrist, entering on the thumb side about an inch above the wrist, exiting on the palm aspect of the wrist, and
there was another bullet perforation in the left inner thigh of the Governor.
Source: HSCA testimony of Doctor Michael Baden on September 7, 1978 -
1HSCA, 276
Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, what did the panel learn from those reports with respect to the entrance and exit wounds of the back of
the Governor?
Dr. BADEN. There was an entrance perforation, according to the interpretation of the doctors who operated on Governor
Connally,in the upper right back region just next to the top of the armpit area, and the bullet pathway proceeded from back to
front, downward, causing extensive fractures of the fifth rib of the Governor and exited in a large irregular jagged typical exit
perforation 1 inch below the right nipple.
Source: HSCA testimony of Doctor Michael Baden on September 7, 1978 -
1HSCA, 282
Dr. BADEN. Yes. There is a tear in the fabric of the cloth in the right upper back region which corresponds precisely to the
area where the bullet struck the skin of the Governor and which is larger than would be caused by a bullet perforation that strikes
cloth or skin head-on at a right angle.
So the clothing does give us an ability to interpret the position of the bullet wound of entrance and also gives us some
information as to the manner in which the bullet struck.
Mr. KLEIN. And what did the panel learn from that clothing with respect to the exit wound?
Dr. BADEN. The exit wound on the clothing - and again the corresponding tears in the fabric of the clothing. The shirt, which
is present also, does show a perforation of the fabric corresponding to the exit wound beneath the right nipple of the skin of
Governor Connally, and this corresponds to the tear in the right mid-portion of the jacket.
Source: HSCA testimony of Doctor Michael Baden on September 7, 1978 -
1HSCA, 287
Mr. KLEIN. Directing your attention to the clothing already received as an exhibit, what did the panel learn from the clothing
with respect to the wound of the Governor’s wrist?
Dr. BADEN. On the clothing, including the suit coat and the shirt, which has French cuffs and is longer than the coat sleeve,
there is a perforation of the fabric of the cloth that corresponds with the thumb side of the lower portion of the forearm of the
Governor. The tear in the fabric is wide and irregular and the panel concluded that this was made by a bullet reentering into the
wrist.
Source: HSCA testimony of Doctor Michael Baden on September 7, 1978 -
1HSCA, 296
Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, you have also testified that the panel unanimously concluded that a bullet entered the President’s
upper right back and exited from the front of his neck. Did the panel reach a conclusion as to whether the same bullet which
entered the President’s upper right back could have then exited from the front of his neck and struck Governor Connally and
caused the wounds that he received?
Dr. BADEN. Yes; the panel concluded, based on the enlarged nature of the entrance perforation in the Governor’s back,
that the bullet was wobbling when it struck him and had to have struck something before striking the Governor; that this entrance
perforation of the Governor’s back could have resulted from a missile that had come through the neck of the President on the
basis of the autopsy findings alone; that in taking other evidence into consideration, such as the position of the President and
the position of the Governor in the car, the findings are entirely consistent with a single bullet exit exiting the front of the
President's neck and reentering in the back of the Governor.
Source: HSCA testimony of Doctor Michael Baden on September 7, 1978 -
1HSCA, 300
Dr. BADEN. Yes. I think, in general, the doctors who perform the autopsy have a better opportunity to make valid observations
than those who come later, but in this instance, the photographs taken during the course of the autopsy and the X-rays taken during
the course of the autopsy and the autopsy report itself provide sufficient evidence for the panel members to arrive at valid, we
feel, valid, independent conclusions.
Further, we had opportunity to interview and we did extensively interview the physicians who did the autopsy, Dr. Humes,
Dr. Boswell, and Colonel Finck.
In all candor, these three pathologists, to the present time, do feel that the entrance perforation is 4 inches lower than we
have concluded. They place the entrance perforation approximately in the area of that dried brain tissue in the lower portion of
the scalp above the hairline.
We disagree with these doctors and we do agree with the observations of the doctors in the Clark panel and the Rockefeller
Commission who also independently agreed it was 4 inches higher than the autopsy doctors stated. Our conclusion, in part, is that
the observations that these three pathologists made were valid in describing the wound and the characteristics of the wound, but
in making the report up the next day, not in the presence of the body, the location of the entrance perforation in the back of the
head was mistakenly placed 4 inches lower than it actually was.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 77
Dr. Petty. All right. What wounds did you see when you first arrived there? Let me put it that way. I am not trying to drive
you into any corner at all, I just want to know what wounds were there to the best of your knowledge when you got there.
Dr. Finck. I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry. It had soiled,
inverted edges which in non-technical language it means turned inward. I interpreted that as a wound of entry.
The incision of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas we examined but I did not see a wound of exit along that tracheotomy
incision and that was the puzzle, having a wound of entry with no corresponding wound of exit, and that was one of the reasons for
asking for additional X ray films which I requested. So that is for the wound of the upper back/lower neck on the right side.
In addition, I saw in the back of the head on the right side a wound corresponding to that wound of the scalp. I observed a
hole in the skull. That hole in the skull in the back of the head showed no crater when examined from the outside of the skull but
when I examined the inside of the skull at the level of that hole in the bone I saw a crater and to me that was a positive
unquestionable finding identifying a wound of entry in the back of the head.
Dr. Loquvam. Dr. Finck, is that symmetrical, inward beveled?
Dr. Finck. I don't remember. I don't remember.
Dr. Rose. Were there fracture lines radiating out from that beveled wound of the back of the skull?
Dr. Finck. I don't remember.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 79
Dr. Coe. Did you see the wound of entry in a separate that was handed to you or was that still hooked on to the body?
Dr. Finck. It was definitely attached to the body, the wound of entry.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 80
Dr. Petty. All right. Let me get to another area then if I may in relationship to the head. There was an in-shoot
wood [sic], a wound of entry, in the right back of the head.
Dr. Finck. Yes.
Dr. Petty. Was that above or below the level of the tops of the ears?
Dr. Finck. It was above the external occipital protuberance which is not -- I am showing now with my finger.
Dr. Petty. It was above it?
Dr. Finck. Yes.
Dr. Petty. A long distance above it or just a short distance above it or just about at?
Dr. Pinck. Slightly above it as I remember.
Dr. Petty. Slightly above it. Was it to the midline or to the right or to the left of the midline.
Dr. Finck. It was 2.5 centimeters to the right of the midline.
Dr. Petty. All right. Would you be kind enough to demonstrate or point to that point that you pointed to on
yourself on, say, Cyril for a second.
Dr. Wecht. If I were more completely bald --
Dr. Petty. That is the occipital protuberance that you are pointing to?
Dr. Finck. Yes.
Dr. Petty. All right. Now where is the wound?
Dr. Finck. 2.5 centimeters to the right, slightly above.
Dr. Petty. And slightly above. Thank you very much.
Dr. Baden. Which is approximately how far above the level of the external extreme protuberance that you just pointed to, Dr. Finck?
Dr. Finck. Could you please repeat the question.
Dr. Baden. Approximately how far above the level of the external extreme protuberance did you just point to on
Dr. Wecht's head?
Dr. Finck. We said slightly above it. I can't --
Dr. Baden. One centimeter, is that in the ball park of.where you pointed?
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 83
Dr. Petty. This is the photograph that seems best to show the back of the head. This seems to be a Photograph
No. 42. Now where is the wound of entrance on the back of the scalp that you see in No. 42?
Dr. Finck. It is probably this wound. Probably. I can’t, I don’t --
Dr. Petty. Dr. Finck has pointed to a mass right at the junction of the hair with the neck.
Dr. Finck. This is not too clear so I can’t tell if it is this or that, honestly.
Dr. Petty. Say it again. You say this or not?
Dr. Finck. Is it that and that or is it something else? I don’t know.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 84
Dr. Petty. This is No. 42 also.
Dr. Finck. Well, I would say that this was the wound entry to the right of the external occipital protuberance.
It is more accurate to determine an anatomic location when you have the wound itself on the dead body. On the
photographs it is embarrassing, it is distorted as far as the of angle of shooting is concerned, so you feel much more
at ease when you have the dead body and the wounds to establish a location than when you have photographs.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 87
Dr. Petty. Well, what we are trying to say is which in your recollection, maybe -- which in your recollection,
Dr. Finck, is the gunshot wound of entrance, this at the hairline from which we have this enhanced photograph or this
toward the end of the ruler just above the level of the ears?
Dr. Finck. This one.
Dr. Petty. Which one are you pointing to?
Dr. Finck. The wound of entry.
Dr. Petty. And that is near the hairline or that is up toward the upper portion of the ear?
Dr. Finck. The best I can do for the wound of entry in the back of the head.
Dr. Wecht. She still does not have anything to show which you are referring to. Describe it so the stenographer
can get it down.
Dr. Finck. In the lower half of the photograph. Would that be good enough identification for the record.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 88
Dr. Petty. . . . I just want to be sure that this is what you feel is the in-shoot wound and that is near the
hairline and not the -- 1 hate to use any term to describe it but not the object near the central portion of the film
near the end of the ruler.
Mr. Purdy. The red spot in the caldic area.[sic] Dr. Finck, upon examining these two areas, what opinion do you
have as to what, if anything, that red spot in the upper portions?
Dr. Finck. I don’t know what it is.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 91
Mr. Purdy. Dr. Finck, following up on this photo of the back of the head before we move on to the brain, No. 43,
you described the wound of entrance as in the lower part of the head when you examined this photograph.
Dr. Petty. Just above the hairline.
Mr. Purdy. Just above the hairline. Is it your opinion that that object is below the external occipital
protuberance?
Dr. Finck. I don’t know.
Mr. Purdy. Or above it?
Dr. Finck. I don’t know. You don’t see it, it is something you feel. As a matter of fact, you may
have difficulty in finding it with your fingers. On a photograph I don’t see it.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 93
Mr. Purdy. How would you characterize as what you see just above the hairline? Is that the visible evidence of
perforation of the scalp or is that something that is outside of the scalp?
Dr. Finck. See, this is again the difference between what you see with your naked eye an you try to maintain a
record of what you see and that photograph does not have the same depth as what you see with the naked eye and we
attempted to have a photographic representation of the wound.
Mr. Purdy. My question is, does that represent the wound itself?
Dr. Finck. It is an attempt to represent the wound itself. That is the purpose of taking photographs at an
autopsy. When the body is gone it is too late to have supporting illustrations.
Mr. Purdy. So on the black and white enlargement of that photograph, that lower object which is the one I just
referred to as black and white enlargement No. 16, would you characterize that -- I understand you attempted to show
that was the wound itself.
Dr. Finck. Yes.
Mr. Purdy. Would you characterize that as a perforation of the scalp or as something that is exterior to the
scalp?
Dr. Finck. Perforation means through and through.
Mr. Purdy. Well, do you see the scalp penetration there?
Dr. Finck. I see some tissue coming out of a wound. That does not tell us yet the depth of that wound because
that is where the naked eye examination and the examination of the wound itself comes into the picture in contrast to
the flat photograph so I cannot say that this photograph shows a penetrating or a perforating wound. We don’t
see here --
Mr. Purdy. One final question. At the time of the autopsy do you recall anything at the upper area where the
red spot is at the caldic? DO you remember anything that would correspond to that red spot?
Dr. Finck. No. No, there was only one wound of entry in the back of the head.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 106
Dr. Wecht. Pierre, you will recall that you along with Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell conducted a supplemental
examination of a normal and fixed brain on December 6, 1963, which would have been just about exactly two weeks after
the autopsy. The last sentence in there states something like, Cranial sections of the brain are not made in order to
preserve the specimen. That is pretty close, I imagine.
Dr. Finck. Yes, I remember the spirit.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 121
Dr. Wecht. Pierre, on the pieces of bone that were brought to you that evening from Dallas or on any of the
remaining portions of fragmented bones in the President’s skull, cerebellum essentially, do you recall seeing
anything that looked like or suggested a circular or a semi-circular or any portion of a circle, circular type wound
that would be consistent with or suggestive of -- a gunshot wound in the right parietal region or in any of the bone
fragments that were sent to you from Dallas that evening?
Dr. Finck. From what I remember in the fragments of bone I established first what is the outer surface of the
skull and what is the inner surface of the skull in those fragments and after doing that you look at both surfaces and
you determine where is the beveling. The beveling was in the outer surface, thus identifying a portion of a wound of
exit if that is your question.
Dr. Wecht. Your answer then is that you did see some kind of a circular area or defect?
Dr. Finck. A portion of the crater, I would say. This is the outside of the skull of the cadaver.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 11,1978 -
Page 126
Mr. Purdy. Focusing just on that red spot in the calnic area, is the size of that red spot consistent with what you recall
was the size?
Dr. Finck. Would you mention the wound of the head?
Mr. Purdy. I am just trying to ask based on your recollection of the wound, is that consistent with your recollection of the
size?
Dr. Finck. I think it looks smaller but, see, the limits of this wound are not clear so how can I measure something which is
not clear and give measurements of something which is not sharply demarcated?
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 12,1978 -
Page 2
PF: . . . Again, there was only one perforating of the wou.., perforating wound of entry of the scalp in the back of the
President’s head, and that was the wound low in the photograph with a wide [sic] center in contrast to the previously
described area which has a red center on the photograph. What I’m referring to now is the wound in the lower, lower portion
of the photograph, near the hairline, and this is what corresponds to the perforating wound of the scalp, a wound of entry in the
back of the head, unequivocally being a wound of entry because it corresponds to the hole in the bone I have described with no
beveling on the outer aspect of the skull and with beveling on the inner aspect of the skull.
Source: Medical Panel testimony of Dr. Pierre Antoine Finck on March 12,1978 -
Page 3
We, we see here the white area in the wound near the hairline as being a wound where, with apparently some tissue protruding
out of the wound so it’s in favor of a deep wound, but the photograph is so flat, it’s not too sharp, that you
cannot give exact measurements, exact depth. Regarding measurements for wounds -- when asked the question, "well, there
was a ruler and the units of measurements on it." For example, on this photograph it’s terribly weak and the reason may that
the pictures were taken with a flash, the intensity of which crushes white surfaces with reflection. It’s very difficult on
this print, to see measurements. But even if you do see measurements on the ruler, that is not necessarily in contradiction with
measurements taken at time of autopsy because there was a difference between the measurements you take when you have a wound in
your hands and you pull, without exaggerating, but to show as well as you can the largest and the smallest diameters of that wound,
when you hold the wound in your hand and then you measure it, There was a difference between those measurements and the
measurements given by a photograph showing a wound that, because the elasticity of the tissue has collapsed with approximated
edges.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 244
Dr. PETTY. All right. Second, did you ever see a piece of bone which was picked up apparently at the site of the
assassination, retained for some period of time, and then submitted to the FBI?
Dr. HUMES. No; the only extra piece of bone brought to us then - that was contained in the casket that brought the
President to us - was a piece of bone that was brought to us later on that evening; and the time as you imagine, I
wouldn't wish to guess, but I would have guessed it was midnight or 1 o'clock in the morning, Jay, something like
that.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 246
Dr. PETTY. I'm now looking at No. 2,
X-ray No. 2.
Is this the point of entrance that I'm pointing to?
Dr. HUMES. No.
Dr. PETTY. This is not?
Drs. HUMES and BOSWELL. No.
Dr. PETTY. Where is the point of entrance? That doesn't show?
Dr. HUMES. It doesn't show. Below the external occipital protuberance.
Dr. PETTY. It’s below it?
Dr. HUMES. Right.
Dr. PETTY. Not above it?
Dr. BOSWELL. No. It's to the right and inferior to the external occipital protuberance.
Dr. PETTY. O.K. All right. Let me show you then color photograph No. 42, which then is the -
Dr. HUMES. Precisely coincides with that wound on the scalp.
K. KLEIN. Could you describe that point that you just made?
Dr. HUMES. That’s an elliptical wound of the scalp which we described in our protocol. I’m quite confident. And
it’s just to the right and below by a centimeter and maybe a centimeter to the right and maybe 2 centimeters below
the midpoint of the external occipital protuberance. And when the scalp was reflected from there, there was virtually
an identical wound in the occipital bone.
K. KLEIN. And what number photograph is that?
Dr. HUMES. Forty-two.
K. KLEIN. Forty-two.
Dr. PETTY. Then this is the entrance wound. The one down by the margin of the hair in the back?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, Sir.
Dr. PETTY. Then this ruler that is held in the photograph is simply to establish a scale and no more?
Dr. HUMES. Exactly.
Dr. PETTY. It is not intended to represent the ruler starting for something?
Dr. HUMES. No way, no way.
Dr. PETTY. What is this opposite-oh, it must be, I can’t read it-but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two
centimeters down.
Dr. BOSWELL. It’s the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.
Dr. PETTY. That’s the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp?
Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward
and that exposed almost the entire - I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to -
Dr. HUMES. To get to this entrance, right?
Dr. BOSWELL. But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here - there
was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and
the beveling on those was on the interior surface.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 247
Dr. COE. Dr. Humes, looking at photograph No. 46, I am curious to know whether this destruction you feel is a postmortem
artifact in removing the brain,or was part of this, was caused by the bullet you think perhaps? You have a junction between the
cerebellum and the -
Dr. HUMES. No; well, I think it was partly caused by the bullet.
Dr. COE. It was?
Dr. HUMES. It was great - it was a tearing type of disruption that basically had to go back to our description. The corpus
collosum was torn, was it not Jay? And the midbrain was virtually torn from the pons.
Dr. COE. Thank you all.
Dr. HUMES. Now don’t misinterpret me that the missile necessarily passed through there because it was a great -
Dr. COE. But it must have come fairly close in there.
Dr. HUMES. Could have, yeah.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 248
Dr. HUMES. Could you put that lateral view of the skull up again for Dr. Angel's benefit? Dr. Angel, there was a
massive defect of the skull from the right, and there was a portion of the right parental-temporal bone still attached
to the skull. Where is the picture? Here - at one margin - and later on in the evening -
Dr. PETTY. Let me identify this for everybody here. This is color photograph No. 44.
Dr. HUMES. There was what we interpreted to be an exit wound, in the location to which I point. The bone that
would correspond and complete that circle or ellipse, that might have been made by that exit wound, was missing at the
time we began the examination. Later on that evening, several hours into the evening, we were presented with another
fragment of bone, not the one that you are examining now, and that fragment had a corresponding semicircular defect
which almost completed this, what we interpreted to be an exit wound, but not quite. And we never had the privilege
of examining the fragments or photographs of this fragment that you now examined until this afternoon, and I was unaware
of its existence until about 3 weeks ago.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 251
Dr. PETTY. Joe Davis, you have questions, I think, about the inshoot area, don't you?
Dr. DAVIS. Well, in terms of the inshoot, my impression when I first looked at these films was that the inshoot
was higher, and I equated that with the lesion in photograph, I believe it was No. 26, color photograph - well, it's
43 - and I interpreted-which one is this?
Dr. BADEN. This is No. 42.
Dr. PETTY. We were wondering if that had been the inshoot.
Dr. HUMES. No, no, That's no wound.
Dr. DAVIS. Because in No. 42 I interpreted that as a wound, and the other, lower down in the neck, as just being
a contaminant, a piece of brain tissue.
Dr. HUMES. No, that was a wound, and the wound on the skull precisely coincided with it.
Dr. DAVIS. Now it was a tunnel -
Dr. HUMES. Yeah, tunnel for a way.
Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah, it's longer than it is wide, and tunneled along and actually under here, and then at the
actual bone defect was above the -
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 253
Dr. PETTY. We also had a question about photograph number - is this 10 or is this 12?
Dr. BADEN Twelve.
Dr. PETTY. This is the wound, right upper thoracic wall posterior. Is this small fragment of dark staining
material simply blood?
Dr. BOSWELL. Blood, uh-huh.
Dr. PETTY. It's the one that's perhaps 4 or 5 centimeters below and to the left of the wound itself?
Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah. There was no damage there at all.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 254
Dr. PETTY. Can I go back to another interpretation which is very important to this committee? I don't really mean
to belabor the point, but we need to be certain, as certain as we call be - and I'm showing you now photograph No. 15,
and here, to put it in the record, is the posterior hairline or margin of the hair of the late President, and there,
near the midline, and just a centimeter or two above the hairline, is an area that you refer to as the inshoot wound.
Dr. HUMES. Yes, Sir.
Dr. PETTY. Also, on this same photograph is a ruler, and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and just
to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this has been enlarged and is shown to you in an
enlargement, I guess No. 16, which shows you, right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on the ruler, this defect, or what
appears to be a defect. I don't see the connection with the lacerated margin of the scalp anywhere.
Dr. BADEN. And No. 15 shows an enlargement of the lower area that's suggestive of an inshoot to you.
Dr. PETTY. And what we're trying to do is to satisfy ourselves that the bullet actually came in near the margin of
the hair and not near the tip of the ruler as is shown in photograph No. 16.
Dr. HUMES. This is an enlargement from that other photograph, right?
Dr. HUMES. Dr. Boswell offered the interpretation that it might be an extension of a scalp wound. I don't share
his opinion about that. I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to
this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don't know what that is. It could
be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is. but it certainly was not any wound of entrance.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 254
Dr. DAVIS. . . . I think perhaps what we can consider is the problem of the tangential striking bullet which enters
the head, tunnels - and that's already been testified to and it seems reasonable - strikes the bone tangentially,
fragments, and then one part of a fragment can skip out through the scalp again, which may explain this wound we see
here in enlargement No. 16. Now the evidence for that on X-ray would be a trial of radiopaque spots which with a
magnifying lens, we can see in X-ray film No. 2 extending in an upward direction from the region of the external
occipital protuberance with the upper portion of this in an area where there's a large defect in the posterior
parietal bone. Now, there is radiopaque material, some of which appears to be even exterior, at least in this view,
with continuation of radiopaque fragments in the vertex part of the interior of the head, and also continues straight
ahead, and I think there's some more down here in the mid-posterior area. So I think all of us who have done a fair
number of investigations like this are well aware that a bullet can split into fragments and one fragment can he
deflected outward, another fragment can be deflected inward and slightly upward, and even a third fragment can go
straight. There's all sorts of things can happen with bullets when they strike in this manner. I think I can see
radiopaque trails going up which could reconcile the testimony and opinion of Dr. Humes that this material, this
brain material, represents the loss of brain from the entrance site; and also it reconciles with his statement and
also with Dr. Boswell's statement that there was tunneling . . .
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 255
Dr. PETTY. May I make a comment on what you just said, Dr. Davis. The problem, as I see it, is that this may be in
fact a tunneling situation, with the bullet scooting along the skull here or somewhere, and not entering the skull down
below. Is that what you're saying now?
Dr. DAVIS. What I'm saying-what I'm inferring: in the absence of photographs and specific measurements, we could
only conjecture as to how long the tunneling is, but I would envision this as a tunneling first and then entry into
the skull.
Dr. LOQUVAM. Gentlemen, may I say something?
Dr. DAVIS. Yes.
Dr. LOQUVAM. I don't think this discussion belongs in this record.
Dr. PETTY. All right.
Dr. HUMES. I agree.
Dr. LOQUVAM. We have no business recording this. This is for us to decide between ourselves; I don't think this
belongs on this record.
Dr. PETTY. Well, we have to say something about our feeling as to why we're so interested in that one particular
area.
Dr. HUMES. Could I make a comment that I think would be helpful to you, and you can throw out anything I say or
whatever? But I feel obligated to make a certain interjection at this point, having heard this theory which I hadn't
heard from the committee because I didn't pay that much attention quite frankly. Our attention was obviously directed
to what we understood and thought to be clearly a wound of entrance. If such a fragment were to have detached itself
from the main mass of the missile, it would have to be a relatively small fragment because the size of the defect in
the skull which approximated this point was almost identical with the size of the defect in the skin. Do you follow
that line of reasoning?
Dr. PETTY. Yes, that makes sense. I mean, I've seen the same thing.
Dr. DAVIS. I've seen the same thing-bothers me a bit-part of that casing comes off.
Dr. COE. The reason we are so interested in this, Dr. Humes, is because other pathologists have interpreted the -
Dr. LOQUVAM. I don't think this belongs in the damn record.
Dr. HUMES. Well, it probably doesn't.
Dr. LOQUVAM. You guys are nuts. You guys are nuts writing this stuff. It doesn't belong in that damn record.
Dr. BADEN. I think the only purpose of its being in the record is to explain to Dr. Humes what -
Dr. LOQUVAM. Why not turn off the record and explain to him and then go back and talk again.
Dr. BADEN. Well, our problem is not to get our opinions but to get his opinions.
Dr. LOQUVAM. All right then, keep our opinions off. Here's Charles and Joe talking like mad in the damn record,
and it doesn't belong in it. Sorry.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 256
Dr. HUMES. Let me have the written notes to be sure that it’s not in the transcription.
Dr. BADEN. Here’s the written notes.
Dr. BOSWELL. May I have these, what we’re working with, OK? This is on
page 4 -
Dr. HUMES. These are medical wounds -
Dr. PETTY. Comes after missile wounds, considerable amount of missile wounds, then you get it.
Dr. BOSWELL. Situated in the posteris scalp approximately 2 centimeters laterally to the right, is that What it says?
Dr. PETTY. That’s right.
Dr. HUMES. Laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound which I
describe for your identification. You may wish to go back and look and add some corrections and whatever to this note.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 259
Dr. PETTY. Well, we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain, and if this
wound were way low, we would wonder at the intact nature, not, only on the cerebellum, but also on the posterior
aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact, as well as the
occipital lobes, and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was, and this is
why we found ourselves in a quandary, and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today.
Dr. HUMES. The photographs unfortunately are not three-dimensional, and that’s part of the difficulty, I think.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 259
Dr. PETTY. Dr. Boswell, you and I also were talking during the period when the machine was not actively recording, and you
said something that interested me tremendously. May I hear from
page 4
of the autopsy report. "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 centimeters laterally to the right and slightly above
the external-occipital protuberance, is a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 millimeters, and I believe you said that the 15
millimeter dimension represented, as you described it, tunneling of the bullet, and that’s what you mean by tunneling?
Dr. BOSWELL. Yes.
Dr. BADEN. Now, continuing with that description that Dr. Humes wrote down, this handwritten report that you described, that
particular measurement Dr. Petty referred to, is not indicated on the
face sheet,
whereas the wound in the shoulder is. Referring to the measurement of 2.5 centimeters laterally to the right and slightly above
the external occipital protuberance was that specific measurement present on your other notes that you utilized?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. BADEN. So that you did make that directly from notes taken at the time of the autopsy and then transcribed them?
Dr. HUMES. Right.
Dr. BADEN. Dr. Boswell, I think you may have covered this once before relative to the diagram that you made. The notation of
the diagram on the front sheet shows an arrow going toward the left by the perforation near the external ocipital protuberance.
What does the arrow to the left mean?
Dr. BOSWELL. I think it was only meant to indicate "upward," not laterality at all.
Dr. BADEN. Not that it went to the left?
Dr. BOSWELL. Yes, right.
Dr. BADEN. Thank you.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 260
K. KLEIN. And that’s No. 45.
Dr. PETTY. Now, could you two possibly, thinking back 16 years, I know how difficult it is, but is there any way that you
could show us where the entrance was in that wound?
Dr. BOSWELL. I don’t believe it’s depicted in that picture.
Dr. HUMES. How about here, Jay?
Dr. BOSWELL. Well, I don’t believe so, because, as I recall, the bone was intact at that point. There was a shelf and
then a little hole, came up on the side and then one of the smaller of the two fragments in that X-ray, when that arrived, we were
able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound.
Dr. HUMES. I don’t remember that in that detail and I suspect - you see the background, there seems to be blue, with a
blue towel placed beneath the head of the President, and I think that may be the wound right there.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 262
Dr. BADEN. Now, for example, not exploring the wound from the back to the neck, that was not done. I mean, cutting it open
completely, that wasn’t done Specifically. Was that because somebody said don’t do it?
Dr. HUMES. Now wait a minute, that wound was excised.
Dr. BADEN. The back wound?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, Sir. The back of the neck, and there are microscopic slides of that wound.
Dr. BADEN. I see. The skin was taken out. And then was it -
Dr. HUMES. It was probed.
Dr. BADEN. Was it opened up?
Dr. HUMES. It was not laid open.
Dr. BADEN. Now, that was your decision as opposed to somebody else’s decision?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, it was mine.
Source: FPP interview of Doctors Humes and Boswell on September 16, 1977 -
7HSCA, 262
K. KLEIN. Could we perhaps take 5 minutes and change the tape and the doctor’s can look at their descriptions?
Dr. BADEN. Starting the record again at this point with a new tape, Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell were about to refer
to the microscopic findings that they noted.
Dr. HUMES. Yes. We were asked specifically about the skin wounds and was there any foreign particulate material in
either of the skin wounds and we refreshed our minds by looking at the brief microscopic report we made, described
in that sections of both the occipital and upper right thoracic wounds that were examined. They were essentially
similar, and the only foreign material described were several bone fragments at the margins of the wound and the scalp,
so we did not describe foreign particulate material, and I therefore presume it was not present.
Source: Statement of Robert L. Knudsen on August 11, 1978 -
Page 32
Mr. Purdy. Have you seen photographs of any other dead bodies that may have probes in them?
Mr . Knudsen. Yes, I have. I am certain on the Kennedy there were the probes showing the point of entry and exit.
Mr. Purdy. How many probes were there that you saw in a given picture? What is the most probes that you saw in a given
picture at one time?
Mr. Knudsen. I know there were two.
Mr. Purdy. Two metal probes that were through wounds when you saw them?
Mr. Knudsen, Yes.
Source: Statement of Robert L. Knudsen on August 11, 1978 -
Page 33
Mr. Purdy. . . . Now, before the break we were talking about the number of
probes, and you had said the most you saw in any one picture was two. I believe that is what you stated, is that correct?
Mr. Knudsen. I said the minimum was two.
Mr . Purdy. What was the most?
Mr. Knudsen. Over this period of time, I am not certain. It seems to me that there were three in one picture, but this I will not state for sure.
Source: Statement of Robert L. Knudsen on August 11, 1978 -
Page 33
Mr. Purdy. Of the probes that you recall, where did they enter and where did they exit?
Mr. Knudsen. One was right near the neck and out the back.
Mr. Purdy. The front of the neck and out the back of the neck?
Mr. Knudsen. The point of entry-exit.
Mr. Purdy. The metal probe extended from the front of the neck to the back of the neck?
Mr. Knudsen. Right. One was through the chest cavity.
Mr. Purdy. Did it go all the way through?
Mr. Knudsen. Yes. It seems to me that the entry point was a little bit lower in the back than -- well, the point in the back
was a little bit lower than the point in the front. Put it that way. So the probe was going diagonally from top to bottom, front
to back.
Source: Statement of Robert L. Knudsen on August 11, 1978 -
Page 34
Mr. Purdy. Approximately, regarding both probes, how high -- you mentioned the one was from-the front of the neck, the probe
extended between points on the front of the neck and the back of the neck. How high on the back of the neck, and how high or low
from the front of the neck would you say for that probe?
Mr. Knudsen. As I said, not studying them for technical purposes, it seemed to me that the point on the front was about
this point, somewhere in this area here (Indicating).
Mr. Purdy. Could you articulate?
Mr. Knudsen. What bone is this?
Mr. Purdy. You are pointing to a point right around the top --
Mr. Knudsen. Right about where the neck-tie is. That would be somewhere in that vicinity.
Mr. Purdy. Approximately how much lower than that would you say the other probe, which went through the chest cavity?
Mr. Knudsen. I would put it six, seven inches.
Mr. Purdy. Was it opened or closed in the photograph?
Mr. Knudsen. It was a side view. I just glanced at it to make sure.
Mr. Purdy. From the side view, you saw both probes?
Mr. Knudsen. Right.
Mr. Purdy. Where would you place the points of the probes in the back? You say one was in the neck, one was in the back.
Approximately how high up, or how low?
Mr. Knudsen. I would put in the back -- it would seem to me it is probably around ten inches. There, again, I do not
recall the length of time. I cannot say.
Mr. Purdy. You were kind of pointing to the middle of your back, about midway down, you would say?
Mr. Knudsen. Midway between the neck and the waist.
Mr. Purdy. Where was the other probe?
Mr. Knudsen. This one --
Mr. Purdy. You just indicated where the probe came out, on the lower --
Mr. Knudsen Somewhere around the middle of the back. It seemed to me it was right around midchest.
Mr. Purdy. The probe that you said you could see coming out of the neck, the front of the neck, where was it out of the
back of the neck? How high up would you say that one was.
Mr. Knudsen. About the base of the neck.
[sic] Was the body lying flat, or sitting up or lying on its front when you saw the probes through it?
Mr. Knudsen. It would have to be erected to put the probes through, because on the back there was no way.
Mr. Purdy. Could you make out the faces of the people who were holding him or the faces of the people in the background?
Mr. Knudsen. To my knowledge, there were no faces.
Mr. Purdy. Could you see their hands?
Mr. Knudsen. There again, I did not study them.
Source: Statement of Robert L. Knudsen on August 11, 1978 -
Page 52
Mr. Purdy. If you should recall anything else, whether it is new things or elaboration or your opinions on anything change
or someone should, someone’s name should come to mind who might also be able to provide information, I hope you will feel free
to contact us here.
Mr. Knudsen. You have talked to Jim Fox?
Mr. Purdy. Yes.
Mr. Knudsen. And he did not recall any black and white negative of that nature?
Mr. Purdy. I am not permitted to give out the substance of the investigation, but I think you can glean certain things from
the nature of my questions.
Mr. Knudsen. Jim is the one who apparently printed the black and white. I know the black and white did not go into the
Photo Center for printing, so I would assume that Jim did it. Why this sticks in my mind, that there was one with these two
probes through the body that nobody else recalls, it puts a question in my mind, and yet -- but I could not imagine where I
could get the idea from, if I had not seen it. And yet it is starting to bother me now that there is nothing in the autopsy
about it. Certainly that would be in the autopsy, if it were true. At this point, I wish I had studied the negatives rather
than glance at them. At this point, I am confused why it sticks in my mind so strongly that there was this photograph, yet nobody
else recalls it, and it is apparently not in any report. If it is not in any report -- I cannot conceive why it would not be in
the report. If it were there -- it is really bothering me as to why it does stick in my mind so much.
Testimony of Thomas Evan Robinson on January 12, 1977 -
Page 1
Purdy: How big was that opening? Was it an official opening?
Robinson: Well, there, of course, was an opening from the bullets, but then they had enlarged that. The brain had been removed,
and you could see it.
Purdy: Could you tell how large the opening had been caused by the bullets.
Robinson: Not really, well, I guess I can because a good bit of the bone had been blown away. There was nothing there to
piece together, so I would say probably about (the size of) a small orange.
Purdy: Could you give us an estimate of inches and the nature of the shape?
Robinson: Three.
Purdy: And the shape?
Robinson: Circular.
Purdy: Was it fairly smooth or fairly ragged?
Robinson: Ragged.
Puredy: Approximately where was this wound located?
Robinson: Directly behind the back of his head.
Purdy: Approximately between the ears or higher up?
Robinson: No, I would say pretty much between them.
Testimony of Thomas Evan Robinson on January 12, 1977 -
Page 2
Purdy: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may have been artificially caused, that is, caused by
something other than the autopsy?
Robinson: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the
hair. It didn’t have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused
it.
Purdy: In other words, there was a little wound.
Robinson: Yes.
Purdy: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on.
Robinson: I believe it was on the right side.
Purdy: On his right side?
Robinson: That’s an anatomical right, yes.
Purdy: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line?
Robinson: Yes.
Purdy: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?
Robinson: Somewhere around the temples.
Purdy: Approximately what size.
Robinson: Very small, a quarter of an inch.
Testimony of Thomas Evan Robinson on January 12, 1977 -
Page 3
Purdy: Were there any other wounds on the head other than the little one in the right temple area, and the big one in
the back?
Robinson: That’s all.
Purdy: Did you have to shave the head so you could tell if there were other wounds?
Robinson: No. In fact, we wanted the hair there to hide as much as possible. Putting the head into the pillow of the casket
would have hidden everything.
Purdy: Do you think it was possible that there was some other wound under the hair? Did you look for other wounds.
Robinson: Oh, yes we would have found that.
Testimony of Thomas Evan Robinson on January 12, 1977 -
Page 6
Purdy: Was there any other mark, hole or wound in body?
Robinson: I saw the body turned over, it was turned over and examined on its side, rolled from each side. I saw nothing down
below where the doctors had been working on the head.
Purdy: Did you see anything between the head wounds and the . . . on the back that could have been a wound?
Robinson: No.
Testimony of Thomas Evan Robinson on January 12, 1977 -
Page 7
Purdy: Specifically, when you say the body, you saw the back, I want to know specifically if either you know there was not a
wound from the head down to the waist anywhere on the back, neck or whatever, or that the autopsy work may have either obliterated
it or made it not evident to you that there was such a wound?
Robinson: It might have done that, there was . . . but the back itself, there was no wound there, no.
Purdy: Were there any wounds in the neck, the back?
Robinson: Now this is where I’m hazy. I can remember the probe. The probe of all this whole area. It was about an 18
piece of metal that we used.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 19
Q While you’re looking at
Exhibit No. 1, were you the person who filled in the measurements that are provided on the first page?
A Most of this writing is mine.
Q You’re referring to the bottom half of the page?
A The diagrams and the labeling of that. Some of these measurements are, but I see some writing here that’s not mine.
So I presume that one of the autopsy assistants must have written some of the numbers.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 26
Q Were the organs of the neck dissected?
A Yes.
Q Did you hear anyone at any point during the autopsy request to examine the clothing that President Kennedy was wearing at
the time he was shot?
A We all discussed the clothing. It was made -- I guess we asked where the clothing was. I certainly remember Pierre asking
about the clothing. But we didn’t know where the -- we knew that he had been in the hospital. He had arrived in our hospital
in sheets, so we assumed that either the clothing was down there or was in transit, and we were not concerned about it at that
point. But the clothing became available to us; it may have been several days or weeks later.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 34
Q Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself?
A Oh, yes.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 43
Q During your answer you were pointing to parts of your head, which, of course, wouldn’t be reflected on the record. Could you just describe
in a general way -- and we'll be more specific with this later, but when you say that it entered here, you were pointing to --
A The back right side of his skull.
Q Near the hairline, would that be fair, or -
A No. It’s up above that. Well, whose hairline?
Q President Kennedy’s.
A He had hair cut about like mine, and it was right up here: above his ear and toward the midline. And then the top of his head was blown off. A 14-centimeter segment of it was blown off. And it was on the right side of his brain that was missing.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 56
Q Could you tell me what that mark signifies?
A Well, at this late date, I have to assume. I remember that there is a-- in the scalp there was a tunneling of
the wound through the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and I think that is the direction that the tunnel went.
Q Does that mean that there was a tunnel between the entrance point and the point where the bullet entered into
the skull?
A Yes.
Q About what was the distance of the tunnel from the entrance point in the scalp to where the bullet entered the
skull?
A I would assume that that’s 15 by 6 millimeters, 6 millimeters across, and that the tunnel itself was a
centimeter-and-a-half.
Q So the tunnel would be definitely shorter than an inch, less than an inch?
A Less than an inch. About three-quarters.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 60
Q Dr. Boswell, could you look at the top of
page 4
of Exhibit 3 that I have just handed to you where it says, "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 centimeters laterally
to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 millimeters." Is that
an accurate description of where you understood the entrance wound to be at the time of the autopsy, 2.5 centimeters to the right
and slightly above the external occipital protuberance?
A Yes.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 61
Q Is that your signature that appears on
page 6
of Exhibit No. 3?
A Yes.
Did you at any point ever change your mind about the location of the entrance wound in the skull?
A No.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 62
Q On the top of
page 4,
the portion that I showed you just a minute ago, it refers to a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 millimeters. What is the portion
that is lacerated that is being referred to there? Do you know?
A I’m sure that is the tunnel-like wound of entrance on the scalp.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 73
Q I’d like to show you, continuing with this thing, Exhibit No. 6, which appears to be death certificate for President
Kennedy signed by Admiral Burkley. The first question is: Have you ever seen this document before?
A No.
Q I’d like you to note on the
second page
where it says that- - just read the first sentence to yourself, and I’ll read it for the record. It says that "President
Kennedy was struck in the head by an assassin’s bullet, and a second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level
of the third thoracic vertebra." Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Is that correct?
A No.
Q What vertebra was the wound closest to, if you know? Again, we’re talking about the wound other than the skull.
A It would not be a thoracic vertebra. It would have to be a cervical vertebra.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 80
Q Let’s go back, if we could, to the location of the entrance wound in the skull. Could you tell me whether the entrance
wound that you identified in the skull was something that appeared like a puncture in a bone with the remainder of the bone
surrounding the hole? Or did the hole break off such that you would need other pieces of bone to be brought into place to show the
entire periphery of the wound? I’m not sure that question made --
A Yes, I understand it, and I think -- I think maybe photographs that we have explain it. I believe that there was an area of
bone intact down here that we could attach this to.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 100
Q What did you mean by gotten yourself into Dutch with the Secret Service?
A Well, that they were reporting things and some of the things that they told people became public and they just hadn’t
gotten the entire information.
Q So how was it misreported or --
A There was some question you asked me earlier that they had -- oh, it was about the probing of the wound, and they said
that we probed and couldn’t find it and thought that the bullet must have been knocked out while -- during the resuscitation.
That was the sort of thing that was happening while they were on the phone.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 105
Q During the course of the autopsy, did you have an opportunity to examine the cerebellum?
A Yes.
Q And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you noticed during the time of the autopsy?
A No.
Q So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum were intact?
A Yes.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 111
Q Do you know whether he spoke to anyone about the contents of the first draft of the autopsy, such as Captain Stover?
A He’s talked to an awful lot of people about that.
Q I don’t mean after the fact, but I mean --
A I mean investigating committees and all sorts of people, because he burned -- I don’t know why that wasn’t
burned, but he --
A Yeah. He -- anything with blood on it -- and that obviously had blood on it. It’s watermarked. He was working on a
card table in front of his fireplace, and he was throwing drafts and redrafts and so forth into the fireplace. And he’s
described that to many people.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 127
Q Were there any X-rays taken with the probe inside the body that you recall?
A No.
Q How far in did the probe go?
A Very short distance. Three inches, about.
Q Were there any photographs taken with the probe inserted?
A I doubt it.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 150
Q I’d like you to notice in that photograph and, again, we’re still talking about the fourth view - - that there
is a little white marking -- I don’t know what it is -- that is very near the hairline.
A Here?
Q Yes. Do you see that either matter of tissue or something --
A I have seen that and worried and wondered about it for all these many years. Some people -- many people have alleged that to
be the wound. I don’t think it is.
Q In relationship to that white marking, whatever it is, could you say or describe approximately where the entrance wound
was, where the entrance wound would be in relationship to that?
A Well, I think that the entrance wound is up in here someplace. I’m talking like a couple of centimeters above the
hairline and 4 centimeters to the left of the ear. But I can’t argue with that. I don’t know what that is. I’ve
seen this in other photographs. In some areas, it’s a little translucent bubble. I think that the wound of entrance is up
in here.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 153
Q Okay. Now, if we could go to the other wounds there, could you identify where the entrance wound was in the body of
President Kennedy, outside of the scalp now? Does that wound that you’re pointing to correspond to the larger wound that is
to the right of the ruler in the photograph? Again, assuming President Kennedy were standing erect.
A Yes.
Q So it’s the wound that comes closer to being towards the tip of the ruler towards the neck?
A No, this is blood clot down here. This is not wound.
Q You’re referring to a second marking that is somewhat below --
A Right.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 155
Q Can you identify an abrasion collar on the wound depicted in the fourth view?
A I'm sorry. Now repeat that?
Q Can you identify an abrasion collar on the wound in the photographs you’re looking at now, View 4?
A Are you talking about the one in the posterior?
Q Yes.
A Well, this looks like it’s coagulated around here, and that, I guess, is what you would call an abrasion
collar.
Q Did you notice an abrasion collar on that posterior wound during the course of the autopsy?
A Oh, yes.
Q So is the question now whether it can be identified by the photograph?
A This is a good wound of entrance. It’s indented, almost round. I think that the photograph is very good
for identifying that as a wound of entrance.
Q Okay. But in terms of identifying an abrasion collar, does it -
A Oh, I think that’s very good. I can’t imagine a true forensic pathologist disagreeing with that.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 161
Q Okay. Now, as you’re looking at the photograph of President Kennedy, if you’re looking So it as if President
Kennedy were standing erect -- of course, he’s lying on his side, but we’ll look at it from the perspective of the
ruler being vertical, pointing upwards, and the head pointing upwards. Could you identify where on the photograph the wound of
entrance was located, please -- the wound of entrance in the skull?
A This is the one that I have -- photograph that I have had a dilemma about for so many years. This is the white spot that
you showed me in the other photograph.
Q Yes, down near the hairline.
A Yeah. And that is not where I thought that the wound of entrance was.
This must be the wound of entrance.
Q You’re pointing down to the white marking near the hairline?
A Yeah. I’m trying to find anything up in here, and obviously the photographer was taking this in such a manner to
show that. I can’t find anything else. This is in disagreement with this, obviously.
Q When you say it’s in disagreement, you’re referring to Exhibit
MI 13
--
A Yes.
Q - - the Rydberg drawing?
A Right. Because this is more on the midline and lower.
Q I’d like to draw your attention to in the color photograph the round, reddish marking just to the right of the ruler,
very near the top of the ruler.
A Yes.
Q Could that round or ovular-shaped marking be the entrance wound?
A No.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 163
Q If I understood you correctly, were you saying that that marking that we’ve been pointing to that is near the top of the ruler and somewhat to the right might be the beginning or at least part of the laceration in the scalp?
A Yes. That’s occurring from beneath with the explosion of the bullet.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 165
Q In looking at that photograph, do you have any reason to re-evaluate the location of the wound of entrance in the skull
from being 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the right occipital protuberance?
A Well, these figures are more important to me than this, because I -- this I’m not sure of. These I am sure of.
Q When you say "these figures," you’re referring to the autopsy face sheet,
Exhibit l?
A The measurements on the face sheet.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 195
Q In your answer to a previous question, you made reference to the exit wound in the skull. Did you ever see any evidence of
any beveling in the skull at the point where you determined there was an exit wound?
A At the time of autopsy we didn’t. But then when we reviewed the photographs, some of that beveling in the skull is
equivocal, and obviously we weren’t able to tell.
Q So would it be fair, then, to say that you determined during the course of the autopsy where the beveling was at the
entrance wound, but you could not determine any beveling at the exit wound?
A That’s true.
Source: Deposition of Doctor J. Thornton Boswell on February 26, 1996 -
Page 200
Q Do you see what appear to be radio-opaque trail, metal dust?
A Yes.
Q Going across the very top, I'd say the sixth, the top eighth of the skull, left to right, without indicating anything. Do
you know what that is, what those are?
A Those are metallic fragments that have really dispersed. At some point, maybe when it entered, those perforated and went up,
or maybe when it exited, those fragmented and fell there.
Q Do the fragments tell you anything about the direction or the course of the bullet through President Kennedy's brain or
skull?
A Well, at first glance, that looks like a straight line. But then you've got fragments elsewhere in there, and I -- that
wouldn’t be inconsistent with a track, but I think that those have fragmented off at some point where the bullet has hit
something really hard and scattered. I don't think traveling through the soft tissue of the brain that tiny fragments are going
to just spill off like that.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 36
Q: When was it that you saw what you’ve identified as "an apparatus" in the skull?
A: This was in the first series of films. The only reason why this clicked is, because I remember I was told by the duty
officer that the corpse was taken to Walter Reed Hospital first - compound - Walter Reed compound first, and then brought to
Bethesda.
Q: Could you describe the apparatus that was in the skull?
A: It was non-human. It had - I’m not sure if it was metallic or plastic. There was so much going on at that time. I
just happened to see it.
It registered. And that was it.
Q: Did anyone besides the duty officer make any reference Walter Reed?
A: Yes, that one gentleman who was in the picture with Reed and myself, that was at the end there.
Q: On the far - the one on the far left side?
A: Far left; right. He was the duty officer. No, not there. The other picture.
Q: Yeah. In addition to the duty officer, was there anyone else?
A: The chief on duty that night. There was two.
Q: Okay.
A: There was a duty officer and a duty chief.
Q: Okay. And they both said that the body had been to Walter Reed?
A: Right.Walter Reed compound. They didn’t say "hospital". They said "compound".
Q: Did you hear anyone else make any statements about Walter Reed, other than the duty officer and the duty chief?
A: That’s the only two.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 38
A: Did you ever have occasion to make X-rays of any bone fragments from the head of President Kennedy?
A: That was the next day, in a private room up on the fourth floor, with a portable X-ray unit.
And at - Do you want me to reiterate a little bit?
Q: Okay.
A: I was told to place bone fragments on these - or not bone fragments - metal fragments that were given to me on these portions of the skull, and take different exposures.
Q: Okay. We’ll get back to that later.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 40
Q: In addition to Floyd Riebe’s taking photographs, did you see anyone else take photographs?
A: There was a chief there that night that was taking movies. Remember how I had stated that he was the gentleman that had
committed suicide, supposedly, and had the deformed hand - where they found the gun in that deformed hand? He was there that
night, taking movies.
Q: Did you actually see him taking movies?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: What kind of movie camera was he using?
A: I would imagine. a simple eight millimeter.
Was he wearing a uniform?
A: Yes, he was.
Q: And what was his rank?
A: Chief.
Q: Did you hear any discussion during the time of the autopsy about movies being taken?
A: Well, there was quite a few upset people from the gallery that were - didn’t like the idea. But the chief just kept
right on going. He said, "I’m doing my job."
Q: In addition to the chief who was - Do you remember the chief’s name?
A: No, I don’t.
Q: Does the name Pitzer mean anything to you?
A: Yes. Now, it rings a bell, but I’m not quite sure But that name "Pitzer" does ring a bell.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 69
A: So, I had to build the head up. But when I built the head up - The had was so unstable due to the -the fractures. The
fractures were extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hard-boiled egg, and just rolled it in her hand. And that’s
exactly what the had was like.
Q: So, when you say that it’s like that, you mean the pieces of the shell are analogous to the pieces of the skull; is
that right?
A: Right. And every time we picked the head, you could feel it. This part of the head would come out; this part of the head
would be in. And it was just - The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 80
Q: Okay. Could you describe the appearance of President Kennedy when the casket was first opened in the morgue?
A: What surprised me, he had a plastic bag around his head with sheets wrapped around it. And you could see the blood on the
sheets. But after - That’s all I saw.
And after we got him on the table, I was asked to leave. I didn’t see anything else.
Q: When you say -
A: He was still dressed in a suit.
Q: He was dressed in a suit?
A: That’s the way I saw it.
Q: When you say a plastic bag around his head, does that mean around the head, but not any other part of the body?
A: To the best of my recollection that’s all I remember. Just around his head.
Q: What -Was it colored plastic, or clear plastic?
A: I’d have to surmise. Am not sure. I just remember it was a plastic covering. Well. I guess, it had to be clear,
because I saw the sheets. The sheets were bloody.
Q: Okay. Just to make sum that I’m understanding. The body then is taken out and put on the table.
A: Right.
Q: At that point, you were you asked to leave.
A: Leave.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 89
Q: Was there any brain inside the cranium at the time that you took the first series of X-rays?
A: To the best of my recollection, no.
Q: Were you present at any time while brain tissue was being removed?
A: No, I wasn’t.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 89
Q: Did you ever see a wound on the front of President Kennedy’s throat or the anterior of the of the throat?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Could you describe the wound that you observed?
A: A typical bullet hole.
Q: How large was it?
A: I would estimate. a little bit bigger than my little finger in dimension, across circumference - or diameter.
Q: Okay. So, there was not a long incision or cut on the throat that you observed; is that correct?
A: Not at that time, I didn’t.
Q: And the first time that you saw this wound on the throat was when? At the time you were taking the X-rays or before?
A: This was at the time I was taking the x-rays.
Q: Did you ever see a wound on the back of President Kennedy?
A: That’s when I picked him up, and the bullet dropped out of there. There was a small wound.
Q: Where was that wound located?
A: I would have to estimate in mid-thoracic, somewhere around there - or upper thoracic.
Q: And what kind of wound did that appear to be to you?
A: Another small bullet hole.
Q: And other than the Y incision, did you observe any other wounds on President Kennedy’s body, other than those
you’ve described?
A: Let’s see. I’m trying to think now. Well, there was a gaping hole in the right parietal region. The right
eyeball was protruding.
And, truthfully, if you know anything about basic physics - when you have a force, you have an equal and opposite force in
the other direction. So, that kind of -
At that time, it didn’t come to my recollection what it was. But later on, I realized that had to be an entrance wound
of some sort there. Because if you read in that - the transcription that I brought in, that that’s brought out.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 92
BY MR. GUNN: Q: Mr. Custer. I’d like to show you three
documents that we’ve marked Exhibits Nos. 205, 206, and 207, that are schematic drawings of a skull.
And what I’d like to do is to ask you some questions about the wounds that you saw on the skulls. So, this will not be
a question about the x-rays -
A: Fine.
Q: - that you took, but just the wounds that you could observe with your own eyes of the skull. And what I’d like to
ask you to do - And you can choose any of the three diagrams that - any one or more of the three diagrams to draw where you saw
the injuries to - damage to the skull.
A: Okay. Basically, the lateral skull, which is marked
Exhibit 206, damage was in the parietal temporal region. So, that would have to involve all the way down through here - And
then you had a ragged piece of bone that come up like this. And then down through here. . . .
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 98
A: Right.
Q: Could you look at the drawing on
Exhibit No. 207, and draw on that exhibit where the skull was missing.
A: All right. Here you have that flap again.
Q: And you’re referring to the top right -
A: The supratemporal line. In and around that area. And this whole area - I mean, back through here - was gone.
Q: Okay. - And if you could make hash marks on that again.
A: But, again, this was all unstable.
Q: And you’re now referring to the occipital bone.
A: The occipital bone. And you had fractures, I mean, through here, through here. And near the sagittal suture, you had that
portion of the bone that protruded upward.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 114
Q: Earlier in your deposition, you referred to some heat damage on one of the X-rays. Do you see any heat damage on this x-ray?
A: It’s right here. You can see it. This is Dr. Ebersole got it too close to the heat lamp. I stated to him twice,
"Please do not put it too close." You can see where it started to -
Q: To wrinkle?
A: - curdle. literally. And here it started to burn. And isn’t it funny how where it starts to burn is the area that I
suggested was an entry wound.
Q: Now, are you certain that that heat damage took place on this X-ray on the night of November 22nd?
A: Yes, sir. I was there, and I saw him do it.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 126
A: Remember, also, I had stated how a portion of the skull had lifted up and pushed backwards?
Q: Yes.
A: Showing that there had to be a force of impact this way, in that -Well, look. Let me inject something else.
From the right side, you notice - you see the fragmentation, how it starts to get larger and larger and larger. You have
equal and opposite force. Everything being pushed forward. The brain as been pushed back, and it pops the skull out.
Q: So, it’s your opinion that the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head?
A: Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 133
Q: And you’re pointing towards the flecks?
A: Towards the black area. Towards the top of the skull. Here. That had - That’s the only way that can be, this
fragment. There’s no way an artifact will show up like that.
Q: Now, what is supporting those arti - supporting those metal fragments, if there is no brain in the cranium? Where are they
resting?
A: They have to be resting on the bone itself somewhere. That’s the only thing I can possibly think of, unless
there’s enough tissue there in that region to hold them.
That’s the only possible thing that I can think of. Because here you go again. There’ no brain here. It
wouldn’t be that dark.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 143
MR. GUNN: Okay. Could we go to No. 4?
THE WITNESS: I know exactly what this is.
MR. GUNN: This is described in the 1966 inspection as X-ray of three fragments of bone with larger fragment containing
metallic fragments.
BY MR. GUNN: Q: Mr. Custer, have you previously seen X-ray No.4?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: When did you first see those X-rays?
A: The next morning. I took them.
Q: And where did you take those X-rays?
A: In the main department, in a private room, with a portable X-ray unit.
Q: Was it the same X-ray unit that was used to take the autopsy -
A: Yes, sir. The same distance.
Q: And what was the purpose of taking these X-rays?
A: I was told by Dr. Ebersole that they were to be taken to make measurements, to make a bust of President Kennedy.
Q: What did you do when you took the X-rays? What were the procedures? How did you go about taking them?
A: All I did was place the bone fragments on the film, and I made different exposures at different distances.
Q: Did Mr. Ebersole - or Dr. Ebersole say anything to you about metal fragments?
A: He gave me three or four different metal fragments, varying in size. And he asked me to tape them to the bones.
Q: Did you tape metal fragments to the bones?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was the purpose that you understood taping metal fragments to the bones to be?
A: That was a good question, because I didn’t understand it at the time, either.
Q: Is there any question in your mind whether you, in fact, taped metal fragments to the bones?
A: Absolutely no question at all in my mind.
Source: Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer on October 28, 1997 -
Page 169
Q: You have, during the course of this deposition, identified three X-rays that you are quite certain that you took, but
don’t appear in this collection. Are there any others that you can identify as not being included?
A: That’s the only three that come to my mind right now; the two tangential views, and the AP cervical spine.
Q: Okay.
A: Can I add something to that?
Q: sure.
A: In my own opinion, I do believe, basically, the reason why they are not here is because they showed massive amounts of bullet
fragments.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 56
Q At the beginning of the second paragraph, it makes reference to the President fell forward. Do you recall now where you
obtained that information? Again, the beginning of the first paragraph -- the first sentence of the second paragraph on
page 2?
A I presume from this Washington Post article. I’d have to look at it and see. I had no other source of information that
I can recall.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 70
Q Could you describe how the President’s head looked at the very first time that you saw it after it had been unwrapped?
A Well, the most obvious thing was a large defect in the right parietal area. The measurements are in the autopsy protocol,
and the hair was matted in that area and bloody and so forth. And there was a suggestion like a contusion in the right frontal area
over the right eyebrow. The skin was a little bit discolored in that area, but it wasn’t very remarkable. The most striking
thing was this large defect. His face was, for all intents and purposes, normal. Normal as anybody can be in death, I guess. It
was not significantly injured in any way.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 77
Q On the
face sheet
right next to the head, it appears as if the words "ragged slanting" are there. Do you see those words?
A Yeah.
Q Does that look correct to you, those words?
A No, I don’t think it was very ragged at all. It was oval, oblong, and I don’t recall particularly ragged. Maybe
the edges were a little bit serrated, but I don’t think I would have used the term "ragged."
Q Do you know what slanting means in that context?
A Well, I guess because it was oblong, it might have been interpreted as slanting; whereas, if it had entered at 90 degrees to
the surface, it wouldn’t have been quite as slanting. Do you know what I mean?
Q Yes.
A It would indicate to me that the wound - - the missile did not hit at a 90-degree angle with the surface.
Q So it would be an oblong wound?
A Exactly.
Q That’s the sense of what you - -
A Right. That’s how I would interpret slanting. I think these are J’s comments. I didn’t - - I
don’t think I’ve written anything on this piece of paper.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 89
Q Was scalp missing from that same - - from those same measurements?
A Not as much scalp. There was some scalp missing, but we were able to pretty much close the scalp, skin, when we finished
everything. so I can’t tell you how much was - - but it was not that much skin missing, no.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 90
Q When the embalming process was completed, approximately how much scalp was missing?
A Oh, I don’t know. Maybe three or four centimeters, something like that. Not much. We were able to - - you can undermine the skin, you know,
and we pretty much closed it.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 92
Q Without stretching the scalp, just, you know, basically how much scalp was actually missing at the time that the body
arrived at Bethesda?
A You know, I couldn’t-- it would be a rough guess. Maybe four or five centi - - three or four centimeters, something
like that. Probably, because it was all torn, you see, with serrated - - and there were - - it wasn’t like a punch that was
punched out. It was torn apart, you know, so I have a hard time estimating that.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 99
Q Do you have any recollection now about radio-opaque objects being in or appearing in the X-rays?
A Yes, in the skull. There were some little tiny fragments of radio-opaque material, which we thought to be bullet fragments,
traversing from - - well, I don’t know. It looked like it was going from posterior to anterior. Very fine, sort of
granular-looking material, went almost as far forward as the frontal bone, but not quite that far.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 109
Q Did you identify a hole that you thought to be either an entrance or exit wound in the back of the cranium?
A Definitely. Definitely. Entrance, there wasn’t any question in our mind about it.
Q Did the wound appear as something like a puncture in the bone, or was there a fragment of the bone that was missing and
that there was an indentation?
A No. It was directly beneath the scalp wound back there, directly beneath it. It was almost round, but a little bit more
ovoid, and the inner margins of it were shelved. If we put a BB through that glass over there on the side where it went in,
you’d see a little round hole, depending on the size of the missile. On the other side you’d see shelved out, and
that’s exactly what we had.
Q And the whole circumference of the entry wound was visible without any reconstruction of the skull?
A Oh, yeah, sure.
Q In which bone was the entrance wound?
A Occipital bone.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 134
Q My question will go to the issue of whether it was a draft of the report that was burned or whether it was - -
A I think it was - -
Q - - handwritten notes - -
A It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 141
Q You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Was that correct?
A I don’t know. I didn’t measure from which vertebra it was. It's sometimes hard to decide which vertebra, to
tell you the truth, by palpation. Maybe you can do it accurately because the first and second --did I say the third? Oh, he says
third thoracic. I think that’s much lower than it actually was. I think it’s lower than it actually -- you have seven
cervical vertebrae. I don’t know. I mean, he’s got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before, and I
don’t have an opinion about it.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 167
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high at approximately the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring to something at approximately the six-centimeter
mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 169
Q Did you ever identify an abrasion collar on the wound on the posterior thorax?
A I don’t remember, to be perfectly candid.
Q Was a section taken of the posterior thorax wound?
A I believe so.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 170
Q Okay. Let me try another question. Can you describe generally where there was any missing bone from the posterior portion,
to the best of your recollection?
A There basically wasn’t any. It was just a hole. Not a significant missing bone.
Q So a puncture hole --
A Puncture hole.
Q And no bone missing --
A No.
-- anywhere in the occipital --
A No, no. Unless maybe -- you know, these drawings are always strange. Unless the part of this wound extended that far back. I
don’t think it did, really. Most of it was parietal temporal.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 174
Q Did you take any action at Bethesda that increased the size of the tracheotomy?
A I don’t think so. I don’t believe so. We didn’t need to. It was wide open.
Q Is that how the wound appeared to you when you saw the body of President Kennedy?
A Yes, sir.
Q You don’t notice any difference in size?
A No. The thing is that when we first -- I think we noticed this when we first saw these pictures. There’s a
suggestion at the inferior margin of this wound that might be a portion of the actual missile exit, a little notch, what looks
like a notch there.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 180
Q What was your understanding of the correlation, if any, between a puncture wound in scalp and a puncture wound
in the bone?
A They’re directly over align -- directly aligned.
Q So there was not a penetration of the scalp with the bullet going along the cranium and then going in at
some --
A My impression was it went right through from the site of the skin wound, when you looked at the wound from the
inside and matched them up with the scalp wound.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 182
MR. GUNN: Steve, could we look at the other photographs from this same series just to see if there’s
anything more than can be shown? So 15, 16, 42, and 43. For the record, Dr. Humes now has all the photographs just
identified above available for his inspection.
THE WITNESS: In this particular one, which is No. 43, this object down near the hairline seems more obviously to
be an artifact of some kind. I don’t know what it is. I have no idea what it is. And this does seem to be the
wound.
BY MR. GUNN: Q When you say "this," you’re referring to the portion that is up near the --
A Near the top of the ruler, yeah.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 196
Q I’d like to show this Exhibit No. 14. Do you recall that document?
A I recall it, but I don’t recall what caused it to be produced. I do not recall what caused this to be produced.
Q Do you see who the people are who signed Exhibit 14?
A Yes.
Q Do you see that Dr. Finck is involved with that?
A Yes.
Q Does that help refresh your recollection at all as to the circumstances for signing that document or preparing that
document?
A No. Doesn’t help a bit.
A No. I don’t think so.
I don’t know who wrote this, and reading it, it doesn’t seem like I wrote it, just because of the phraseology
and some of the comments. I don’t know who wrote it.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 211
Q Was there a non-disrupted portion of the brain between the portion that was 4.5 centimeters below the vertex and
the portion that goes through the brain stem? Or was it all --
A I think there’s very little of the right cerebral hemisphere that was not in some way damaged by this.
Very little. Maybe the tip of the temporal lobe, possibly, was not particularly involved, but as you can see from the
photographs, most of the right cerebral was very seriously injured.
Source: Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes on February 13, 1996 -
Page 222
Q Are you reasonable certain that there was an X-ray that showed metallic fragments going from a small occipital
wound?
A All I know is I wrote it down. I didn’t write it down out of whole cloth. I wrote down what I saw.
Q Does that raise any question in your mind about the authenticity of the X-ray that you’re looking at now
in terms of being an X-ray of President Kennedy?
A Well, there’s aspects of it I don’t understand. I don’t understand this big void up --
maybe a radiologist could explain it. I don’t know what this big --
Q You’re referring to --
A -- non-opaque area that takes up half of the skull here, I don’t understand that.
Q Do you remember seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
A No, I don’t. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t there , but I don’t remember it.
Deposition of Edward Francis Reed, Jr. on October 21, 1997 -
Page 26
Q: So, it looked very much like President Kennedy?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Did you see any scars or wounds anywhere on his forehead or face?
A: Not on his forehead or his face.
Q: Did you see any wounds at all on his head?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Could you describe where those wounds were?
A: It was in the temporal parietal region, right side. I could - It was large enough that I could probably put four fingers
into it.
Q: Now -
A: Not my whole fist, but four fingers.
Q: And you’re putting your lingers up on your head right now?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And would it be fair to say that the part - portion of your head that you’re touching would be right above the ear?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Straight above your ear.
A: And anterior. Slightly anterior. Slightly forward. As we say in the medical field, anteriorly forward.
Q: Okay.
A: Up anterior. Right here.
Q: Did you have an opportunity at the beginning to see the back of President Kennedy’s head?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see any wounds on the back of his head?
A: No.
Q: Was the scalp intact, as far as you could observe, on the back of his head?
A: Yes.
Deposition of Edward Francis Reed, Jr. on October 21, 1997 -
Page 29
Q: Did you subsequently see additional wounds?
A: Later, when we lifted him up to put a X-ray plate under his thorax - under his back, I saw a small, gaping wound.
Approximately seven millimeters in circumference.
Q: Did you see any other wounds during the course of the autopsy?
A: None.
Deposition of Edward Francis Reed, Jr. on October 21, 1997 -
Page 34
Q: What did you do, in order to take the lateral X-lay?
A: First, I discussed it with Dr. Ebersole. And he said, "Take a lateral view of the skull."
I suggested at that time that WC take a small metallic fragment for magnification purposes, and put it - attach it to the
side of the head closest to the film.
This is just something that was a suggestion of mine, since Dr. Brown wasn’t there. And I was trying to make sure that
we had good radiographs and a good way of measuring different little fragments, if there were any.
I set - I did that. Put the - taped it to the back part of the mastoid on the left, and placed the cassette against his left
side of his head.
And at that time, we didn’t have cassette holders as they do now. We just taped it to the side of his head. I might
have placed a sandbag beside it, also.
Deposition of Edward Francis Reed, Jr. on October 21, 1997 -
Page 50
Q: A few minutes ago, you referred to a metallic fragment that you had put on President Kennedy’s skull. Could you
explain to me again the purpose for putting that metallic fragment there?
A: For magnification purposes.
Q: Would that mean, it was for the purpose of helping to ensure that the exposure was correct?
A: No. To make sure, if there was any measurements taken, that we had a ratio between the size of the fragments and the film
itself.
Deposition of Edward Francis Reed, Jr. on October 21, 1997 -
Page 61
Q: Later in the evening, did you ever hear about some bone fragments arriving at Bethesda?
A: No.
Q: Did you, yourself, take any X-rays of any skull fragments at Bethesda later that evening?
A: No, I did not.
Q: After you were asked to leave the morgue, which room did you go to - or where at Bethesda?
A: We went to the on-call room on the fourth floor of the main building in main radiology.
Q: And did you stay there for the rest of the evening?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: How far is the on-call room from the developing lab?
A: Approximately 50 feet. Fifty or 75 feet.
Q: Would you have known if someone had gone into the developing lab?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Did anyone go into the developing lab -
A: No.
Q: - later that evening?
A: No. Radiology was secured. And there was only four of us in the department at that time.
And all four of us were in the room together all night.
Q: Who were the other three?
A: Ron Sherwood, S-h-e-r-w-o-o-d. Last address Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Q: And Jerrol Custer was one, I assume.
A: Jerry Custer.
Q: And you were one.
A: Yes. And the fourth one, I can’t remember his name. He was a student in our program. I could look it up when I get
home. I can’t remember his name. . . .
Deposition of Edward Francis Reed, Jr. on October 21, 1997 -
Page 68
Q: Mr. Reed, could you turn to page number 62 of the transcript? Could you, please, read
lines 21 through the end of the page and through the first line on the next page, please?
A: [Examining document.]
Q: It may provide some additional assistance for you, maybe, if you start on line 15 of the preceding page - I apologize - to give a little bit of the context.
A: Okay.
Q: Do you - Have you had an opportunity to read the portion that refers to the occipital wound?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know which part of the skull is the occiput?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Do you recall the wound on President Kennedy’s head as having been occipital?
A: No.
Deposition of Edward Francis Reed, Jr. on October 21, 1997 -
Page 72
Q: In
Exhibit No. 194, Mr. Flannigan reports you as having identified the wound in the head in the occipital region. Is it
your best understanding now that you said "occipital region" to Mr. Flannigan, or that Mr. Flannigan misunderstood what you had
said?
A: No, I probably said that. Because this is such a vague area. This area. When you put your fist up there - talking over the
phone, you know, you’re talking real quick.
And this is the - this is the temporal bone. This is the occipital bone. And, again, it’s so generally close to it, you
know, without precise measurements -
I mean, a layman wouldn’t -You know, someone not - not related to the - Someone that knows the medical terminology
would know the general area. Let me say it that way.
Deposition of Edward Francis Reed, Jr. on October 21, 1997 -
Page 73
Q: Okay. Could you turn back to
page 62 of -
A: Okay.
Q: - Mr. Ebersole’s testimony, and look once again. He also describes the wound as occipital.
A: Mm-hmm.
Q: Is Dr. Ebersole correct in describing the wound as occipital?
A: It’s more - it’s more anterior than occipital. If a - It’s such a small part of the occipital bone,
that it’s an overlap. See - see this? Right here. When I say I originally saw the wound -
The occiput is down here Okay? But a little bit of the occiput protrudes into my fist right now, and the parietal and the
temporal bone. It’s a - it’s a area that encompasses other areas.
Q: Sure. I understand what you’re saying. Although, both Dr. Ebersole and yourself referred to that in 1978 as
occipital, and neither of you referred to it as parietal or temporal.
A: Well -
Q: Isn’t that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Was the wound principally occipital, extending into parietal and temporal?
A: Yes. I’ll -
Q: But principally occipital?
A: I’ll say - I’d say you could use that terminology, yes.
Deposition of Edward Francis Reed, Jr. on October 21, 1997 -
Page 78
Q: Did you see any of the autopsy doctors using a probe in the body to help identify the entrance or trajectory of the
bullet?
A: I have read so many articles that said they did do it, that I really can’t say that I actually saw that. I will
have to say no.
Deposition of Edward Francis Reed, Jr. on October 21, 1997 -
Page 85
Q: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a
semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
A: Yes. I do.
Q: Do you recall seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
A: Yes. I did.
Q: What was your understanding of what that was?
A: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
Q: Did you see that metallic fragment removed from the body?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Is there anything else on the X-ray that appears either different from what you observed on the night of the autopsy -
A: No, there is not.
Q: There is no doubt in your mind that this is the authentic X-ray that you took on the night of the autopsy?
A: This is the authentic X-ray taken that evening.
Source: Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe on May 7, 1997 -
Page 38
Q: Do you recall anyone having used any probes in the body during the autopsy?
A: I think Dr. Finck did for that wound in the back. But he didn’t go in very far. And they didn’t let it go from
there.
Q: Do you recall whether a photograph was taken while there was a probe in the body?
A: I don’t think so.
Q: Do you recall any probes in the head?
A: No. No, I don’t recall that.
Source: Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe on May 7, 1997 -
Page 44
Q: I would like you to describe as best you recall what or provide a description of the injuries to President Kennedy’s
head so we will say from above the throat. Not to the throat but above the throat. What did you observe on the body?
A: The right side in the back was gone (indicating ). Just a big gaping hole with fragments of scalp and bone hanging in
it.
Q: When you said that, you put your hand on the back of your head.
A: The occipital.
Q: The occipital area?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see any other - in addition to that injury that you just described, did you see any other in juries to the
head?
A: Yes, there was a flap of bone over on the side above the temporal area.
Q: I notice again your gesture is you are pointing above your right ear?
A: Yes.
Q: How close of an observation did you get to wounds on President Kennedy’s head?
A: About five, six feet, something like that.
Source: Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe on May 7, 1997 -
Page 46
Q: Did you observe any wounds on any other part of President Kennedy’s body?
A: Yes, in the back.
Q: What did you observe on the back?
A: Well, it looked like - it looked like a bullet hole. But when, I think it was, Colonel Finck tried holding that with his
finger, it didn’t go anywhere or so they said.
Q: So if I understand correctly, Colonel Finck put his finger into the wound to see how far it would go, but it didn’t
go very far?
A: It didn’t go very far.
Source: Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe on May 7, 1997 -
Page 68
Q: Could you look at the back of President Kennedy’s head in the occipital region. You previously used the term
"occipital," is that right?
A: Yes. It is one piece.
Q: Does that correspond with what you observed on the night of November 22nd?
A: Yes.
Source: Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe on May 7, 1997 -
Page 71
Q: Mr. Riebe, previously you described a wound in the occipital region of the head whereas in these photographs it appears
that there is no wound there.
What would be your explanation for that?
A: I just didn’t remember it properly.
Source: Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe on May 7, 1997 -
Page 76
Q: Previously in the deposition you described what I understood to be a large wound in the occipital portion of the brain.
Yet when looking at the photographs you didn’t notice that. Could you explain just once again what your best understanding
is for the at least apparent discrepancy.
A: Well. it was chaos in that room that night and I just misjudged where the wounds were.
Q: Just to make certain, has anyone asked you in any way to change your observations or to report anything different from
what your recollections arc?
A: No.
Q: Has anyone from the Review board asked you to change your testimony or alter it?
A: No.
Q: Has anyone from any other Government agency asked you to change your recollections?
A: No.
Q: Or report?
A: No.
Q: As best you understand now, that you would believe it is fair to say that the photographs accurately portray what you
observed on the night of November 22nd?
A: Yes, I would.
Q: Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of those photographs?
A: No, I haven’t.
Source: Deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer on June 5, 1997 -
Page 37
Q: Did you see any photographs that focused principally on the head of President Kennedy?
A: Right. They had one showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head.
Q: Could you describe what you mean by the "wound at the back of the head"?
A: It appeared to be a hole, inch, two inches in diameter at the back of the skull here.
Q: You pointed to the back of your head. When you point back there,
let’s suppose that you were lying down on a pillow, where would the hole
in the back of the head be in relationship to the part of the head that would be on the pillow if the body is lying flat?
A: The top part of the head.
Q: When you say the "top of the head," now, is that the part that would be covered by a hat that would be covering the top of
the head?
A: Just about where the rim would hit.
Q: Are you acquainted with the term "external occipital protuberance"?
A: No, I am not.
Q: What I would like to do is to give you a document or a drawing, and ask you, if you would, on this document, make a mark of
approximately where the wound was that you noticed.
THE WITNESS: probably about in there.
Q: And you have put some hash marks in there and then drawn a circle around that, and the part that you have drawn, the circle
that you have drawn on the diagram is labeled as being as part of the occipital bone, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see any biological tissue, such as brain matter, extruding from the hole that you saw in the back of the head?
A: No.
Q: Was the scalp disturbed or can you describe that more than just the hole?
A: It was just a ragged hole.
Q: And it was visible through the scalp, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Source: Deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer on June 5, 1997 -
Page 41
Q: What is your best recollection of the approximate size of the wound on the throat that you identified before?
A: Just about like that, just like a finger, half-inch.
Q: Do you remember whether the wound was jagged or how that
appeared?
A: No, just - it appeared just indented. It was, again, clean, pristine, no - you know, it wasn’t an immediate wound, it
had some cleaning done to it or something.
Source: Deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer on June 5, 1997 -
Page 45
Q: Let’s turn to the print. Can you identify the print as being a print that you printed yourself at Naval Photographic
Center?
A: I don’t believe it is.
Q: Can you look at the back - turn the light on, please - can you look at the back of the print and identify whether that is
the same type of paper as the
Exhibit No. 147, that you brought with you today?
A: No, it’s not.
Q: In what respect do you see it as being different?
A: The Kodak logo is smaller.
Q: So, based upon your experience, would it be safe to say that it is your best recollection, best understanding, that the
print of the autopsy that is in the Archives does not correspond with the paper that you were using in November of 1963 at NPC?
A: Correct.
Source: Deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer on June 5, 1997 -
Page 48
Q: Ms. Spencer, have you had an opportunity now to look at the second view corresponding to color Nos. 26,27, and 28?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: Do those two images correspond to the photographs that you developed at NPC in November of 1963?
A: No.
Q: In what way are they different?
A: There was no - the film that I seen or the prints that did not have the massive head damages that is visible here.
Q: Putting aside the question of the damage of the head, does the remainder of the body, the correspond to what you observed?
A: No.
Q: In what way is it different?
A: The face in the photographs that we did, did not have the stress that these photos - on the face that these photos show.
Q: Could you describe little bit more what you mean by that?
A: The face, the eyes were closed and the face, the mouth was closed, and it was more of a rest position than these show.
Q: Could you look at the back of the print and see whether that paper corresponds to the image that you brought with you today,
please.
A: No.
Q: It doesn’t correspond. So, the paper that these prints are printed on is not the paper that you were using at NPC in
November of 1963 is that correct?
A: Correct.
Source: Deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer on June 5, 1997 -
Page 50
Could we next look at View 3, identified as the superior view of the head corresponding to color Nos. 32,33,34,35,36 and 37.
Ms. Spencer, have you had an opportunity to look at the third view?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: Do you those two images, again when you are looking at a positive transparency and a print do those correspond to the
photographs that you developed in November of 1963?
A: No.
Q: In what way are they different?
A: Again, none of the heavy damage that shows in these photographs were visible in the photographs that we did.
Q: So, just to make sure that I am understanding correctly, previously, in your deposition, you described a wound, a small,
circular wound in the back of the head, approximately two inches or so as I recall that you stated, whereas, these show a much
larger injury, is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Could you once again take a look at the paper on which the print is made and tell me whether that corresponds to the
paper that you brought with you today?
A: No.
Q: Just so the record is clear, the paper does not correspond to the paper that was used in November '63 at NPC.
A: No.
Q: Is that correct?
A: That’s right.
Source: Deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer on June 5, 1997 -
Page 53
Q: Could we look at the fifth view now, described as the tight anterior view of head and upper torso including tracheotomy
wound, color Nos. 40 and 41.
Q: Let me try the first question as being whether the paper on the print matches the paper that you brought with you to
the deposition today.
A: No, it does not.
Q: Ms. Spencer, could you look at the wound in the throat of President Kennedy and tell me whether that corresponds to the
wound that you observed in the photographs you developed?
A: No, it does not.
Q: In what way are they different?
A: This is a large, gaping gash type.
Q: That is, in the fifth view, it's a large, gaping gash, is that correct?
A: Yes. In the one that we had seen, it was on the right side, approximately half-inch.
Q: Is the wound in a different location or is it just a larger wound on the throat?
A: It could be just a larger wound.
Source: Deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer on June 5, 1997 -
Page 55
Q: Could we look now at the seventh view described as missile wound at entrance and posterior skull following reflection of
scalp corresponding to color Nos. 44 and 45.
Ms. Spencer, in November of 1963, did you see any images corresponding to the seventh view that you have in front of you now?
A: No.
Q: Are you able to identify what that view is?
A: It appears to be the opening of the cavity, top of the head, with the brain removed.
Q: Could you look once again at the paper for the color print and tell me whether that is the paper that you were using in
1963 at the NPC?
A: No, it is not.
Source: Deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer on June 5, 1997 -
Page 56
Q: Can we take a look at the eighth view, please. The eighth view is described as the basilar view of brain, corresponding
to color Nos. 46,47,48, and 49.
Q: Ms. Spencer, during your testimony, you said that you had seen an image with the brain present next to the body. Is Image
No. 8 the view that you saw previously?
A: No.
Q: Did you see any work in November of 1963 that resembled the view that you are being shown now?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Could you look at the paper for the color print and tell me whether that is the paper that you were using in November of 1963?
A: No, it is not.
Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 -
Page 12
Q: Do you remember speaking with anyone affiliated with the U.S. government about the autopsy between the time of the autopsy
and the 1966 inventory?
A: No.
Q: After the 1966 inventory, what was the next time that you spoke to anyone affiliated with the U.S. government about the
autopsy?
A: I don’t think I have ever spoken to anyone with the government about it.
Q: Do you remember, in the late 1970s, there was a congressional inquiry called the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
A: Yes.
Q : Do you remember speaking with anyone, by telephone or in person -
A: No.
Q: - affiliated with the House Select Committee?
A: No.
Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 -
Page 53
Q: Okay. What I’d like to do is to take a short break now, and I’d like to show you a document which I’ll
identify for you. And you can take some time to take a look at it.
I’m going to ask you if this - if the document helps refresh your recollection about any contacts that you may have had
with the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
And take your time to read it.
A: Okay.
Q: Though you don’t need to read it word for word, you’re welcome to do so, if you wish.
MR. GUNN: The document is marked
Exhibit No. 19. And it appears on its face to be a memo to file from Andy Purdy, dated
August 17th. 1977. It is a 17-page memorandum, and I would like to draw Mr. Stringer’s attention particularly to pages 9
through 17 of the document.
We’ll take a short break.
BY MR. GUNN: Q: Mr. Stringer, have you had an opportunity to look through Exhibit 19?
A: Yes.
Q: Does the exhibit help refresh your recollection as to whether you ever spoke with people on the House Select Committee
staff?
A: I don’t remember speaking to them.
Q: Do you recall ever having seen the document before that’s now marked Exhibit No. 19?
A: No, I've never seen it.
Q: After 1966, regarding what you previously testified that you had gone to the Archives to make an inventory, have you ever
seen the autopsy photographs at the Archives at any point after that?
I have not. Not that I can recall.
Q: In the document marked Exhibit 19, it refers on page 14 to a visit that a Mr. Stringer and Jim Kelly and Collen Boland took to the National Archives. Does that help refresh your recollection as to whether you ever went to the Archives?
A: It does not. I don’t remember it.
Q: As you’re sitting here today, does it seem to you to be very unlikely that you went to the Archives; or you just have
no recollection one way or the other?
A: I don’t think I went. I don’t have any recollection of it. And after ’77, I was living in Vero Beach. It
does say that I was staying with my daughter. Whose name is wrong here. It’s R-u-s-k.
Q: Mrs. Rusk, rather than Mrs. Ross?
A: Rusk. I certainly don’t remember going to the Archives with these people. I don’t know how I would have gotten
there.
Q: Do you believe that if you had gone to the to the Archives in 1977 to look at autopsy photographs that you would probably
remember that, as you’re sitting here today?
A: I would think I would.
Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 -
Page 77
Q: Mr. Stringer, the first question that I will ask you when the recording is over is whether you recall having had this
conversation with Mr. Lifton.
A: I’ve had several conversations with Mr. Lifton.
MR. GUNN: Okay.
LIFTON: Were any bullets taken out of the body in your presence?
STRINGER: No.
LIFTON: Yeah, that’s what I - you know, that’s what I was wondering, because they were pretty puzzled that they
couldn’t find any.
STRINGER: I think there were some portions, or slivers, or something.
LIFTON: Yeah. Okay. Well, when you ... when you ... when you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top, or
in the back?
STRINGER: In the back.
LIFTON: In the back? In the back. High in the back, or lower in the back?
STRINGER: Oh, the occipital part in the back there, (GARBLED) up above the neck.
LIFTON: Yeah. In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
STRINGER: Yes, the back part.
LIFTON: The back portion? Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top off his head?
STRINGER: Oh, it was - Some of it was blown off, yeah. I mean, towards - out of the top in the back, veah.
LIFTON: Top in the back. I see. But the top in the front was pretty ... pretty - oh, I don’t know what word - intact?
STRINGER: Yeah, sure.
LIFTON: The top front was intact?
STRINGER: Right.
. . .
LIFTON: 1 sec. 1 sec. Let me ask you another way of stating that. And this is a good way of stating what I asked you before.
If you lie back in a bathtub - you know, just in a totally prone position and you ... and your head rests against the bathtub, is
that the part of the head - you know, is that the part of the head that was damaged?
STRINGER: Yeah.
LIFTON: That part?
STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
LIFTON: Back in the part that would be against the tile of the bathtub?
STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
LIFTON: I see. Whereas, the part that would be straight up ahead - you know, vertically in that position - was ... was
undamaged?
STRINGER: Oh, no. I probably wouldn’t say "undamaged", no. I mean, it was - Some of it was gone. I mean, out of the -
some of the bone.
LIFTON: Yeah. I see.
Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 -
Page 80
Q: Mr. Stringer, do you recall having had the conversation that we just listened to with Mr. Lifton?
A: I don’t recall it, but from the tape. Somebody else played it for me.
Q: Does that sound as if it was an accurate recording of the conversation that you had with Mr. Lifton?
A: I don’t know whether it was or not, but it’s not true - what’s on there.
Q: In what respect is it not true, what’s on there?
A: Well, it - Well, the bullet came in the back and came out the side.
Q: The question that I’d be interested in is not what the trajectory of the bullet was, which wasn’t discussed
there -
A: Yeah.
Q: - but just where the wound was on President Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Lifton that the wound was in the occiput or the
occipital region?
A: I don’t remember telling him that, no.
Q: Was there a wound in the occipital region of the President -
A: Yes, the entry.
Q: By "the entry" you mean what?
A: Where the bullet went.
Q: And how big was the entry wound?
A: About the size of a bullet, from what you could see. On the inside where the bone was. I guess it was different.
Q: Could you describe what the skull looked like as best you can now recall?
A: Well -
Q: I’m sorry. If I can just add one more - Just the nature of the damage to the skull of the President, without respect
to entrance to or exit. Just what the wound looked like.
A: Well, the side of the head, the bone was gone. But there was a flap, where you could lay it back. But the back - I mean,
if you held it in, there was no vision. It was a complete head of hair.
And on the front, there was nothing - the scalp. There was nothing in the eyes. You could have -Well, when they did the body,
you wouldn’t have known there was anything wrong.
Q: Can you think of any reason why you would have used the word occiput or occipital portion to describe the wound to Mr.
Lifton?
A: I can’t think of any reason.
Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 -
Page 89
Q: Okay. So, the hair was intact.When the scalp was pulled back - and we’re now just -
A: Yes.
Q: - talking about the skull, not the scalp at all-
A: Yes.
Q: - was the occipital bone intact, or was it severely disrupted?
A: Well, some of it was disrupted, yes.
Q: So that it would be fair to say that there was a significant disruption in the -
A: There were fractures in there.
Q: Fractures in there.
A: But some of the bone was still there. It wasn’t destroyed.
Q: So, the bone was in place, but there were fractures -
A: Yes.
Q: - through the occipital region?
A: Yes.
Q: Was any portion of the occipital bone missing after the scalp was reflected?
A: Not that I can recall.
Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 -
Page 150
Q: What happened during the supplementary exam, if you could describe the process?
A: They took it out and put it on the table, and describe it as to the condition, took some sections of it. We took some
pictures of it. I had a copy board there with the light coming from the - well, from underneath and with the lights down on it,
and shot pictures of the brain.
Q: As it was being sectioned?
A: Yes.
Q: Were the sections small pieces, or cross sections of the entire brain? How did that work?
A: If I remember, it was cross sections.
Q: And what was the purpose of doing the cross section of the brain?
A: To show the damage.
Q: Was the cross purpose at all related to showing the path of the bullet?
A: I don’t know.
Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 -
Page 155
Q: Okay. At the time the autopsy was concluded - So, we’re back to November 22nd , 23rd. At the time the autopsy was
concluded, had the doctors reached any tentative conclusion about the number of shots or the angle of the shots that had hit
President Kennedy?
A: I think they had, yes.
Q: What was your understanding of the number of shots that had hit him.
A: Two.
Q: And where - what was the trajectory of those shots in the body?
A: One from the back that came out the side. And then the other one, from down in the neck, came out here.
Q: You have a recollection that during the night of the autopsy, the doctors believed that there was - that the wound in the
front of the neck was an exit wound from the back?
A: I think so.
Q: Do you recall any telephone call between the autopsy one -
A: Yes. I think it was one of the agents called. I’m not sure.
Q: Did they report - did any of the agents report what doctors in Dallas had said regarding wounds on the President’s
body?
A: I heard somebody say something about a tracheotomy. Who said it, I don’t know.
Q: Did the agent report anything about being a bullet wound in the same location as the tracheotomy?
A: I don’t remember. I don’t remember if anybody said that, but -
Source: Deposition of John Thomas Stringer on July 16, 1996 -
Page 191
Q: At any time during the autopsy, did any of the doctors attempt to determine whether there were any bullet fragments in the
anterior neck wound?
A: Yes.
Q: What did they do?
A: Well, they checked on the X-rays. Did it by feel, or vision.
Q: When you say "by feel", what do you mean?
A: By feeling, to see if there was anything sharp or -
Q: So, the doctor’s fingers then would have been put into the tracheotomy wound, to attempt to determine whether any
bullet fragments -
A: And I think there was a probe put in there, too.
Q: And the probe was put in from the front towards the back?
A: Yes.
Q: And what was the direction of the probe, if you recall?
A: It went straight in. I don’t know. I don’t know. All - I saw it in. I don’t know whether it went up,
down - you know, sideways, or what.