Interviews conducted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations staff and/or the medical consultants with: Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, Dr. C. James Carrico, Dr. Norman Chase, Dr. James J. Humes, Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, Dr. John K. Lattimer, Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Dr. Jack Reynolds, Dr. William B. Seaman, Dr. Robert R. Shaw, and Dr. George T. Shires.
Not included: Dr. Pierre A. Finck and Dr. John H. Ebersole were deposed by the select committee on March 11, 1978.

SEPTEMBER 16, 1977.

Physicians present were: Dr. Coe, Dr. Davis, Dr. Baden, Dr. Humes, Dr.. Boswell, Dr. Petty, Dr. Rose, Dr. Levine, Dr. Loquvam, and Dr. Angel.
Staff members present were: Gary Cornwell, Kenneth Klein, Andy Purdy, Jim Conzelman, Lillian Johnson, and Chellie Mason.

L. JOHNSON. First, I'd like to ask everyone to state their name clearly, distinctly as possible for the record please.
G. CORNWELL. Well, just for her purposes, do you want to tell her what your names are-she doesn't know all of you--so that she can make a record of who's asking, or whatever, so that we would have the names.
Dr. BADEN. The principal speakers would be Dr. Petty, Dr. Hunlea, and Dr. Boswell; you have those. I think anybody else who talks will identify themselves to you and to the doctors.
G. CORNWELL. And. the man who just spoke to you is Dr. Michael Baden. The only statement that I wish to make in advance is that Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell have come here voluntarily, not by subpoena, and simply because the other doctors thought there was some information that might be of assistance to them in their deliberations. We have decided that because of that fact, that it was the doctors request that they come, and Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell have come voluntarily, the staff will ask no questions, and you all just proceed as you see fit.
Dr. HUMES. I'd like to comment that we're pleased to be here and I for one welcome the investigation and I hope that it will ultimately, through all facets of it, erase the doubts that exist in the public's mind, the minds of Congress and others. Any help we can give we are delighted to do so.
Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you very much, and I'm sure that's not only the staff's but all the doctors here sentiments exactly.
Dr. BADEN. I would just like to thank Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell for coming here on such short notice to help in our interpretations.
Dr. PETTY. I'll use your last names so that it will come out right in the record rather than your first name, Dr. Humes, we, all of us here, are forensic pathologists. and we've all been faced with the same problems you were faced with on the night of the autopsy; we know perfectly well what pressures you were under, and this is in no way critical of anything that was done; we're only interested in certain information which we hope you have stored up in your association tracks and will be able to give us to help unravel some of the mystery and mystique that surrounded this thing. First of all, let me start with the question that was on the lips of everyone here and that is, did you or didn't you look at the adrenals?
Dr. HUMES. I would ask, you--did that bear, or does that bear, on your investigation of the event that took place that night?
Dr. PETTY. No; all we were wondering was--we noticed that that was noticeably absent from the autopsy report.
Dr. HUMES. Since I don't think it bore directly on the death of the President, I'd prefer not to discuss it with you doctor.
Dr. PETTY. All right. Fine. If you prefer not to, that's fine with me. We were just curious because normally we examine adrenals in the general course that the autopsy, as we undertake it. OK, so---
Dr. HUMES. I'd only comment for you that I have strong personal reasons and certain other obligations that suggest to me that it might not be preferable.
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.
Dr. PETTY. And there are X-rays of that?
Dr. PETTY. Yes, Dr. Humes. We have X-rays of that; I think there are three fragments of bone actually one large and two small.
Dr. HUMES. Those were the only other fragments I've ever seen retrieved
Dr. PETTY. Well, we have photographs of a piece of bone that was
from Dealey Plaza--is that the name of it--
Dr. HUMES. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. By a premedical student, as I understand it, a fellow by the name of Harper; it was retained for some time and then eventually found its way into the chain of evidence, and what I think the basic question is that we are asking--could this showing photographs--and this is a 1 to 1 photograph-could this have been missing from President Kennedy's skull or not?
Dr. HUMES. In ray opinion it could because there was far insufficient bone to close the calvarium area. In fact, we spent many hours using a rubber dam and other artificial materials to do that.
Dr. PETTY. Yes, this photograph that we're showing you is a color photograph of a fragment allegedly recovered by a Mr. Harper at the site of the assassination, and it contains a ruler in it, and it's a 1 to 1 color photograph of the fragment. The fragment is no longer available as we understand it.
Dr. HUMES. I comment further, Dr. Petty, that it's approximately the size, I would think, if you would compare it, with the photographs of that, larger than other fragments that were brought to us.
Dr. PETTY. I don't know how much distortion there is in this X-ray of the larger of the fragments that was brought to you.
Dr. HUMES. We are looking at X-ray No. 4 which is of three bony fragments, and our comment is that the color photograph that you show us of a fragment we did not see sort of approximates in size the fragments that were represented that evening, and to further restate, there were sufficient fragments missing that that fragment should have been.
Dr. PETTY. So even though this fragment picked up by Harper, measuring
some 2 1/2 inches in greatest dimension, even that fragment could have been put into the vacant areas in the scalp area as you've reconstructed it.
Dr. HUMES. Correct.
Dr. PETTY. Well, that's the major question I think that we wanted to have
answered at this time. The second question or questions, series of questions, revolve about these photographs here which are Nos. 44 and 45. There may be a clearer one than this--was the clearer one in black and white? These are the color photographs, Nos. 44 and 45, and this area which I'm pointing to with my finger here seems to be an area which is almost semicircular in shape and appears to have beveling to the outside of the skull. Now, what we really want to know is where was this located. and in order to give you a chance to show it, where would this be on this skull here that I'm showing you?
Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, the photograph that you are referring to is what number?
Dr. PETTY. Nos. 44 and 45.
Mr. KLEIN. The particular one you're talking about now is?
Dr. PETTY. 44.
Mr. KLEIN. 44.
Dr. PETTY. And this is shown more clearly on the black and white photographs Nos. 17 and 18, probably best in No. 17. and I'm putting my finger on the same spot.
Dr. HUMES. Well, to the best of my recollection. and I regret that these photographs are so poorly marked, this was in the right parietal region approximately here.
Dr. PETTY. Could it have been forward of the suture line--what do you call it?
Dr. BADEN. Coronal.
Dr. PETTY. Could it have been anterior to the coronal suture line? Now these are our major questions on this.
Dr. HUMES. To state what the problem was, the basic problem was, as we reflected the scalp, various fragments of bone, some fell into the cranial cavity, some came to the table, some adhered to dura and so forth, that it was in--that it was on the right side, that it was Parietal frontal, there's no question. Now, to tell you was it anterior to the coronal suture or not, I can't tell you unless that's a coronal suture in that photograph.
Dr. PETTY. Well, we would think perhaps this gap on photograph 26, this gap that is tending down toward the President's right ear---this V shape directed toward the President's right ear--is the same as this V-shape gap----
Dr. BOSWELL. I believe it is.
Dr. PETTY. On your black and white No. 18.
Dr. BOSWELL. The scalp was so torn and lacerated that we never had to do any dissection there. The scalp was just laid ,over, and I believe that this is the scalp laying over here. as I interpret this; this is the shoulder down here.
Dr. PETTY. Cheek and shoulder.
Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah, and, that this is just laid down, like so, without having done any dissection or anything.
Dr. PETTY. So this would be the right temporal area
Dr. BOSWELL. NOW whether this was prior to or after removal of the brain tissue, I don't know.
Dr. HUMES. It would be after.
Dr. BOSWELL. I'm not sure that we haven't--that the head isn't back in such manner. I think that is probably taken just to show the magnitude of the wound.
Dr. PETTY. Yes, you're talking about color photograph No. 44 now. Well then, further question along this line, you will note on color photograph No. 26, just ahead of this V-shaped notch, there is a hank of hair which obscures everything, and the question that I'd like to propose now is, is that hauk of hair obscuring this externally beveled portion of bone that we see in black No.
Dr. HUMES. All I could tell you is that it could, Dr. Petty. It could have because these obviously in time were taken-these black and white photographs, were taken temporally that evening at a later hour than was this color photograph No. 26, in this case.
Dr. BOSWELL. These two are essentially identical though.
Dr. PETTY. Which two, would you just identify them for the
Dr. BOSWELL No. 44 color and No. 17 black and white. These are almost identical, and I would assume that one was taken with one camera and then the other one with another camera at the same time.
Dr. HUMES. What? The color negative may have been developed, may have been printed black and white, Jay. Looks more like that to me.
Dr. BOSWELL. Might have been. So they may be actually the same photograph.
Dr. HUMES. I think they are.
Dr. PETTY. That was the major question that we had because we're trying to establish if we can identify the point of outshoot of one or both of the fragments to the best of our analysis.
Dr. HUMES. One or both of what fragments? The bullet fragments.
Dr. PETTY. To the best of oar analysis, we could not place which side of the coronal suture line--we couldn't place whether this is on the anterior side of the coronal suture or whether it's on the posterior side of it.
Dr. BADEN. The X-ray you took of the fragment that you received does show a suture line on it, so that's helpful
Dr. HUMES. Yeah. See, we felt that this area, this one semi-circular area on X-ray No. 4, quite likely was at least in part the other side of a circle; that was our interpretation of this fragment, and I don't think even that would have been quite complete.
Dr. PETTY. Well, we were wondering if maybe the new fragment which was picked up by Harper might make that circle complete somewhere if it's possible. Now. we don't know where this fragment is at this point.
Dr. HUMES. I don't see anything with quire the circumferential margins of these other
Dr. PETTY. I am showing you now I don't know if these photographs are marked, are they? This is a black and white enlarged photograph of Harper's fragment labeled number No. 9 or No. 6--I can't tell you which it is.
Dr. BADEN. It's No. 9.
Dr. PETTY. Probably No. 9. And this would be the internal surface of the fragment, and then on the other photograph which is the external surface, we were just wondering if this could help put a periphery or help complete the periphery of the gap there?
Dr. HUMES. Caused by the missile egressing the coronal wall?
Dr. PETTY. That is correct.
Dr. HUMES. I don't think so. I don't think any of the borders of this fragment to me would coincide with this type of a wound of exit.
Dr. PETTY. I see what you're driving at.
Dr. HUMES. One could almost imagine it to be elliptical, slightly elliptical or circular or which ever way. Might be hard to put any of the margins of this fragment there.
Dr. BADEN. How about the lateral skull film with regard to the location of that? Is that not helpful to you?
Dr. BOSWELL. It is somewhat helpful, yes. You want to throw that one up?
Dr. BADEN. While you are looking at that and for the record, Dr. Boswell, when you had discussed No. 44 color, the stenographer wanted to get down whether you said that the shoulder and cheek were visible in the photograph.
Dr. BOSWELL. Yes, shoulder and cheek.
Dr. DAVIS. Well, you can see why we say that the fragment that you show us could have helped to close the wound and still have room for more.
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?
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 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 tile 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
Dr. HUMES. To get to this entrance, right?
Dr. BOSWELL. Bill not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the similar fragment fit this piece down here--there was a hole here, only hall 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,
Dr. PETTY. Then was this below the tentorium or above the tentorium on the inside? Do you recall?
Dr. HUMES. Everything was so disrupted, I'm not sure.
Dr. BOSWELL. Well, the dura was completely--as you can see here--was completely destroyed practically, and I don't think there were any markings that were really very adequate to see where it was related to the tentorium. I don't see a picture.
Dr. PETTY. It happens to be on 42, a fine line going to--is that fine line going to the area you identify as the--
Dr. HUMES. That's an artifact of some land.
Dr. PETTY. Fine.
Dr. HUMES. Right there (pointing to photograph No. 42).
Dr. PETTY. Now, if it goes in at the point indicated below the external occipital protuberance, then it is going to go in about at the tentorium.
Dr. HUMES. At the tentorium, I'm saying, Dr. Petty. Approximately, but you see
Dr. BADEN. I think the record should reflect that Dr. Angel just arrived and is being greeted.
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.
Dr. PETTY. Mark from the point of view where it entered.
Dr. HUMES. Yes, sir.
Dr. BADEN. Pursuing the question Dr. Coe has been asking, I am looking at photograph No. 50 of the brain, the dorsum of the brain. Question has arisen relative to a purple object in the right frontal cerebral region as being a foreign object. Do you have any thoughts you can give us about that object? And here is No. 46, which is the undersurface of that same area.
Dr. HUMES. I strongly suspect that this foreign object is something that was placed on the table in an attempt to elevate this portion of the brain so it wouldn't be as much out of focus. I think you're looking at a defect in brain substance because, you know, if you try and take a picture with a surgical specimen or what have you, and different portions of it are at different levels--I think we made art attempt. That certainly was not present in the brain, and I interpret that we took some object that was immediately available in the room and placed it under the brain in an attempt to bring the right cerebral hemisphere somewhat closer in level to the left for the photograph.
Dr. BADEN. You are completely satisfied--and Dr. Boswell--that there was no foreign object in this area?
Dr. HUMES. Absolutely, unequivocally, without question.
Dr. PETTY. Dr. Angel, we have two photographs here representing what appears to be a skull fragment which was recovered by one Harper at Dealey Plaza some little time after the assassination took place. We would like very much to have your expertise in identifying where this particular fragment of skull might have what part of the head bone it came from?
Dr. ANGEL. Well, it's clearly parietal bone, side left or right is not so easy. You can see one, two, or three markings for meningeal vessels on the inner surface. This is the same-
Dr. PETTY. This is the same thing blown up there, both sides are shown.
Dr. ANGEL. Shown very clearly, as well as some blood vessels entering--the damage on the outside looks as though there's still some perifernium the hair on the outside, but I'm not really sure about that, it's got a ragged edge there. I don't think I can say anything really much sharper than that; my feeling is that it was on the outside and that it's--oh--around here.
Dr. PETTY. Around where?
Dr. ANGEL. Around this area here, below the parietal bone and directly above the sagittal suture. I, at first I could see marks of sagittal suture here, but I don't think that's it.
Dr. BADEN. We also have the negatives from which these were made.
Dr. ANGEL. Well, excuse me--it doesn't seem to show on the inside. I'm puzzled.
Dr. PETTY. Now, they want us to record which photographs you're examining again. And these once again for the record are photographs of the segment or fragment of bone picked up by Harper at Dealey Plaza.
Dr. BADEN. Right, and photograph Nos. 13 and 8 and the two color prints are being examined by Dr. Angel at this time.
Dr. ANGEL. Are you sure that's suture edge there?
Dr. BOSWELL. Yes. We're not sure; we ask for your advice.
Dr. DAVIS. That's why you're here, sir.
Dr. BADEN. Would you like to see the kodachromes?
Dr. ANGEL. I'm not sure that isn't simply a broken edge.
Dr. BADEN. I'm sorry we don't have a better way of viewing them.
Dr. HUMES. There's an X-ray view box, Dr. Angel; might help.
Dr. ANGEL. No; I don't think those things are going to help. See, I don't think you can have this be the coronal suture because then you would certainly have the entry of a branch of the meningeal artery, some remnant of that tree going up there along it. And I thought these were intermediate posterior branches of middle meningeal going up the side of the parietal here--I would have interpreted the piece as fitting here and I would have looked here for a trace of lambdoid suture. Now this inner surface is broken away. Perhaps that could be the very edge of the coronal suture on the right, but of course I don't know what damage the skull showed and whether this has to be-but I'm not supposed to know this.
Dr. BADEN. No, Dr. Angel; feel free to discuss this with Dr. Humes who did the autopsy. He'd be delighted to--
Dr. ANGEL. Is there a defect on the right that this would fit into?
Dr. HUMES. Good,
Dr. Angel. Yes.
Dr. COE. Yeah. There's a picture right there in color that would show you the extent of the---
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.
Dr. PETTY. This is a fragment that arrived quite a while later in a Nieman Marcus box.
Dr. HUMES. It never arrived to our knowledge. Dr. Angel, I draw your attention to the view box where you get some comprehension of the size of the defect.
Dr. BOSWELL. These are all slightly different views, slightly different. They are all different pictures, so that I'm not sure.
Dr. ANGEL. No; I don't think--don't know if that makes any major difference----
Dr. PETTY. Dr. Angel, let me show you also this X-ray film of the three fragments that were separate and detached from the body which had been X-rayed here. One of these three fragments--the larger of the three--is the one that apparently helped complete a portion of an outshoot wound, is that correct, Dr. Humes?
Dr. HUMES. That was our opinion, Dr. Petty.
Dr. PETTY. You may want to put these together and have this up here too. One further question, Dr. Angel. There seems to be a suture line here on this larger of the three fragments.
Dr. ANGEL. Yes; that seems to be quite clear.
Dr. PETTY. Could that lie the coronal suture?
Dr. ANGEL. I would have guessed that it might be. Again, I don't see any meningeal vessel markings, but if this exit wound is here and the coronal suture is going up like that, that's conceivable.
Dr. PETTY. Well, I think the question that we all have is whether this is anterior to the coronal suture or posterior to it.
Dr. ANGEL. Oh, there was damage that far forward?
Dr. PETTY. I believe so. I think the damage is quite apparent here in the lateral view of the skull by X-ray.
Dr. ANGEL. Yes, that's right.
Dr. BADEN. And also on X-ray No. 1, the anterior-posterior view, right side.
Dr. ANGEL. Right. Well, this then could be frontal perfectly well. It doesn't show the meningeal markings, and that's what made me unhappy about it being, Well--photo makes more sense--in that .ease the exit wound must be not very far above the right or near the right pterion, I would think.
Dr. BADEN. For the record, Dr. Angel you're viewing photographs Nos. 8 and 13 of bone and X-rays Nos. ], 3, and 6 at the X-ray view box.
Dr. ANGEL. Now, that seems to have a little portion of that circle on it and the rest of that circle on this photograph.
Dr. PETTY. No. 44. Dr. Humes could probably tell more where that is than I Call This is the right cheek as I understand it, is that correct, Dr. Humes? And this then is the right shoulder and the flap turned back at the time of the autopsy.
Dr. HUMES. Yeah.
Dr. ANGEL. Well, this must be well forward then on the frontal bone. I was interpreting it as being--this itself as being near the pterion.
Dr. BADEN. Yet here is the gap.
Dr. HUMES. That is not frontal bone where that semicircle is--it's either temporal or parietal bone, Dr. Angel.
Dr. ANGEL. I don't see how it can be. That's what it looks like to me.
Dr. HUMES. That's exactly what it is.
Dr. ANGEL. In that case, I'm puzzled by the missing bone here and the angles. Is this to be placed more like this? Now this piece could fit on here and the parietal piece could fit behind that, this piece could.
Dr. PETTY. The Harper piece could be fitted posterior and slightly lateral is that what you're saying?
Dr. ANGEL. This is what I'm saying, yes, perhaps.
Dr. PETTY. Now, this is photograph No. 26, and it seems to show the pieces more as they were first viewed and to orient this photograph and the photograph No. 44.
Dr. BOSWELL. It's hard to do, Dr. Petty
Dr. PETTY. It's hard to do. But this is more or less what you're looking at, isn't it?
Dr. ANGEL. I think so, yes. I thought perhaps this was a little more tilted.
Dr. PETTY. Well, perhaps like that
Dr. HUMES. Negative, I don't think that's true.
Dr. ANGEL. What's bothering me is what part of the flesh is that?
Dr. PETTY. That's the cheek, the right cheek.
Dr. ANGEL. If that's the right cheek then it can't be--has to be more or less.
Dr. PETTY. Yeah.
Dr. ANGEL. It's really hard to be sure, square this with the X-ray which shows so much bone lost in this right frontal area.
Dr. PETTY. Well, I think there may be more bone apparently lost than is actually lost in the X-rays. We don't know when those X-rays were taken. Dr. Humes, do you by chance know at what phase of the autopsy the X-rays were taken? Were these taken before the brain was removed or after?
Dr. HUMES. Yes. All of the X-rays were taken before. any manipulations were performed.
Dr. BOSWELL. Some of the bone fragments though, are partially extruded, as we see in X-ray No 1.
Dr. HUMES. Some of them were adhered to partially torn scalp.
Dr. BOSWELL. Which accounts for some of the missing bone.
Dr. ANGEL. It's hard to do that--jigsaw puzzle--that's all I can say. I was looking somewhere here for a temporal line, and I can't see any clear indication of it. And that should be running up like that, and so it's hard for me to put these two--
Dr. PETTY. We believe that in photograph No. 44 the V-shaped notch here is the same as the V-shaped notch that you see in photograph No. 26. This then would give you the angle at which these two photographs should correspond and that would seem to fit pretty well.
Dr. ANGEL. So, in that case this exit wound is really in the frontal--its in front of that notch there---it's in the frontal, see what I mean, it would have be about here.
Dr. PETTY. Would that suture line help at all?
Dr. ANGEL. Yes, this--if that's as it looks, like the piece of frontal bone that fitted here like that, and the wound is about here, that would fit.
Dr. BADEN. Now. would this be below the hairline, because this appears above the hairline?
Dr. ANGEL. It would have to be above the hairline.
Dr. BADEN. At this point?
Dr. ANGEL. Uh-huh. In that case this fragment here of parietal could very easily fit back here, looks like there's another fragment in here. See what mean.
Dr. PETTY. Well, it's terribly fragmented and we can't really reconstruct it.
Dr. BOSWELL. No, you can't recall--that's perhaps this piece of parietal, that sharp edge there could conceivably have fitted on here behind this fragment-looks as though it's the front part, front lower part, anterior-interior portion of the right parietal.
Dr. ANGEL. I would interpret this as being, originally, as being roughly the middle of the right parietal, and I still think so.
Dr. PETTY. Our ultimate question is, do you think this could well be part of the skull of the late President, referring now to the Harper piece?
Dr. ANGEL. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. And you think it would fit also, don't you, Dr. Humes?
Dr. HUMES. Yes. I have great difficulty in orientation of Nos. 44 and 45, Dr. Petty, and I share your problem, and I'd like to spend some time with it, but I have great difficulty.
Dr. ANGEL. So do I. I wish the hair were not obscuring that notch because think that's where it has to be. If that V is the same as this, it has to be somewhere around here.
Dr. BADEN. The hairline would be where the skull fragment is missing?
Dr. ANGEL. It's not too--that would be just about at the hairline or just above it--and then in front of the temporal line, which I couldn't see that was what was bothering me. And I couldn't see any temporal line here, and if the temporal is--if this is really the forehead, this scalp directed down as it ordinarily would be, then that makes sense.
Dr. PETTY. I believe it is the forehead, and the scalp is reflected down.
Dr. ANGEL. Yeah. I think that makes sense.
Dr. PETTY. Dr. Humes, would you buy that here is the scalp of photograph No. 44 and reflected down over the face? Right here?
Dr. HUMES. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. And that this then really could very well be the frontal portion?
Dr. HUMES. Right. Now I'm much happier. I will buy that completely. That's where that was.
Dr. PETTY. OK,. well--this makes more sense to me.
Dr. HUMES. We reflected the scold here. This is the exit wound where I thought it was. This is the back of his head here. This is the back of his shoulder.
Dr. PETTY. These two are lined up just about right now. See. this notch pointing in the some direction here. and this would be in the frontal area and anterior to the coronal suture in all probability.
Dr. HUMES. Right.
Dr. PETTY. Do you see that. Dr. Davis? That this then would be in the frontal bone and anterior to the coronal suture?
Dr. DAVIS. Which I think is consistent with the X-rays, the lateral films, and fits in with our interpretation.
Dr. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes. Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
Dr. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
Dr. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen in the lateral view-----
Dr. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
Dr. PETTY. No. Up by the--in the back of the skull.
Dr. BADEN. Could you state the numbers of the two X-rays that you're talking about?
Dr. PETTY. Yeah. I'm sorry, I keep forgetting these numbers. We're looking at roentgenogram Nos. 1 and 2. The first is an anterior-posterior view of the head, the second is a lateral view, and we're trying to establish whether this particular sharp-edged radiopaque defect is close to the back of the skull or close to the front of the skull.
Dr. HUMES. I can't be sure I see it in the lateral at all, do you? Do you see it?
Dr. BOSWELL. Yes, right here.
Dr. PETTY. Were these engagements that we see recovered at all?
Dr. BOSWELL. No; they were not.
Dr. PETTY. I can understand why they weren't.
Dr. BOSWELL I think there were three or four tiny little pieces, and I think those are here in the Archives.
Dr. HUMES. The X-ray, as you know, doesn't tell me how large that was or what its bulk or mass was. Most of the fragments that we recovered were grains of sand-type fragments.
Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah, millimeter or so.
Dr. HUMES. I don't recall them of that size.
Dr. PETTY. So that placing the outshoot wound in the right frontal bone toward the coronal suture is probably at out where it was.
Dr. HUMES. Uh-huh.
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 on 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--
Dr. HUMES. And this photograph No. 45, I am quite convinced, is an attempt to demonstrate that wound, and not a very successful one I'm afraid, because I can't for sure pick it out. This, I believe, was taken looking down at the inside looking close to the posterior cranial fossa.
Dr. BOSWELL. And what we see here is a lot of red and fragments of bone.
Dr. COE. Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, have you discussed these photographs with the other pathologists who have previously gone over this with you?
Dr. HUMES. I have not.
Dr. BOSWELL. I went over the photographs with Humes.
Dr. COE. Because at least there's already one of them right---I had the impression that they apparently thought---I was just curious as to---
Dr. HUMES. Our written description clearly, I think, indicates that point right there.
Dr. COE. But they describe, some of them, the entrance they feel being 10 centimeters above the occipital protuberance.
Dr. PETTY. Well, there have been all sorts of changes from the original--I mean, right and left and up and down.
Dr. COE. No. That's why I was interested in whether they had discussed it with the pathologists or whether the pathologists had been interpreting entirely from the photographs when they made the statement.
Dr. PETTY. SO, on photograph No. 42, then, down right at the hairline, right at almost in the midline, is the inshoot wound, and this photograph is not taken with the inshoot wound centered in the photograph, but rather the posterior extension of the scalp tear is the subject of the photograph.
Dr. HUMES. Again, to be sure that it was related to the gentleman's head rather than focusing specifically on a wound, no I don't think we took the photograph specifically at that site, do you, Jay?
Dr. PETTY. And, you say, Dr. Boswell, that the bullet entered the skin and that the wound in the skull was a little above that.
Dr. BOSWELL. Right.
Dr. PETTY. Because apparently the bullet had tunneled a little under the skin and then that corresponds with the diagram that I saw which showed a point on the back of the body, the diagram with an arrow pointing upward and slightly to the left.
Dr. HUMES. You caught---I don't know what you are referring to.
Dr. BADEN. Could I interrupt I second? Dr. Angel has to go at this point, but in summary, you are pointing to the skull. The X-rays and the photographs and the X-ray of fragments of bone that was taken by Dr. Humes during the autopsy would indicate that the exit perforation is where?
Dr. ANGEL. Along in here I think, above the temporal line, and that triangular fragment I think would fit from--just short of the fragment down to the edge of the exit perforation and then across this way, fitting in as sort of a triangle in the upper part of the frontal---so I think that's the best fit that I could estimate from seeing the X-rays.
Dr. BADEN. And this would place the exit gunshot wound just anterior and almost incorporated into the lateral aspect of the coronal suture line.
Dr. ANGEL. A little in front of it, yes.
Dr. BADEN. Then it's slightly in front of and just superior to the temporal bone.
Dr. ANGEL. Apparently above the hairline. His hairline was fairly low; he wasn't getting bald like me. So, I think an exit would about there would fit, then, the fragment that you have.
Dr. BADEN. Just anterior to the coronal suture line?
Dr. ANGEL. Just anterior to the coronal suture line, yes. Well above pterion, far above pterion near the point where the temporal line crosses the coronal suture.
Dr. BADEN. Do you have a name for it?
Dr. ANGEL. Stephanion.
Dr. BADEN. I think we should also record that Dr. Angel graciously came over at a moment's notice to help us with these interpretations, and we're most grateful.
Dr. ANGEL. Thank you very much, doctor.
Dr. PETTY. Dr. Boswell, this is the diagram that I was referring to a moment ago where the point of
K. KLEIN. Could you identify in some way what it is?
Dr. PETTY. The face sheet of Dr. Humes' protocol.
Dr. PETTY. Which shows an inshoot wound on the back of the head and the arrow pointing upward and to the left--that just meant up.
Dr. BOSWELL. That just meant up. It wasn't intended to indicate direction or anything.
Dr. PETTY. And, do you know what this word is? It says "ragged," and the reproduction has lost something here. The next word I can't make out.
Dr. BOSWELL. I'm sorry, I can't either.
Dr. PETTY. OK. thank you very much.
Dr. COE. Dr. Boswell, was it the Clark commission or the Rockefeller commission?
Dr. BOSWELL. The physicians that you spoke with remember? Clark.
Dr. BADEN. Dr. Fisher and Dr. Moritz?
Dr. BOSWELL. Yes. right.
Dr. BADEN. At time break perhaps they can review the original notes and that will-
Dr. BOSWELL. "Ragged slanting" is what it says.
Dr. BADEN. And then we'll discuss that after the break. [Coffee break.]
Dr. BADEN. [continuing after the coffee break]. We were just discussing the original fact sheet document. Dr. Boswell, would you just explain what you wrote and what ,other people wrote on the front and back of that page?
Dr. BOSWELL. The weights of the organ are not written by me. Everything else on here is mine. All of the notes on the diagrams are mine, and this diagram on the back is mine, this and this.
Dr. BADEN. Could you explain the diagram on the back?
Dr. BOSWELL. Well, this was an attempt to illustrate the magnitude of the wound again. And as you can see it's 10 centimeters from right to left, 17 centimeters from posterior to anterior. This was a piece of 10 centimeter bone that was fractured off of the skull and was attached to the under surface of the skull. There were fragments attached to the skull or to the scalp and all the three major flaps. I guess the--I'm not sure in retrospect what I meant by that.
Dr. Petty. May I ask you, Dr. Boswell, if this diagram depicts in anyway the same V-shaped notch that we saw on some of the color photographs, namely, and 1 have in hand, No. 27 here. Would this notch be the same as the notch that we see that points more or less toward the right ear?
DR. BOSWELL. I believe so. And what this is meant to depict at this point, I don't know.
Dr. PETTY. Well, having gone through a lot of smashed skulls---injuries--l know precisely what you're grappling with.
Dr. Humes. I think this--I would interpret this fracture through the floor of the orbit --
Dr. PETTY. Of the orbital cavity.
Dr. HUMES. Right. It was an explosion-type fracture.
Dr. PETTY. We also had a question about photograph number--is this 10 or 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.
Dr. PETTY. Yes. This is the other photograph which is horribly blurred for reasons unapparent--this is photograph No 41--these two show the right anterior aspect of the head, neck and chest of the late President, and there is a notch which we see; it's very blurred and it really doesn't seem to be so much of a notch as a semicircular defect in the central portion of the--the inferior margin of this gaping wound. Is that what was considered to be a partial bullet wound?
Dr. BOSWELL. Of exit, yes. That was what we ultimately concluded, yes.
Dr. PETTY. The reason I specifically bring this up is that somebody somewhere along the line has changed this from the lower margin to upper margin, and we just couldn't see that.
Dr. HUMES. You see, Dr. Perry informed us that he went right through that wound to make his tracheostomy.
Dr. BADEN. We're talking about also photographs Nos. 13 and 14. Did--in further discussing the exit perforation through the tracheotomy, did you have occasion to explore in the neck area beyond what is in the protocol, beyond what the description was? As to what was injured?
Dr. HUMES. Well, the trachea, I think we described the irregular or jagged wound of the trachea, and then we described a contusion in the apex of the lung and the inferior surface of the dome of the right pleural cavity, and that's one photograph that we were distressed not to find when we first went through and catalogued these photographs, because I distinctly recall going to great lengths to try and get the interior upper portion of the right thorax illuminated-you know the technical difficulties with that, getting the camera positioned and so forth, and what happened to that film, I don't know. There were a couple films that apparently had been exposed to light or whatever and then developed, but we never saw that photograph.
Dr. BADEN. From the time you first examined them, that particular photograph was never seen?
Dr. HUMES. Never available to us, but we thought it coincided very neatly with the path that ultimately we felt that that missile took.
Dr. BADEN. Continuing with the path. There is present in the X-rays Some Opaque material to the right of the lower cervical spine which has been interpreted as being tiny bullet or bone fragments. Would the track, as you recall, be consistent with the missile striking a transverse process?
Dr. HUMES. Well, I must confess that we didn't make that interpretation at the time. I'm familiar with the writings of Dr. John Lattimer and of some reprints of his articles, and I'd have to go back and restudy it the way he has done. But as you can see from the point of entrance, it wasn't that far lateral. It could conceivably have nicked a--the edge of a transverse process.
Dr. PETTY. Now, it was tending further to the left as it went?
Dr. HUMES. Why sure, because it came out in the midline.
Dr. BADEN. Just for the record, you say it could have nicked?
Dr. HUMES. It could. I don't know.
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 can 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.
Dr. DAVIS. May I interject. I think perhaps it's time now for some correlation's. We have here black and white copies of Zapruder film frames Nos. 311, 312, and 313. That's 313 at the moment when the head actually exploded. 311 and 312 being the position of the head immediately prior. We have these photographs here, and we have the lateral X-rays, X-ray No. 2. 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 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 be deflected ward, 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 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; and I think it also fits in with Zapruder frames 311 and 312 immediately before 313, where the head explodes, in which in 311 and in 312 we see the President sitting, his chin is down, and it's hard to say which way the head is turned in this because these are black and white photographs and they are enlargements and they are slightly blurred. But it would be consistent, then, with the bullet striking, and we all recognize that this is fairly thick condensed bone, and that in itself would add to the propensity for a split bullet. So I'm advancing that as an investigative hypothesis for investigative opinion, for discussion at this time, to see if we can arrive at a consensus.
Dr. HUMES. I would like to comment further, from our point of view, that these enlargements which you have shown us now of these other photographs is the first time I have seen these enlargements; I have not seen them before.
Dr. DAVIS. These were just made up 2 or 3 days ago. Two days ago.
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 but I would envision this as a tunneling first and then entry into the skull.
Mr. 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 in 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.
Dr. BADEN. Dr. Humes, realizing our concerns, if there is anything that you or Dr. Boswell can say that can help clarify any further the entrance wound and track of the bullet in the head we would be most appreciative.
Dr. HUMES. I think we're at a distinct disadvantage because, as I said, when we cataloged the photographs and numbered them. and spent half a day or day to do it, I'll confess to possibly even overlooking the area to which you gentlemen, and apparently someone else, has directed attention. I would not attempt to make an interpretation of what it represents because I can't at this point.
Dr. DAVIS. But at the time of the autopsy there was no defect in the scalp other than where the bone was gone.
Dr. HUMES. Right.
Dr. BADEN. When you say defect, you're talking about a defect of the wound of entry?
Dr. DAVIS. Right.
Dr. BOSWELL. Now, I'm sure that our record describes the tunneling of that wound of entry pretty well, at least as to length and distance beneath skin. doesn't it? I can't recall the description, but I'm sure it is there.
Dr. HUMES. I'm looking for the color photograph that coincides with No. which one is it ?
Dr. BADEN. 42 is one.
Dr. HUMES. Yeah. Whether this "defect" is a "defect", in my mind. I'm not sure. I'm not sure it's not some clotted blood that's lying on the scalp.
Dr. BADEN. What we're trying to do is to have your best opinions and recollections to deal with.
Dr. HUMES. Right.
Dr. BADEN. Now, and much of this goes toward the head wound and also the neck wound, is there anything further about the wound of the back that exits the neck that you can recall independently relative to what isn't in the record, as when you described the trachea. Do you remember anything about the carotid arteries or the carotid sheath area?
Dr. HUMES. It had to have passed roedial to the right carotid bundle. Dr. BADEN. Medial. And was there a lot of hemorrhage in that area?
Dr. HUMES. There was moderate hemorrhage in the soft tissues.
Dr. BADEN. In the area of the trachea and that side of the neck?
Dr. HUMES. Right.
Dr. BADEN. George, is there anything further you'd like to add?
Dr. LOQUVAM. No, I've said my piece.
Dr. HUMES. Show me by photograph where the external occipital protuberance is?
Dr. DAVIS. I can't show you where it is on this photograph to my satisfaction.
Dr. PETTY. Well, the thing that we
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 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 hack and look and add some corrections and whatever to this note.
There's another fact of this. Having completed the examination, others might he interested in this--
Dr. BADEN. Yes. We're in session, Joe.
Dr. HUMES. Having completed the examination and remaining to assist the morticians in the preparation of the body, we did not leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6 in the morning. It was clearly obvious that a committee could not write the report. I had another commitment for that morning, a little later, a religious commitment with one of my children. And so I went home and took care of that, slept far several hours until about 6 in the evening of the day after, and then sat down and wrote the report that's sitting before you now myself, my own version of it. without any input other than the discussions that we thought that we had had, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and myself. I thou returned that morning and looked at what I had written--now wait, I'm a day ahead of myself---Saturday morning we discussed--
Dr. BOSWELL. Saturday morning we got together and we called Dallas.
Dr. HUMES. We called Dallas. See, we were at a loss because we hadn't appreciated the exit wound in the neck, we had been-- I have to go back a little bit. I think for your edification. There were four times as many people in the room most of the time as there are in this room at this moment, including the physician to the President, the Surgeon General of the Navy, the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical Center, the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical School, the Army, Navy, and Air Force aides to the President of the United States at one time or another, the Secret Service, the FBI and countless nondescript people who were unknown to me. Mistake No. 1. So, there was considerable confusion. So we went home. I took care of this obligation that I had. To refresh my mind, we met together around noon on Saturday, 11 in the morning, perhaps 10:30, something like that and---
Dr. BADEN. Now this is the day after?
Dr. HUMES. The day after, within 6 or 8 hours of having completed the examination, assisting Waller's and so forth for the preparation of the President's remains. We got together and discussed cur problem. We said we've got to talk to the people in Dallas We should have talked to them the night before, but there was no way we could get out of the room. You'd have to understand that situation, that hysterical situation that existed. How we kept our wits about us as well as we did is amazing to me. I don't know how we managed as poorly or as well as we did under the circumstances. So I called Dr. Perry. Took me a little while to reach him. We had a very nice conversation on the phone in which he described a missile wound, what he interpreted as a missile wound, in the midline of the neck through which he had created a very quick emergency, as you can see from the photographs, tracheotomy incision effect destroying its value to us and obscuring it very gorgeously for us. Well, of course, the minute he said that to me, lights went on, and we said ah, we have some place for our missile to have gone. And then, of course, I asked him, much to my amazement, had he or any other physician in attendance upon the President. examined the back of the patient, his neck, or his shoulder. They said no, the patient had never been moved from his back while they were administering to him. So, the confusion that existed from some of his comments and the comments of other standby people in the emergency room in Dallas had been in the news media and elsewhere, so that added to the confusion. So, following that, and that discussion, and we having a meeting of minds as to generally what was necessary to be accomplished, and being informed by the various people in authority that our gross report should be delivered to the White House physician no later than Sunday evening, the next day, 24 hours later, or not quite 24 hours later. Not having slept for about 48 hours, I went home and rested from noon until 8 or 10 that evening, Saturday evening, and then I sat down in front of other notes on which I had made minor comments, handwritten notes.
I wrote the report which is present here. Now we also have here--and since it's in the record I want to comment about it some comments that I destroyed, some notes related to this, by burning in the fireplace of my home, and that is true. However, nothing that was destroyed is not present in this write-up. Now, why did I do that? It's interesting, and I've not spoken of this in public. Not too long here of this, I had had the experience of serving as an escort officer for some foreign physicians from foreign navies, who were being entertained and given a course of instruction in the United States. We had 20 or 30 of these chaps, and they used to come through every year or two, and I often was escort officer for them. They spent 5 weeks in Washington or 5 weeks in the field, then we went various places. We went to submarine bases and Marine Corps installations and naval training centers to teach them how physicians function in the American Navy. One of the places to which I happened to take them--and we tried to teach them a little Americana--I took them to Greenfield Village, which, as many of you know, Henry Ford set up adjacent to his former home in suburban Detroit, Dearborn. And in that location is a courthouse in which President Lincoln used to hold forth when he was riding the circuit, and these men were very impressed with that, and they knew who President Lincoln was and were impressed with his courthouse and many other things in Greenfield Village. But what I was amazed to find there, because I personally did not know it was there until I made that visit, was the chair in which President Lincoln sat when he was assassinated.
Somehow or other they got that chair out of Ford's Theatre, and Henry Ford got it into Greenfield Village, and it's sitting in this courthouse. Now the back of that chair is stained with a dark substance, and there's much discussion to this day as to whether that stain represents the blood of the deceased President or whether it is Macassar. I don't know if you all remember what Macassar is. When people our age were young and you'd visit your grandmother, on the back of the sofa there were lovely lace doilies in the homes of many people. And if you recall what I'm speaking of--they were on the sofas and reclining chairs--and those lace doilies bear the name antimacassar. You could go to a store in this country and buy an anti macassar. They don't exist any more. And Macassar was a hair dressing that gentlemen wore in those days to keep their hair in place. And these officers were appalled that the American people would wish to have an object stained with the blood of the President on public display. And I was--it kind of bothered me a little bit-it still does, to this day. And here I was, now in the possession of a number of pieces of paper, some of which unavoidably, and in the confusion which I described to you earlier, were stained in part with the blood of our deceased President. And I knew that I would give the record over to some person or persons in authority, and I felt that these pieces of paper were inappropriate to be turned over to anyone, and it was for that reason and for that reason only, that, having transcribed those notes onto the pieces of paper that are before you, I destroyed those pieces of paper. I think I'd do the same thing tomorrow.
I had a similar problem, because I felt they would fail into the hands of some sensation seeker.
Dr. BADEN. Is everything you had on the notes recorded in the holographic document before you, which is kept in the Archives, that you wrote at that time?
Dr. HUMES. Correct. Now, there are corrections and comments and changes of language in here. I think I'd have to go through them and with care to see if some of them are substantive or not substantive, and they are a result of meeting with Dr. Boswell and Dr. Finck on Sunday afternoon in the Naval Medical Center and going over them together. This document then was signed by all three of us, whereas in the part before some minor changes were made maybe they--some of them sounded like we'd expressed an opinion, and we thought maybe that wasn't what should be done.
But in any event, this document then was signed by all three of us and parenthetically in the middle of this preparation, other naval officers were not- no one was telling us anything. We did this strictly on our own. But in an adjacent room and awaiting the results of our efforts were other senior naval officers watching the television. And it was at that point, of course, that Mr. Oswald was assassinated or shot, and, in fact, we interrupted our work to try and figure out.
So, in any event then, this document was typed up under only immediate supervision by a woman, secretary 10 the Commanding Officer at the Naval Medical Center, and I personally hand-carried the written document to the office of the White House physician about 6 on Sunday evening.
Dr. ROSE. Could the record reflect that Mr. Oswald's preliminary documents, also at a much later time, Mr. Ruby's documents, the preliminary ones, were similarly taken care
Dr. HUMES. I don't wish to apologize because I don't think that an apology is necessary, but I'd like for this document, for the record, to reflect exactly what happened, some place, as it did.
Dr. BOSWELL. As to the previous comment, I have frequently redrawn diagrams that might have gotten a spot of blood on them.
Dr. HUMES. Now, I didn't redraw Jay's, and don't ask me why, because it was, I guess it was because I didn't have another piece of paper and I didn't want to sit down and reproduce a drawing.
Dr. ROSE. Doctor, I apologize for doing it in the case of Mr. Oswald.
Dr. BADEN. Let the record note that the previous speaker, Dr. Rose, did perform the autopsies on Mr. Oswald and Mr. Ruby.
Dr. HUMES. OK. Now, the reason that we were referring to these photographs was some discussion between Dr. Petty and myself as to the verbalized location of the wound, what we interpreted as the wound of entrance, and my problem is that these are, to my recollection, my interpretation of what I saw. The problem that we have now. I think, in the photographs at least in part, may or may not explain the situation totally to everybody's satisfaction. The photographs do not clearly demonstrate where the external occipital protuberance is, and that's only comment I could make Chuck about that. I feel, by looking at this photograph, that the wound was in fact below the external occipital protuberance and certainly no worse than lateral to it.
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 ,in the cerebellum, but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. there 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.
Dr. DAVIS. Early, I was asking Dr. Boswell if he had had an opportunity at some previous time to meet with a group of pathologists such as ourselves. Forensic pathologists, and go over the photographs and all of this material together, to more or less get a consensus. And, correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Boswell, it is your impression that this opportunity had never been previously afforded to yourself. How about you, Dr. Humes? Have you had this opportunity in the past?
Dr. HUMES. Absolutely not.
Dr. DAVIS. All right, so, basically, this is the first time that the original people who were there at the autopsy and saw things with their own eyes, wrote reports, have ever had an opportunity to sit down and view these pictures in the company other pathologists. Now, there have been previously other forensic pathologists.
Dr. COE. That's why I asked if Dr. Boswell had a chance to talk with the Clark Commission pathologist.
Dr. BOSWELL. Well, I was here with him merely to identify photographs and X-rays and whatever other material they went over, and I did answer as many as I could, but there was no discussion at that time as to their opinions: they formulated those after I was away.
Dr. Davis. So basically, then, there has never been any free association of a jelling of ideas and clarification of small points that might be interpreted differently from one person to another. So this apparently is the first time a group has got together and sat down and hashed over the case as we so frequently do in our everyday practice.
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. BADEN. Now, continuing with that description that Dr. Humes wrote down, this handwritten report that you described, that particular measurement Dr. Peru 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.
Dr. BADEN. So that you did make that directly from notes taken at the time 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 occipital 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.
Dr. LOQUVAM. Charles, would it be possible for Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell to look at that picture executed to show the posterior cranial fossa? And if the two of them could possibly pick out the point of entrance--I know the picture
K. KLEIN. Dr. Petty, when you locate the proper photographs could you repeat the question again, because I doubt that the machine would have picked it up.
Dr. PETTY. The question is, Could you, Dr. Humes, or Dr. Boswell, either one, from examination of the photograph purported to show the posterior cranial fossa locate the point of inshoot into the skull? Now we're looking at photograph No. 44.
Dr. BADEN. Is there a black and white of that?
Dr. DAVIS. I think there is; but I don't see it here.
Dr. HUMES. There is.
Dr. Boswell. Yes. What number is that?
Dr. HUMES. The black and white photograph is No. 17, the color is 44.
Dr. PETTY. Well, that not the one, I'm sorry. That's the exit wound. I want the one in the posterior cranial--could this be the one that you said earlier was looking down the posterior cranial fossa on the inside?
Dr. HUMES. That's the one right there.
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.
Dr. PETTY. Can you orient this for us, Dr. Humes? I am a little confused on exactly--now is this picture oriented like that, or is it like this? Because if this is checked, this has to be posterior dorsal, so the wound has got to be somewhere where Dr. Humes has pointed, because the--
Dr. HUMES. But why would we go to the trouble of putting the ruler there, you see. This is reflected scalp.
Dr. PETTY. I think the biggest point in consideration here is that this is in focus here [pointing to upper scalp area in question] and this is not in focus here [pointing to lower area].
Dr. HUMES. Right.
Dr. PETTY. Therefore we must be looking specifically in that area.
Dr. DAVIS. Did the person who took the photographs ask you what to take or just took what he thought was
Dr. HUMES. No no. He was directed.
Dr. BOSWELL. He was taking specific areas.
Dr. HUMES. A real problem.
Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah. I know.
Dr. HUMES. I don't think the photograph permits us to say with accuracy where it is. And recall again that we were not privileged to see these photographs until the date on the legend that comes with it, sometime in 1966.
Dr. BOSWELL. Three years.
Dr. PETTY. But the point of entry on the external surface of the body of the head is incidentally depicted in photograph 15 and shows near the margin of the photograph down toward the hairline of the President. And again here on No. it shows the same thing.
Dr. HUMES. I object to your word "incidentally."
Dr. PETTY. Well, by that I mean it's not the subject of the center of the photographer's lens. it's way down toward--
Dr. HUMES. No, no. But you'd have greater difficulty localizing it, I submit to you, were it the same subject of the photographer's lens.
Dr. BADEN. That's true.
Dr. PETTY. I can understand that, sure.
Dr. BADEN. One of the considerations I had in looking at the film, Dr. Humes, relative to the interpretation I had. was that perhaps you were holding
Dr. HUMES. Holding the scalp up, holding the head up.
Dr. BADEN. Holding the scalp and head up specifically so that the photographer could get that point.
Dr. HUMES. Not that point. That is not the case.
Dr. BADEN. That is not the case?
Dr. HUMES. Because I submit to you that, despite the fact that this upper point that has been the source of some discussion here this afternoon is excessively obvious in the color photograph, I almost defy you to find it in that magnification in the black and white.
Dr. BADEN. We're not trying to be argumentative. What we're trying to do is fully understand what you say and what you did.
Dr. HUMES. Nor I. Right. The gentleman was in the dorsal recumbent position on an autopsy table, not the greatest photographic position in the world, and we had to hold his head up. One of us is lifting the head, flexing the neck if you will. by holding the scalp, and to show the wound where it was in relation to the man's head.
Dr. BADEN. In reviewing this material earlier today, you made an ink notation on the skull that we have here, localizing the entrance perforation to the right of external occipital protuberance--in reviewing the skull and marking at this time and having reviewing all of the films and incorporating our discussion, is that still a valid representation?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, I think so.
Dr. BADEN. Dr. Humes, this refers to the notation made on the skull. We are using it as an exhibit, and it is signed and initialed by you.
Dr. HUMES. I believe that that's a reasonable representation. I think that we were making an attempt, and, of course, we didn't have Polaroid in those days, like we might use now, to be sure that we had an image of what we wished, and its interesting how technology changes things. We were attempting in that photograph to demonstrate that wound, and I feel that we have failed to demonstrate the wound.
Dr. BADEN. Would it be fair to ask you Dr. Humes, if in the confusion that was put upon you, as you described earlier in doing the autopsy and taking photographs, it is mentioned in somebody's notes that at one point you had asked who was in charge in the autopsy room--whether that all has significance as to the extent of the autopsy. It has been interpreted that you were under certain directions prior to starting the autopsy.
Dr. HUMES. That was anecdotal. When we were informed that the President I was going to be brought for an examination I put on a scrub suit and went to the vicinity of the morgue to await the arrival of the people accompanying the body. By this time, of course, it had become generally known, because when I left to come to the hospital I had no idea why I was even going over there, but by the time I speak of, it was on public radio and television, and crowds of people were gathering around the building in the vicinity of the loading dock adjacent to the autopsy room. There were beginning to arrive large numbers of people. And as I came out of the morgue in my scrub snit before the President's body arrived, there was a photographer, a press photographer roving around the corridors, and I didn't want to get in a personal altercation with him, so I walked out onto the loading dock where there was quite an accumulation of people, and I said, who's in charge here, and I meant of the crowd control as it were. And a gentleman standing no more than 3 yards from me informed me in a very loud voice that he was in charge. And I said who are you. And he said that he was the commanding general of the military district of Washington. I said fine, there's a photographer in there, and I don't think we'd like to have him present. And he dispatched, I think, a Marine captain to come and remove this person. I had no further conversation with this gentleman, nor did he direct me as to what I should or shouldn't do.
Dr. BADEN. All right. During the course of the autopsy, and this has been a point that has been raised before. Did you feel directly or indirectly that somebody else advised you as to what the extent of the autopsy should be. Perhaps as far as leaving marks on the body, or making incisions, or as Dr. Petty brought up in the beginning, whether to look at the adrenal glands or not?
Dr. HUMES. Yes. There was no question but we were being urged to expedite this examination as quickly as possible, that members of the President's family were in the building, that they bad refused to leave the premises until the President's body was ready to be moved; and similar remarks of that vein, which we made every effort to put aside and approach this investigation in as scientific manner as we could. But did it harass us and cause difficulty, of course it did how could it not?
Dr. BOSWELL. I don't think it interfered with the manner in which we did the autopsy.
Dr. HUMES. I don't either.
Dr. BADEN. I ask you this question in a sense that all of us here have been similar positions of a lesser magnitude, when for one reason or another, the family doesn't want an autopsy, a full autopsy or whatever, so we appreciate the situation.
Dr. HUMES. It was stress. The main purpose of the examination, and of course the main purpose that we understood of the examination, was what happened to the President, what killed the President of the United States.
Dr. BADEN. Would you feel that you established
Dr. HUMES. We established.
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
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.
Dr. BADEN. With everything else going on at the time?
Dr. HUMES. Yes. Our collective decisions, I suppose.
Dr. BOSWELL. We had exhibited the midportion of the track and the chest by that time, and demonstrated the contusion on the apex of the lung and subpleurally, and we had at that point two points of the would and then subsequently the wound of exit.
Dr. Humes. Pretty good course.
Dr. BADEN. The track definitely did not go through the pulmonary tissue?
Dr. HUMES. Negative.
Dr. HUMES. There was a contusion of the dome of the right side of the thorax and a contusion, as Dr. Boswell said, a retropleural contusion, and it was a contusion of the upper lobe of the lung.
Dr. BADEN. Retroparietal pleura. Now, you bring up another issue in which you can be of great help to us, because you say the microscopic slides. We apparently, it appears, will not be able to see the microscopic slides. Certainly at this time they are nor available to us. Is there anything you can tell us about the microscopic evaluation and examination?
Dr. HUMES. I can't think of anything that would materially change anybody's opinion. The wound was similar to other bullet wounds that I have seen in the skin, sort of a charring effect of the margins and nothing particularly remarkable.
Dr. BOSWELL. No particulate matter.
Dr. PETTY. Do you know whether there was foreign material or-
Dr. BOSWELL. I don't remember.
Dr. BADEN. Would looking at your microscopic description refresh your memory?
Dr. BOSWELL. Sure.
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 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, and 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 there fore presume it was not present.
Dr. PETTY. Earl, did you have any questions or comments?
Dr. Roam. No.
Dr. PETTY. John?
Dr. BADEN. Is there anything that perhaps we haven't covered that might be of pertinence to the group?
Dr. HUME. No, I'm distressed with the confusion and allegations of complicity in some plot that we may have been engaged in, which of course is totally ridiculous. We operated under great difficulty. We operated under difficulty in testifying before the Warren Commission, because at that juncture we had not photographs or the X-rays available to us. We worked with an artist, a young medical illustrator who worked for us at the Naval Medical School, and he made a couple of schematic diagrams which have been widely publicized and came reasonably close to describing what our interpretation was of the path of the missiles that struck the President. If you want to try and dissect those in great detail, you'd have to recall that we were doing it from memory and he was doing it third handed, at very best, and he was quite a young person and quite capable, I think, for his years and his experience. He did a pretty good job. Our interview with the Warren Commission, however--I think it's detailed, I'm sure, in the volumes-was reasonably exhaustive, and we had no difficulty with questions that were asked and really have not had any official contact with anybody else officially reviewing this material in the intervening years. From our point of view and that of any pathologist who is saddled with this kind of a responsibility, the peripheral things as to whence cometh the missile and where it went and various other things and so-called single-bullet theory has been, in part, attributed to us, and that's not of our doing. Our descriptions are of the anatomic abnormalities that we found. It did not seem inconsistent to us if this bullet exited the anterior neck of the President, it had to go somewhere, and the person who was sitting in front of him was the Governor, and if it didn't hit him, I for the world have no idea where it went. Those kinds of things are peripheral, but we've been sort of involved, or our names have been involved, with those kinds of conjectures that we really can't make any definite opinion about or scientific opinion about.
Dr. BADEN. But in essence you said, as you indicated before, your main goal at the time you did the autopsy was to determine what happened to the President, and the bottom line for you then, as it is now, having reviewed everything and discussed everything, essentially two gunshot wounds from behind struck the President.
Dr. HUMES. Correct.
Dr. BADEN. Now, there may be, as we're going over the photographs and X-rays and all, some room for discussion about precise points, but you feel the essential findings are two gunshot wounds from behind and from above, I take it, or just from behind?
Dr. HUMES. I think behind is probably the most one can say from the anatomic findings.
Dr. BADEN. And, apart from the tremendous pressures--nonspecific pressures-to get the things done rapidly, you didn't feel any specific pressure-knowing what the request of the families are in situations like this--to be as quick and brief as possible. You didn't perceive any specific constraint on you by an individual as to what you should or shouldn't do as far as the autopsy goes?
Dr. HUMES. Not as it pertains to the injuries to the President.
Dr. BADEN. Well, as pertaining to the whole autopsy. This is one of the things I'm concerned with in viewing the autopsy protocol. There are many organs in addition to the adrenal glands, that you don't specifically describe. Was that of your own judgment and temperament and emotion, or, more specifically, possibly from another source?
Dr. BOSWELL. There were no constraints. Initially Admiral Burkley said that they had caught Oswald and that they needed the bullet to complete the case. find we were told initially that's what we should do. is to find the bullet. Following the X-rays we realized that that was not possible, that there was no bullet there, except fragments, and at that point, Jim and Admiral Burkley discussed it, and it was at that point that he agreed that we should continue and do a complete autopsy, which we then did.
Dr. HUMES. Right.
Dr. Boswell. And that was the only constraint during the course of the autopsy, and that was immaterial as it turned out.
Dr. BADEN. I think it would be derelict for us not to afford you an opportunity to answer these questions, since this is the first discussion you're having among peers.
Dr. HUMES. No. It would be a mistake, it would be a mistake for anybody to interpret that any of this contusion under which we operated significantly interfered with our ability to make this examination, to take these photographs, to do the X-rays and so forth; no. Through the gigantic retrospectoscope, would one do everything exactly today as one did that evening, that's another question.
Dr. BADEN. But you did at some point consult with Admiral Burkley as to how far to go?
Dr. HUMES. Well, early on. His desire was, he's a physician, he's a family physician, he was the family physician to the President's family, his concerns were. I think, very understandable in light of the emotional attitude of the family. He was in hopes that the examination could achieve its goal in as expedient a manner as possible, which I think reasonably and accurately describes what he was
Dr. PETTY. Does anybody have any other questions? I think we ought to. for the record, poll everyone.
Dr. BADEN. Yes. As we go around, this is the only opportunity Dr. Boswell and Dr. Humes have had to discuss this thing further and we should make sure that there aren't any thoughts or issues that anyone has concerned that, in fairness to everybody concerned, haven't been discussed or have been left unclear. Dr. Earl Rose.
Dr. ROSE. No questions. Thank you very much.
Dr. BADEN. John Coe?
Dr. COE. No further questions. I'd also like to thank Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell for appearing before us today.
Dr. BADEN. Dr. George Loquvam?
Dr. LOQUVAM. No questions except my sincere thanks to these two gentlemen.
Dr. BADEN. Dr. Davis?
Dr. DAVIS. No questions, but I again would like to thank them very much because I think that this has helped us and will probably help set the record straight in clarifying the issues that have been raised.
Dr. HUMES. I would at this juncture, if I might. interject one thing. It was reasonably easy to demonstrate, certainly verbally, if we didn't succeed in photographs, the wound of entrance in the posterior portion of the skull. It was not so easy to accurately locate the wound of exit because of the great disruption of the fragments and loss of tissue and bone in that area, so that we placed it a little behind or a little below or a little wherever in relation to what now we collectively may decide, after looking in a dispassionate, quiet manner, with X-rays and photographs and things that are available. I'm not a bit surprised, because X-rays No. 1 and No. 2 show you the massive defect, and it is kind of hard to pinpoint it in that massive defect. And these flaps were not firmly attached, they were bony fragments, floating around in the loose scalp.
Dr. PETTY. I have no further questions, but I think that we would have been remiss if we had not invited you to come down and give us a hand in trying to interpret the photographs. I think that any inquiry into photography, X-rays, and so forth ought to be accompanied with an on the level discussion between the people that were involved at the time and with the people that are reviewing, and I think this is just great to be able to establish some form of rapport which has been denied you, I might add, for some little time.
Dr. HUMES. Well, I would again comment for the record that we have acceded to any reasonable request from any responsible persons in this regard and have shunned any other types of discussion about this case. Well, I've gotten to know John Lattimer for other reasons. I know some of the things he's done, and I have had conversations with him. He's come and lectured and given a talk at our hospital, things of that nature, but as far as engaging in any other type of discussion, as you very well know Dr. Petty, we have not nor do we plan any such discussions we feel are inappropriate.
Dr. BADEN. Given this opportunity for all of us, is there anything further Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell that you perhaps want to get into the record or that could be of assistance that we've left out? When 6 years from now we say, well, why didn't we discuss this or that, the record should be clear that you've been under our questioning now for 2 hours and 20 minutes.
Dr. HUMES. We're in no hurry, as I told Dr. Petty earlier, anything that would come up in the future after we leave that we can be helpful with, I would hope that you would provide us the opportunity to be of assistance.
Dr. BADEN. Dr. Boswell, anything?
Dr. BOSWELL. Nothing.
Dr. BADEN. One minor thing. Looking at the X-rays, there seem to be three of them that were taken after the body was eviscerated.
Dr. BADEN. Do you recall whether you took most of the X-rays prior to the autopsy?
Dr. HUMES. I can clarify that, because having not found a missile of any substance and having had experience in other locations, as anybody has, that bullets can do very strange things, we decided that we should take total X-rays of this gentleman to lie certain that some bullet didn't travel down an extremity or go some other place. And it was at that juncture that we made the decision, because we've all had that disturbing experience to have a missile do some very strange things, so we probably had eviscerated the body before we took X-rays of the extremities for instance
Dr. BADEN. Additional X-rays?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, whatever.
Dr. BADEN. I also want to thank you both tremendously, not only for being of help, but of being of instant help in such short notice.
K. KLEIN. And, finally, on behalf of the staff I also want to thank you both very, very much for coming down here.
[Note: The following was not transcribed.]
DR. BADEN. I definitely did ask Dr. Humes. following the transcription, whether any other post mortera X-rays were taken that he is aware of, other than those we showed him in possession of the Archives. He said definitely not, that these were the same X-rays of the President as he first saw them, and that he did not have X-rays taken of the peripheral part of the extremities, including the hands and feet.

Identifying Information:
Name Dr. C. James Carrico
Address Harbor View Medical Center Place City/State Seattle, Wash
Date Of Birth
Social Security
Physical Description: Height Weight.__ Ethnic Group
Date Jan 11, 1978
Harbor View Medical Center
M or S
Color Eyes Hair
Special Characteristics
Personal History:
a. Present Employment: Address Telephone
b. Criminal Record 1. Arrests
2. Convictions
Additional personal Information: a. Relative(s): Name
b. Area frequented:__ c. Remarks:
January 23, 1978 ...... Form #4-B
DATE; January 11, 1978
TIME:2:55 p.m.
PLACE: Seattle, Washington
Harbor View Medical Center
STAFF PRESENT: Andy Purdy, Staff Counsel
Mark Flanagan, Staff Researcher
INTERVIEWEE: Dr. James Carrico

KEY: C - Dr. Carrico
P - Purdy/Flanagan

P: Dr.Carrico, we have just been discussing the events of
November 22, 1963, and your treatment of President Kennedy and in some detail, the nature of the wounds for approximately the last hour. Is that correct?
C: That's correct.
P: For the record, could you please state what your present position is.
C: I'm Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington and Surgeon Chief at Harbor View Medical Center which is one of the University of Washington teaching hospitals.
P: How much experience in treating gunshot have you had since 1963?
C: One of my interests has remained the management of trauma and I would estimate I've seen roughly 60 to 75 gunshot wounds a year since that time.
P: Could you please describe the condition of President Kennedy when you first saw him in the Trauma Room at Parkland Hospital and begin in some detail a description of those wounds and the work you performed.
C: When I first saw him, he could best be described as agonal, his color was ashen blue-gray, respiration, he did have spontaneous respirations, they were irregular, spasmodic and not very effective. The nurse reported that he didn't have a blood pressure. I listened to his chest very briefly. He had some irregular sounds which I interpreted as heart sounds. There was some urgency to establish that he had two obvious wounds, one in the anterior neck, just to the right of the trachea just below the larynx. From that wound was issuing foamy blood, mostly air, some blood with each attempt at respiration. The other wound was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area, um One could see blood and brains, both cerebral and cerebrum fragments in that wound. The area was the most urgent item and I successfully passed an oral, endotracheal tube by mouth. I noticed at that time probably some deviation of the trachea to the left, very slight, some modest amount of hematoma in the recesses to the endo right of the trachea. The/tracheal tube was passed, the balloon was inflated, and we were able to then maintain adequate ventilation, although there was still some leak around the hole in the anterior neck. By that time, several other physicians had arrived, and I directed my attention to establishing more and intravenous fluids,/administration of fluids and medications while they continued to work on the
P: Upon your first examination of the anterior neck wound, was there any material going in or out of that wound?
C: Air. You could tell there was air going in and out because could the foamy material was issuing back and forth and you/hear the air going in and out.
P: Could you describe this movement of material as a bubbling
effect -- what did that material consist of?
C: Mostly air bubbles of foamy blood.
P: In describing the foam that you saw when you placed the endo-tracheal tube, where was that foam coming from? Was it coming from between the vocal cords?
C: Yes it was coming up - there was some foam between his cords and a little bit of air coming out.
P: Could you describe as best you can how the wound in the anterior neck looked?
C: My total recollection of that wound was of a small, fairly circular wound, with material issuing from it, And that's really my total recollection.
P: Based on your examination of that wound, are you able to tell us anything about the direction in which whatever object caused the wound had been passing? Were you able to determine what the nature of the object had been which had caused the wound?
C: Not for sure.
P: What was your belief?
C: It looked like a bullet.
P: Was it your sense that it was a full bullet or a bullet fragment? I would have no idea. was it your impression that the bullet that you felt had caused the wound had been traveling straight, was there a slight tumble, or was there a significant tumble to that bullet?
C: It's unlikely that there was any significant tumbling action because that would usually result in a larger wound, if that were in fact an exit. If it were an entrance wound, anyone could make no conclusions.
P: Based on your view of the wound, are you able to tell us anything about the angle through which the object passed through the President?
C: Not from my view, alone.
P: From what evidence are you able to make what determination about the angle?
C: Only that there was some injury to the trachea behind it, so the thing must have been going front to back, rather than right to left. That's about all you could say.
P: And you said you weren't able to make a determination about the angle, so presumably that means you were not able to say that it was from lower to higher or from higher to lower?
C: That's correct. I couldn't make any guesses about that.
P: Before the Warren Commission, you were asked a question which detailed a number of characteristics of damage through the President's body of a missile. I'd like to explore that hypothetical to see which of this evidence, if any, you know from personal knowledge and what you may know other sources. You were told to assume 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 faschia channel without violating the pleuralcavity. Based on the evidence as you knew it, did you have independent knowledge of this fact?
C: No.
P: I'll continue. But bruising only the apex of the right plural cavity. Did you have independent evidence that the apex of the right plural cavity was damaged?
C: No... at this point, we're beginning to get into an area where I could at least have some knowledge that was compatible with that.
P: What knowledge would that be?
C: That we saw the bruising, the hematoma beside the trachea. But I still didn't know whether the pleural was bruised or not.
P: Could the pleural have been bruised?
C: Yes, certainly,
P: I'll continue: But bruising only the apex of the right plural cavity and bruising the most aevical portion of the right lung. Did you have independent knowledge that the most aevical portion of the right lung was bruised?
C: No
P: Did you have any other evidence which would indicate that it might be or that it was likely that it was?
C: Again, that hematoma was in the area would be compatible with that, but certainly wouldn't indicate any lung injury.
P: And continuing: then causing a hematoma to the right of the larynx, which you described. As you said before the Warren Commission, I'll ask you now, was the appearance of the wound in the anterior neck consistent with those facts?
C: Yes, certainly it's consistent.
P: Could you please continue with/description of the treatment of the President after the insertion of the endotracheal tube.
C: After the endotracheal tube was inserted, as I said, the next step is to try to restore breathing -- an airway, then you try to restore the circulation. And we had adequate but not perfect ventilation. The next thing we tried to do was get the circulation going. There were already a couple of IV lines started by incisions in the ankle. Another one was being done in the arm. The President was getting fluids through those to try to get his blood pressure up. I don't know if blood had been started at that point or not. He was given some / steroids, and Dr. perry/Jones took over the primary management and I started making sure that the IVs, etc. were running properly.
P: They were dealing with the primary management of what portion? overall
C: They were calling the shots. They were/quarterbacking of his care, which basically consisted of trying to get vital signs, vital functions going, breathing going, circulation going, and assess how bad his head injury was.
P: What was your primary emphasis at that time. Would it be fair to say that you moved on from consideration of the airway problem to one of the circulation?
C: Yes.
P: What happened then in regard to the airway problem? What did Dr Jones and Dr Perry do?
C: The ventilation appeared to be adequate, we could not get adequate circulation. Their concern was that conceivably there was either, because there was still leakage around the trachea, that either the tube was not functioning entirely properly, or that there was some pneumothorax, some pleural injury. So they performed a tracheostomy to assure an adequate airway and instructed some other physicians to insert chest tubes to try to rule out the possibility of any tension in the thorax which could impair his circulation also.
P: What evidence did you obtain from the chest tubes?
C: Again, this is second-hand, I didn't do this. But, when the chest tubes were inserted, there was a small amount of blood, and small amount of air, which could have resulted from the actual surgical manipulations or could conceivably have been commensurate or compatible with some very small basically pneumothorax or hemothorax. But the chest tubes did not show any signs of massive injury and did not in their insertion didn't improve the situation.
P: Did you have sufficient facts from which you could conclude that the pleuralcavity was violated?
C: No, we did not.
P: Did you believe it was likely that the pleural cavity was violated?
C: We felt there was a high risk that it had been. After the chest tubes were inserted, we were sure that it was no longer potentially harmful to his life, But we still didn't know for sure whether it had been violated or not.
P: Do you have an opinion as to why there was leakage from the wound?
C: After the tube was inserted? I really don't. There are two fairly good possibilities. One is that the balloon was not completely through his trachea, either because it was not down quite far enough, or it was not blown up quite enough. Those are the two possibilities that would be most likely.
P: Why was President Kennedy given steroids?
C: Because we had, there had been an argument in the local papers a few weeks previously that raised the question of whether or not he had adrenal insufficiency. If one does have adrenal insufficiency and is injured, then you need extra steroids.
P: If there any risk to giving the person extra steroids if they don't need it?
C: Very little. Virtually none. Matter of fact, the amount he was given is the amount that your or my adrenals would excrete in time of maximum stress.
P: How harmful would it be for a person with an adrenal insufficiency not to get steroids at a time like this?
C: Nobody really knows, The current medical opinion is that you need that adrenal support to respond to the stress. And without that kind of support, one could go into shock. If one really wants to get esoteric, you can argue about whether that's really true or not. But in general, the current medical practice would be to give them, And if one were going to do an operation on someone with adrenal insufficiency, you would give steroids prior to enduring the operation.
P: Did Dr. Berkeley give you any advice as to whether or not steroids should be given?
C: Sometime during the course of resuscitation, and I've honestly forgotten how far along, he came in, asked if the President had steroids or not, I answered something like - I've forgotten what. He handed me some vials and said, "give him these."
P: Did you give him those?
C: I handed those to the nurse, and said "go ahead and give them."
P: Did Dr. Berkeley say that President Kennedy was an Addisonian?
C: I don't recall him saying that. He just asked if he'd them or not and I answered in the affirmative.
P: Do you remember any discussion about whether he was an Addisonian?
P: I really did not hear any other discussion.
C: Did you witness the tracheostomy incision?
P: No, not directly.
C: Do you know why the tracheostomy incision was made? Basically because there was concern that the ventilation through the endotracheal tube was conceivably not adequate. It was leaking and he wasn't doing well.
P: Did the procedure giving the tracheostomy incision give you a further look at the nature of the anterior neck wound of the President.
C: It did not give me any further look. I was not involved,
P: Did you see the anterior neck area subsequent to the tracheostomy incision?
C: No, I did not.
P: After the tube would be put into the tracheostomy incision, to what extent, if any, would a wound, or could a wound in that area be obscured?
C: Because of the nature of most tracheostomy tubes in the incision would almost totally be obscured. There is a flange over, near the mouth of the treacheostomy tube that covers most treacheostomy incisions.
P: Is it your recollection that this tube in question had such a feature?
C: I would almost be sure it did. That's from memory of tubes more than that specific technique used.
P: Did you have any evidence which would indicate that one of the President's transverse processes was fractured?
C: No, I didn't.
P: Did you have any evidence which would indicate that it was unlikely that this was the case?
C: No.
P: Would a fracture of the transverse process be inconsistent with a bullet exiting through the front of the neck as you've described the nature of the wound?
C: I don't think so. It's unlikely that a missile would have gone through the body of a transverse process and not have lost more energy than this thing apparently lost. But it certainly could have chipped one or nicked it or something like that, and not have made much difference.
P: Could you briefly describe for us the nature of the wound in the President's head?
C: The head wound was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal occipital region,
P: Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that would be.
C: That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of the head, there was brain tissue showing through.
P: Would the neck wound, by itself, have been fatal?
C: No, I do not think so. I think that was a recoverable wound. You think it was unlikely that it would have been fatal.
P: Would the neck wound have permanently impaired the President's speech?
C: I don't believe so.
P: Would it have impaired the president's speech so that he could not have spoken in the presidential limousine just after he was injured?
C: It would have made it difficult, There would have been an air leak from the trachea and it would have been difficult for him to speak in a natural fashion, with great effort he might have formed some words.
P: As one of the attending physicians, were you, was it inconsistent with normal procedure that you were not contacted by the autopsy surgeons?
C: Not really, because I was fairly far down the ladder, in being a resident. Dr Perry was above me, Dr Jones was above me. Had the autopsy been done by the forensic pathologist in Dallas, he would almost have certainly have consulted one of the attending physicians. When autopsies were done elsewhere, like you say we ordinarily had requests for that, what was routine.
P: Did you or any of the other doctors consider initiating a contact with the autopsy surgeons about what you had seen and done?
C: I did not. I don't know if any of the other doctors did or not. We did write our handwritten notes which we assumed would be transmitted with the President, either to the forensic pathologist there or wherever. And, as I think of it, I'm not sure we were aware until some time later that they had not been.
P: Were you surprised that none of the attending physicians were in communication with the autopsy surgeons prior to the completion of the autopsy?
C: I don't guess surprised is the word. As I think back, trying to remember, I guess we assumed
(tape running while interview interrupted)
C: You asked me, was I surprised that the autopsy were not in communication with any of the attending physicians. As I say, I guess, I remember we assumed those written documents had gone to whoever was doing the autopsy, and had it been done by Dr. Rose. I think he would have contacted somebody. So I guess the best thing to say is that there was certainly limited information available to the guy who did the autopsy, and I think in general there would have been some contact, had the geography been a little closer.
P: Do you have any additional comments or points that you feel have been misstated in the record or you feel that should be cleared up, that you'd like to comment on at this time?
C: I don't believe so.
P: Do you have anything else you'd like to add to your descriptions of the wounds as you described them for this tape?
C: Only the fact that the thing we talked about earlier is that there's a big difference in what you look for for patient care and for forensics, and that we were looking for patient care. And you basically see what you look for, and we were not looking to try to determine whether this was an entrance or exit wound, anymore than we needed to know to try to determine what the life threatening complications or results of that injury might have been. So we didn't look to see where the missile came from, what it's direction was, whether it was an exit wound or not.
P: This taping session is now over. Time is 3:20.


Identifying Information:
Name: Dr. Marion T. Jenkins Address parkland Hospital City/State Dallas, Texas
Date of Birth
Social Security
Physical Description: Height Weight Ethnic Group
Date 11/10/77
Place Parkland Memorial Hospital
Mot S
Color Eyes.__ Hair
Special Characteristics
Personal History:
a. Present Employment; Address Telephone
b. Criminal Record 1. Arrests
2. Convictions
Additional Personal Information:
a. Relative(s): Name
b. Area frequented:
c. Remarks:
Investigator Andy Purdy
Date 12/2/77 Form #4-B

NAME Dr. Marion T. Jenkins
Date 11/10/77 Time 4:50
Address Parkland Hospital
Place Parkland Memorial Hospital
Dallas, Texas
Interview: By: Andy Purdy, Esq.

Dr. Jenkins-(anesthesiologist) was one of the first.. doctors into the parkland trauma room where the President was. He said the President's thick shock of hair largely covered up the head wound. However, Dr. Jenkins was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound (believes he was" . . . the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.") His location was customary for an anesthesiologist.
Dr. Jenkins said he knew the President was non-resuscitable from his experience with many similar injuries (with the exception of the head injury). He noticed that blood gushed out of the head with each cardiac massage compression.
Dr. Jenkins said he bears the responsibility for the postponement in the determination that the President had expired. Because the President was his patient, he used an artificial respirator in spite of his professional determination that he was non-resuscitable.
Dr. Jenkins said he turned to a priest standing nearby and asked him what the Catholic Church's position is regarding what constitutes death and when the last rites must be administered. He was told they must be given within two hours of a medical determination of death.
Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out -- it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) was hanging out from a hole in the right -- rear of the head.
During the emergency medical procedures, Mrs. Kennedy came in the room and gave Dr. Jenkins a piece of the President's brain. Mrs. Kennedy, the priest, and Dr. Jenkins were the last three people to leave the trauma room.
Dr. Jenkins attempted to explain (on his own initiative) Dr. McClelland's Warren Commission testimony that the President had a wound of the left temple. He said McClelland did not personally see the wound and misinterpreted Dr. Jenkins' feeling the President's left temple for a pulse as indicating there was a wound there.

DATE 2/27/78 TIME 2:30
I. Identifying Information:
Name Dr. John Lattimer Telephone
Address Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, New York City
Type of Contact: Telephone
x Person
Summary of Contact:
Recommended Follow-up (if any):
Dr. Michael Baden, Mark Flanagan and Andy Purdy

the substance of his articles- The movie was exceedingly brief__ and depicted experiments he had done firing Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition at filled skulls. In his test firings (at least those depicted) the skull went backward and to the left.
In addition to his review of the autopsy photos and X-rays, he has done repeated test firings of similar Mannlicher Carcano ammunition. He believes the ammunition and rifle are exceedingly accurate and reliable. He postulates that the first shot occurred at Zapruder frame (Z.)166 and was a miss deflected by a tree which broke up and/or imbedded itself in the street pavement. He believes the second shot occurred at about Z-220 and struck the President in the upper back, passing through him near the spine. Lattimer attributes the President's reaction (raising his arms coming from behind the sign) to an involuntary physical response caused by the shock to the spine (he cites "Cases of Injury to the Cervical Region of the Spinal Cord," 1889, by William Thornburn). He believes this second bullet caused the wounds to Kennedy and Connally. He indicated that the bullet which injured Connally "must" have passed through Kennedy first or the bullet would have had so much force that it would have passed through Connally's thigh (he believes the fragment was in Connally's femur). He said the "3 cm" wound in the thigh indicated a tumbling bullet, i.e., one which struck something else first (either JFK or a tree limb; latter not in alleged line of fire at Z-220). Asked hypothetically what inferences could be drawn if the Connally back wound was 1.5 cm, Lattimer said the bullet would have been tumbling. Lattimer said the only other cause of an elongated entrance wound would be a tangential bullet strike; however, he said a tangent strike on Connally would have caused horizontal elongation instead of the vertical elongation present on Connally. Lattimer's theory of 3 shots (with the first missing and burrowing into the pavement) accounts for the curb shot on the theory that it was a fragment from the head shot.
Lattimer has done no testing of bullet deflection by hitting trees; or of burrowing into pavement by such ammunition; or of simulation of the deceleration of a bullet which passed only through Connally to see if it would necessarily penetrate Connally's thigh.
Regarding his assertion that the vertical slit in JFK's shirt was because the bullet left him tumbling (and not merely characteristic of a bullet exit), Lattimer said he had neither seen nor done testing of this phenomenon
Lattimer said there was an irregularity of bone in the vicinity of the transverse process which he believes represents generally that a missile passed through the area and, specifically, that there was a fracture of C-6 or C-7.
Lattimer believes the "single bullet" struck Connally's rib (as opposed to a "slap wound"), flattening the bullet scraping off a piece of lead which he believes is visible in the Connally chest X-ray.
Lattimer believes the wrist wound was caused by a slowly traveling bullet because of the nature of the wrist damage (much less severe than if a bullet had hit it first) and the minimal fragment displacement evident.
Regarding the Edgewood Arsenal testing, he said the simulation of the head shot was very similar to the damage he noted in JFK upon viewing the autopsy photos and X-rays. However, he said they incorrectly used the autopsy doctors figure for the location of the head entry wound, which is about 4" lower than the wound as seen in the photos and verified in the X-rays. He expressed mild surprise that the incorrect entrance wound point still resulted in approximate skull damage.
Connally wound characteristics which indicated to Lattimer that the bullet struck something else include (in summary): elongation of entrance wound; Connally's wrist "was only in position" to be struck at time of JFK wound; Connally was seated directly in front of JFK; the bullet which struck the thigh would have shattered it if it hadn't been significantly slowed by tumbling.
Lattimer said he doubted that a fragment from the JFK head shot could have wounded Connally's wrist because the damage was caused by a fragment of too substantial a size to have caused the extent of damage evident in the X-ray.
Dr. Lattimer indicated that he has spoken to the autopsy surgeon, but doesn't have interview notes or transcripts. He does not have an explanation for the discrepancy in the location of the entrance wound in the rear of the head, believing it resulted from poor measurement techniques by individuals not sufficiently schooled or experienced in forensic pathology. He believes the autopsy doctors would realize their mistake upon reviewing the photos and X-rays.
Dr. Lattimer also stated that he spoke to Dr. Gregory (Governor Connally's wrist surgeon) several times about the nature of the damage in the wrist. Dr. Gregory is deceased.
On other subjects Lattimer said: He knows the generic origin of the rifle strap used by LHO; LHO practiced dry-firing his rifle according to Marina; Ruby's pistol had a metal shroud covering the hammer to facilitate its being fired from within a pocket or under clothing (he showed a photo which purported to be of Ruby's gun); and Ruby's psychiatrist (Bromberg) told him Ruby had his pistol with him earlier in the weekend at the police station.
Dr. Lattimer also suspects that Ruby fired his pistol using his middle finger as a trigger finger. Lattimer says that this allows the index finger to steady the barrel, and is an indication of familiarity in firing weapons.

NAME Dr. Malcolm Oliver PerryDate 11/78Time 4:40 p.m.
University of Washington
Address Medical School Place Dr. Perry's office
Seattle, Washington
Donald A. Purdy, Jr. / T Mark Flanagan, Jr.
Date Transcribed l/30/78
Dr. Malcolm Perry Is currently a professor of Surgery at the University of Washington Medical School. He can be contacted at 206/5'43-3105. Andy Purdy and I interviewed Dr. Perry because of his participation in the medical treatment of President Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas,
Dr. Perry began the interview by stating that' the intervening 14 years since the assassination have "not sharpened my recall;" Dr. Perry then proceeded to relate his recollection of the wounds of President Kennedy and of the medical treatment the Parkland doctors administered to JFK.
Dr. Perry began by stating that one of the wounds that JFK had suffered was "about 1/3 of the way" up on the anterior aspect of the neck. Dark blood (a sign of insufficient oxygen) was oozing from the wound when Perry first observed JFK.Dr. Perry believes that the wound measured approximately 6-7 mm in size and was roughly round, although he couldn't
two primary medical emergencies of restoring state for sure since combating the breathing and stopping bleeding prevented him from even taking the time to wipe the blood from the wound. Perry said that Dr. Jones, who was already treating JFK when Perry arrived, had inserted a tube down the trachea to facilitate breathing but that the air passage still seemed blocked. Due to this dilemma, Dr. Perry determined that a tracheotomy was necessary "then or never"' and therefore made a transverse incision straight through the bullet wound on the anterior aspect of the neck at approximately the second or third trachea ring. While Perry performed this operation, Dr. Jones initiated I. V. treatment. At approximately this time, Drs. McClelland, Barter, and Peter arrived to assist in the treatment of president Kennedy.
Based on his examination of the trachea, Dr. Perry stated that the lateral wall of the trachea was damaged and had the characteristics of a penetrating rather than a blunt trauma. In the vicinity of the strap muscles, Dr. Perry observed some discoloration of the pleura; it looked like "it was bruised, with some blood" present. Perry stated that on the basis of this observation alone, that the blood could have been from the trachea or the lung. For this reason, other Parkland doctors inserted chest tubes into JFK's chest to help treat any possible injury to the lungs. Perry then surmised that on the basis of the lateral wound to the trachea plus the skin wound on the anterior portion of the neck, that some type of pathway from a bullet was present but that the exact trajectory was very difficult to determine since bullets do not necessarily travel in straight paths, particularly if they are partially spent.
Perry followed this statement by saying that there was no discernible path. Further, at no time during his treatment of JFK was Perry aware of the wound in the President's upper back. Dr. Perry also stated that little bleeding was coming from this wound and that based on his observations no major artery had been hit in this area.
Dr. Perry, an expert in arterial injuries, stated that the amount of blood loss or the degree of arterial injury can rarely be diagnosed through blood pressure and that a major artery can be struck without necessarily causing major blood loss.
Dr. Perry also mentioned that during his treatment of President Kennedy other Parkland doctors began cardiac massage which lasted approximately twenty minutes. At the conclusion of the cardiac massage, Dr. Kemp declared JFK dead.
Dr. Perry stated that the throat wound alone probably was not fatal and would not have prevented JFK from speaking.
Perry "looked at" the head wound "but didn't examine it." He believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing.
Dr. Perry did not detect or look for any possible entry wound in the rear of the head.
Dr. Perry stated that Dr. James Carrico, then a first-year resident, recalled that the President may have had Addison's Disease and therefore administered steroids to combat any possible shock that may have occurred. Dr. Perry also stated that steroid treatment tends to produce a sense of euphoria. Dr. Perry could not recall if Dr. Burkley, the President's physician, had also given the Parkland doctor steroids to administer to JFK.
Dr. Perry stated that after Dr. Kemp Clark had declared JFK dead, he proceeded upstairs to where other doctors were attending Governor Connally. He specifically aided Dr. Thomas Shires who was operating on Governor Connally's thigh wound. Dr. Perry's role in this treatment was limited to determining whether the bullet had struck an artery. Dr. Perry stated that it had not.
Dr. Perry described the wound to Governor Connally's thigh as superficial. In regard to the fragment shown in the X-ray of Governor Connally's thigh, Dr. Perry stated that it appeared to be imbedded in the thigh. Perry stated that it is normal procedure not to remove fragments so long as they pose no harm (such as being very close to a major artery) since fragments themselves would not cause infections. What's harmful are the threads of cloth a fragment will sometimes carry into a wound when it travels through clothing.
After showing Dr. Perry a tracing from one of the autopsy photographs of the tracheotomy wound, Dr. Perry stated that the small half sphere in the bottom of the sketch along the perimeter of the incision was quite likely part of the bullet wound. He did say, however, that this irregularity could have been caused from the weight of the tracheal tube which can deform the perimeter of the incision.
This interview was concluded by a taping session concerning a concise description of JFK's wounds.

1. Identifying Information:
Name Dr. Malcolm Perry Date1/11/78
Address University of Washington Place Same
City/State Medical Center
Settle, Washington Telephone
Date of Birth M or S
Social Security Spouse
2. Physical Description: Height Weight Ethnic Group.
Color Eyes_ Hair
Special Characteristics
3.Personal History:
a. Present Employment: Address Telephone
b. Criminal Record 1. Arrests
2. Convictions
4. Additional Personal Information:
a. Relative(s): Name
b. Area frequented:
c. Remarks:
Andy Purdy/Mark Flanagan
1/11/78 Form #4-B

NAME Dr. Malcolm Perry Address
Date 1/11/78 Time 5:45 p.m.
Place university of Washington
Medical Center Seattle, Washington

FLANAGAN: Staff members present are: Andy Purdy, Staff Counsel; Mark Flanagan, Staff Researcher. We are interviewing Dr. Malcolm Perry. PURDY: Okay...and then, Dr. Perry, you could please acknowledge that we are taping you and that this is with your permission.
DR.PERRY: This is with my permission and I am here.
PURDY: This will all -- let the record show that we have just had a discussion which began approximately 4:30 -- this, of course, is Pacific time -- where we went through the chronology of events of November 22nd, 1963, which you were involved in, and your specific recollections about the treatment and the wounds. Is that correct?
DR. PERRY: That's correct.
PURDY: Dr. Perry, could you please state your present position.
PERRY: I'm Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington, vascular consultant and chief at Harbor View Medical Center.
PURDY: Could you please tell us what experience you've had with gunshot wounds since 1963.
PERRY: Well, happily, it hadn't been exactly the same, but I've had quite a bit and I remained after 1963 when I returned to Parkland and University of Texas Southwestern Medical School from California as an Assistant Professor of Surgery. I stayed there until 1974, and during that time I remained as Chief of Vascular Surgery at Parkland Hospital and the VA Hospital and had the opportunity to treat numerous traumatic wounds of all types -- gunshot, knife, blood trauma, and over the ensuing years up till 1974 around several hundred cases. And then subsequent to arriving here, and inasmuch as I run a trauma service at Harbor View Medical Center, I've had the opportunity to continue to treat traumatic wounds of all types -- probably, oh, several every month. I don't keep a compilation. Those figures are available in my records, of course, but I don't have it off the top of my head.
PURDY: Could you describe, generally, President Kennedy's condition when you entered the room and what treatment was under way.
PERRY: When I reached the emergency room at Parkland that day, the President had just been brought in and the initial resuscitation was under way. There were several people in the room -- the nurses and several doctors. And Dr. Jim Carrico, who was the first year surgical resident in charge in the emergency room, was attempting to establish an airway. He had a laryngoscope in his hand and was attempting to get an endotracheal tube in. IV's were being started and the President's clothing was being removed to permit us access to the limbs for intravenous fluids and resuscitation and placement of various catheters and tubes. He had agonal respiration. I attempted to feel for a pulse in the left groin and didn't feel one. And Jim said he had no blood pressure but that he was breathing. And he also apprised me at that time that there was a wound of the trachea that he could see through the laryngoscope, but he couldn't get the tube past it -- it was too far down. And I asked for a tracheostomy tray, and Betty Hinchcliffe, one of the nurses, had already prepared it, and I dropped my coat in a corner and put on some gloves and started to prepare to do a tracheostomy to get to the airway. At that time I noted a wound in the anterior aspect of the neck in the lower third which was roughly round, exuding, very slowly, dark blood, partially obscuring its edges. The wound was somewhere, probably 4 to 6 mm in diameter. I did not have her wipe the blood off and inspect the wound and gave it a cursory glance while I was putting my gloves on and preparing the trache tray. I also asked at that time that several other doctors, specifically, McClelland, Baxter and Dr. Clark, be summoned from the medical school to come and help. And I asked Dr. Jones to start an IV, and Dr. Carrico, who was also busy with another IV at the same time, I think in the leg, as I recall it. And then I took the knife and I cut directly through the anterior neck wound in an attempt to secure control of the trachea and the tracheal injury that Jim had mentioned. I noticed a head injury, but I didn't examine it at that time, but I did see some evidence of brain tissue on the cart. I reached the trachea and the strap muscles, which were bruised as I previously noted in my testimony before the Warren Commission, and at that time I secured the trachea with an Allis clamp and brought it up to the field and I saw the injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea where it had been damaged and I cut into the trachea at that spot and started to place an intratracheal tube in. And about that time a set of hands came into field to help me, which later identified as Dr. McClelland's, and we completed placing the tracheostomy tube into place and hooked him up to the respirator. Because there was some bruising and also some bubbly looking blood over there on the right seriatal pleura, upper portion of the chest, why I thought perhaps there might also have been a hemoor pneumothorax accident. I asked Dr. Baxter to put in a right chest tube, which he did. And Dr. Jones put in a left one, I think, about the same time. And the respirator was going I didn't see any other evidence of injury and there was very little bleeding because he had no obtainable blood pressure. There didn't seem to be anything else hitting the neck other than the trachea and some of the muscles on the looser radial tissue and the bruised apical pleura. About that stage, Dr. Clark had arrived and he told me that the electrocardiograph indicated that cardiac arrest had just occurred, and so we started closed cardiac massage. And we persisted with that until it became apparent that it was futile. And Kemp said, "well, it's too late to get him back," and so I quit.
And I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely evulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen and I didn't inspect it further. I just glanced at it and I went on outside and later was summoned up to the operating room to help in the care of Governor Connally.
PURDY: Could you give us a characterization of the edges of the anterior neck wound?
PERRY: Yeah. I previously pointed out that they were neither ragged nor clean-cut. I suppose that's a misnomer because, actually, I didn't inspect it that well. What I meant to infer by that initial description was the fact that I couldn't see a clean punched wound; it was roughly round, the edges were bruised and a little blurred because, as I mentioned, there was several big drops of old blood, and some of it coagulated, of course, on and about the wound, so I didn't really inspect the margins carefully. I think the terms I used before was neither ragged nor clean-cut 'and that may not have been appropriate. I should have probably said I couldn't see them that well -- it might have been a better answer.
PURDY: You described the damage to the trachea as you saw it. Was there some further description you can give of damage? I think you stated previously, for example, that there were some bruises...
PERRY: Yeah, it's on the right lateral side of the trachea there was a laceration. But again, I don't remember exactly how I put that all these years ago, but it was on the right side of the trachea, and that it was incomplete, and I don't remember whether it was a third or a quarter of the circumference, and I can't remember exactly. There was a laceration. The bruising that I mentioned was in the apical pleura and the strap muscles. The trachea was clearly lacerated.
PURDY: You also stated prior to the taping that there was possibly some damage in the mediastenum?
PERRY: Mediastinum.
PURDY: Mediastinum?
PERRY: Yeah. That's that same area. The mediastinum is that area that's bounded by the lungs on each side, and the sternum in front, and the spine in the back. Contains the heart and all the great vessels and various structures.
PURDY: You described the use of the chest tubes to determine whether or not there was any pneumothorax or hemothorax...
PERRY: Let me...actually not to determine, Andy, but to treat. I didn't know whether there was or not. I surmised there might well be a hemothorax or pneumothorax because, not knowing the trajectory of the--of the missile, and when I saw the bruised apical pleura and there was some bubbly blood in that area, and I didn't know whether that blood had been frothed a little bit as a result of air coming out of the trachea in our attempts to breathe for him or whether it was coming out of a lung. And as a result, since a tension pneumothorax or serious chest injury could have obviously been a serious problem, why we elected to put in a chest tube. But the chest tube, I later learned, was not necessary because the chest cavity was not violated -- but I didn't know that at the time. It wasn't done diagnostically; it was done therapeutically.
PURDY: How did you determine that the pleural cavity was not violated?
PERRY: Found that out later in the autopsy report.
PURDY: Was your feeling at the time that you finished your treatment that the pleuralcavity had been violated or you...
PERRY: Didn't know -- didn't have any idea. I didn't 'we didn't do any more. After Dr. Clark and I decided that resuscitation failed, why I didn't do anything else, so I don't really know. I didn't find that out until some time later.
PURDY: What did your inspection of the anterior neck area disclose to you about the condition of major vessels in the area?
PERRY: Well, of course, that didn't tell me anything. As we discussed a little earlier, he had no blood pressure that was obtainable, and therefore, there was essentially very little bleeding. Even if he had had a major arterial injury, why he might have bled out and there wouldn't have been much; but there was no evidence of a major arterial injury. And the artery, the course that's closely applied to the trachea is the common carotid artery at that level. But it was not injured.
PURDY: Would President Kennedy have survived if he had only suffered the injury to the neck?
PERRY: Assuming the lack of complications, the odds are quite well and good that he would have. Occasionally, tracheal wounds are associated with subsequent stenosis and required repairs, but they generally--a wound such as this is usually survivable--yes.
PURDY: To what extent, if any, would the President's speech have been impaired in the short or the long term?
PERRY: Well, this is again some of that conjecture that got me in a lot of trouble before, but I suspect very little. There's no reason why he couldn't talk with that particular injury that was temp...anartery-- that's not enough to keep him from talking. It was below the larynx and it wouldn't have been, constituted enough of an air leak so make him so breathless that he couldn't speak.
FLANAGAN: Dr. Perry, could you go over and describe the conversations that you subsequently had after treating the President at Parkland with Dr. Humes, the surgeon who performed the autopsy?
PERRY: Yeah. This won't be too accurate, Mark, because I found out, interestingly enough, that later I had my dates a little bit fouled up. They called me twice and I couldn't remember -- I didn't write it down. I've learned to keep better records since then, but -- and I didn't remember exactly when they called me and about what, but I was called twice back from Bethesda. And the conversation of the first one, as I recall, and I need, I should go back and look at my testimony in my notes here and I haven't done that, I guess, I should have to find out exactly what we're talking about on that first one. But we discussed the thing and I told him about the tracheostomy wound and told him that I had cut right through the small wound in the neck. And Dr. Humes at that time had described that they had had a little difficulty tying up that posterior entrance wound -- as allegedly to be an entrance wound, I shouldn't get in this hot water -- that posterior wound with the -- couldn't find out where it went. And they surmised that during the cardiac massage and everything that perhaps the bullet had fallen out -- which seemed like a very unlikely event to me, to say the least. But at any rate, when I told him that there was a wound in the anterior neck, lower third, he said: "That explains it:" I believe that was the exclamation that he used -- because that tied together their findings with mine. Now there was a second call about the chest tubes, I think. And I believe that was the next day. I'm not sure of that. Maybe they called me twice that morning.
PURDY: At one point in your testimony, to help clear it up with you, you said that the calls came about 30 minutes apart.
PERRY: Was it twice in the same morning? It's possible. There should be something in the record of that. They had a record of it, Andy, and I just don't remember, you know. Between Friday and the President and Sunday and Oswald, and all those conferences and interviews, I got a little bit confused -- because Saturday morning I was asked to come up to the hospital and talk to a whole bunch of people and so I was up there Saturday too. And I don't remember -- but maybe it was two, both.., ... Saturday was when they called?
PERRY: Yeah, twice.
FLANAGAN: I believe so.
PERRY: But they called twice. And they asked me about the chest tubes--or something to that effect. Was it chest tubes?
PURDY: Yeah. In your testimony you say that "the initial phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy," and you informed them...
PERRY: ...that I'd cut right through the wound.
PURDY: Right. Do you remember whether or not there was any discussion in either of the calls about whether there had been any surgical incisions made in the President's back?
PERRY: I don't remember. I don't know why they would. He might have asked me, but I didn't even look at his back--so I wouldn't have known the answer to that if there had been. But I don't recall him asking that question. He might have asked -- I got asked so many questions along about that time, I don't remember who asked them. I didn't even look at Mr. Kennedy's back -- which was another thing I wish we'd have done.
FLANAGAN: One further question on these lines. To your knowledge, did the Bethesda Hospital or Humes -- did they ever receive any, for instance, handwritten notes that might have been taken by them?
PERRY: Should have.
FLANAGAN: ...I mean after the assassination.
PERRY: Yeah. You know, we -- yeah, that's a good question, too, Mark, because we all sat down afterwards and wrote out in our own -- as L'il Abner would say, hand written -- notes our recollection of what happened down there, knowing that we'd get a little fuzzy about it. And I think they got copies of those; I'm not sure of that, though. Those copies were available, because we made them available to the investigating committees, and know our inspector and all the guys around here. We all wrote down some of them and they were available for everybody. I think several of the people from various investigating agencies looked at 'em. They made a bunch of copies and they should be widely circulated. Interestingly enough is the discrepancy between what people remember -- it's kinda like the blind men and the elephant -- that's what they remember. Dr. McClelland's and some of the others are quite different from some of ours which I thought...
FLANAGAN: Is this normal procedure -- that Parkland Hospital would follow writing down...
PERRY: No. Normally, what we do -- well, normally, yes; but normally just one of us. Normally, the guy -- myself, for example, since I ostensibly was responsible for the surgery and the rest of it, normally the guy who's attending and who's doing the job writes a summary about it afterwards for the record. The reason all of us did was we thought it might be important -- more than the usual -- to have a good record. I'm not sure it served its purpose. I haven't read everybody's, but I've read some of them and I found they didn't correspond with what I remembered.
PURDY: Do you remember any in particular?
PERRY: No, no, but I remember the stuff about Bob McClelland's. We talked about that later because we talked about the thing in the temple. And we all kind of laughed about that but I just, you know, Bob was told when he joined in there and like me he didn't spend much time because he saw I needed help. And when he started helping me with the trache, he asked where he was shot. And somebody told him he was shot in the left temple and he accepted that as being true, when actually it wasn't true and I think Bob wrote that down -- or if he didn't write it down, he told somebody that, which was interesting. But, you know, you get naive and trustworthy and that's a bad way to be.
PURDY: As you recall, your testimony says that the second conversation you had with Dr. Humes was in regard to the placement of the chest tube for drainage of the chest cavity.
PERRY: It's interesting to me -- and I'm not being critical-but it's interesting to me that the pathology report does not reflect that. The autopsy report said that those incisions were made to combat subcutaneous emphysema, which is not a -- in the current jargon -- a viable therapeutic technique.
FLANAGAN: What would have been a normal routine, if it existed at the time, after someone taken into emergency expired, and then you wrote up some reports...
PERRY: What do we usually do?
FLANAGAN: What would occur then with the reports, for instance?
PERRY: They'd go in the hospital records.
FLANAGAN: Hospital record with the forensic pathologist in the area that might examine the body...
PERRY: Yeah, they're all there. It all goes in the record. We'd write a narrative summary and I must say, if I may be a little bit immodest, I write mine right away. I'm very good about that sort of thing -- mainly because I found that if I do it right then, it's like an operative report. When I come Out of the operating room I dictate the operative report right then because it gets progressively hazier. And I usually sit down and write it as soon as I finish. I write a short op. note anytime I do an operation on the chart. We prepare them right then. And that's what we would do. And that would become a part of the legal hospital record.
PURDY: To what extent, if any, did your observation of the nature of the President's wounds in the anterior neck convince you that a missile of some kind had gone through that area?
PERRY: Well, I suppose I could enumerate those, Andy. It's kinda like, you know, I can look at you and Mark and I tell -- I know which one's which without enumerating the features of your physiognomy. I've got a picture of you in my head now. Well, it's the same thing with this. When I looked at that there's an injury to the side of the trachea, there's a wound in the front of the neck, there's some concussive damage to surrounding organs -- these are the kind of things one sees with gunshot wounds in a blast injury and that sort of business. And with high velocity when you see a lot. Now the low velocity stuff -- it's often just a track, a wound track, with very little concussive or blast injury. And this one was in between. There was evidence of some blast injury, but not like, say, one sees with a high velocity rifle like a 3006 or 223 or something. This is quite different.
PURDY: Did your observations of the nature of the wounds give you any information as to the possible trajectory of a missile through the President?
PERRY: No, I really can't say that. I can speculate again, and I did speculate about that -- but all I can say is if you were to tie up the wound in the neck, the wound in the trachea, and the strap muscle business, apparently something passed that way. And as I mentioned earlier, the pathway of bullets striking tissues of varying densities is not uniformly rectilinear it curves and moves with it -- and they may be deflected by what appears to be a relatively minor structure -- a tough fascia layer, a muscle layer, or something -- it may deflect the bullet, especially if it's down, if its energy's low and it's down near the bottom of its velocity curve, it may be deflected in travel for long distances in a circuitous fashion. So I think it's very chancey business to make conjectures about trajectory when you don't have the whole wound track exposed and you're just looking at two points. We never probe wounds, for example, that's ridiculous; it doesn't help you a bit. And you get all kinds of wounds in which you try to project where it went, and that's an exercise in futility, usually. So, I don't know where it went. That may be more than you wanted to hear about that, I don't know.
PURDY: Do you have an opinion based on those two points that you described as to the origin of the missile that caused the damage?
PERRY: No, I don't, and the reason is that I didn't clearly identify either an entrance or an exit wound. In the press conference I indicated that the neck wound appeared like an entrance wound, and I based this mainly on its size and the fact that exit wounds in general tend to be somewhat ragged and somewhat different from entrance wounds. Now, this doesn't pertain, of course, in bullets that are deformable or in bullets that are tumblers, and many bullets, especially fired from the handguns and this sort of thing, tend to tumble, and as a result, they make keyhole injuries and various things. But in general, full jacketed bullets make pretty small entrance holes. And I don't really know. I thought it looked like an entrance wound because it was small, but I didn't look for any others and so that was just a guess.
PURDY: Based on your observations of the wounds, was it more likely that the damage was caused by a missile or something like a small bone fragment?
PERRY: Oh, I think it's more likely to be a missile from that than bone fragment. The only reason I say that is that secondary missile, which is what a bone fragment would be, generally don't attain the velocities that produce this sort of thing. They can, but usually would not at that level. Remember Governor Connally had some secondary missile damage as a result of a bullet striking his fifth rib and the rib acted as a secondary missile. But that's not the usual and I think it's probably just...
PURDY: Is it possible that the missile which caused the wound in the anterior neck could have fractured the transverse process and still resulted in the type of wound that you saw?
PERRY: I suppose so. Again, you're asking me to make a lot of suppositions which get me in trouble, but I suppose so. If one had a fairly high velocity missile that was full jacketed, it would have enough remaining velocity to go on through after striking something, like a transverse process -- it could get on through. You're talking now about tangential wounds and thickness of bone and all this sort of thing, and we don't even knew bullet types. So these things are possible, yes, but it doesn't seem very likely. But again, that's a guess and it's not worth any more than that -- than a guess -- on my part.
PURDY: Based on your experience with wounds in these intervening years, have you been able to draw any firmer or any different conclusions based on the nature of the wounds you recall?
PERRY: Do you want a short answer? Or a long answer?
PURDY: Like whatever answer you want to give.
PERRY: Okay, let me give you a medium answer, but with a qualified anecdote. The answer is no, I haven't. I haven't changed my mind about any of it and the reason is I have no new information. As I mentioned earlier, 14 years hasn't sharpened my recall. I've told it as well as I can remember it. But I did it best when I was fresh -- and things change a little bit. But I was just telling you, just night before last I had a young lady shot with a 3006. We had a multitude of wounds in that young lady, and they were hard to explain. Her right humerus was shattered with an injury to the artery and the ulnar nerve was transected.
The whole back of her arm was blown off. She also had a fractured radius in the left arm with no injury to the artery. It was fractured and there was no fragments in that wrist. She also had a wound to her left neck area, and a fragment was in there.
We had the devil's own time trying to figure it out and then later we found out what happened. She was shot, and with a 3006 hunting rifle, high velocity, which blasted her arm pretty good. The bullet hit the concrete, shattered, and those other two were secondary injuries from the fragments that got her arm and got her neck. But we didn't know that. And this is the kinda thing you can get into. So I don't know.
FLANAGAN: Dr. Perry, you mentioned earlier that after you had been down Trauma Room administering to President Kennedy that you then went Over to see Governor Connally in the Operating Room-- I guess that's upstairs in Parkland Hospital.
PERRY: Second floor
FLANAGAN: Could you relate the scope of your involvement in treating Governor Connally?
PERRY: Yeah. When I left downstairs I went outside a minute and sat down and then they called and asked me if I'd come up to the OR where Dr. Shires was operating on Governor Connally's leg. Dr. Shaw and Dr. Gregory had been involved, of course, when we were working on chest and arms and this sort of thing. He had a penetrating injury of the left thigh, as I recall, kind of anterior-medial and so I went up and got a scrub suit, changed clothes, and went back to the OR -- which was my operating room, as a matter of fact, back in OR5 where I usually worked -- and Dr. Shires was looking at the wound. They'd incised the skin; and were looking at the thigh wound, and I just looked over his shoulder and agreed with their opinion that the wound was not serious, that it had not penetrated deeply into the leg, that the artery was not in danger, and that it wasn't necessary to expose the artery.
PURDY: Could you describe the approximate size and depth of the...
PERRY: No, Andy, I'm no help because the skin incision had been made and -- but the tissue looked fine. It didn't look like there was much of anything wrong with it. So, whatever it was, it was near spent, I suppose, or it was very minor because there was none of the type of thing one sees with any velocity in a missile, any significant velocity.
PURDY: Was it your opinion that it was a full bullet, part of a bullet, or a very small part of a bullet that caused the wound?
PERRY: Well, I don't know because there was so little wound I don't think I can say that -- but I was underwhelmed with what saw, as the saying goes. It didn't look to me like much of a wound at all when we saw it. There wasn't much to it. Again, that's qualified because I didn't see the skin before...
FLANAGAN: What was the doctors' concern, if any, over the fragment that was in the thigh of Governor Connally?
PERRY: Well, the question came up whether that could possibly have come from a fragment that went zipping down through there and might have damaged some of the neurovascular bundle. As we indicated earlier, Mark, you're not really so concerned with the fragments themselves but what may be between where they began and where they ended. And inasmuch as where this wound was and the size and the scope Of that fragment, we deemed it highly unlikely it caused any significant damage. And as I said, I was underwhelmed with the whole thing. I don't even know that that fragment wasn't there from before. I mean, we have no previous X-rays of that area. I guess it came then, but I've become a little more suspicious in my older age and seen people that have injuries that you don't know about. I don't know how long that had been there. No controls.
PURDY: Dr. Perry, I think that finishes the formal questions we had and we wanted to give you an opportunity to expound on any aspects of the nature of the wounds that you didn't have sufficient time or any items which perhaps had been-left unresolved by previous testimony.
PERRY: Yeah, I...
FLANAGAN: Suggestions or comments
PERRY: Yeah, I feel I've already cluttered up your tape with a lot of professional homilies and aphorisms throughout the course of this thing and I'm sorry about that, but it, you know, you make this a stilted one but I hope not to. No, I don't have any other comments. I wish to hell I remembered a little better and I wish I could add something substantial to your investigation, but I fear that I have no new information. I wish I had not speculated as to where the wounds came from. As I said, after our operation on Mr. Oswald when I had the press conference at that time I had a typed prepared statement of what I had done when I operated on him and I didn't answer any questions. I found that was a very -- much better way to do things. And there was no hypothetical questions, no suppositions a typed statement was handed out and I didn't get in a lot of group discussions about what might have been. But I don't have anything else to add. I don't have any new information.
PURDY: One final short question. Did you or any of the doctors consider initiating any communications with the autopsy surgeons prior to the completion of the autopsy?
PERRY: No, we didn't and perhaps we were remiss in not doing so. It might have been a good idea. We ordinarily do that, as you know, and your question is very germane to what's going on here because ordinarily if I have a patient that dies very recently I usually call the pathologist down and we'll talk about it before and usually I try to attend the autopsy if it's done at a time when I'm not in the operating room because it's an important part of our ongoing education. We always learn something. And I always tell 'em what I'm worried about. And sometimes I even assist in the autopsy if it's a specific case where that I think perhaps that the patient I operated on and the knowledge that we get from that is helpful. And perhaps we should have called Commander Humes. It would have helped a lot had we done that, but the circumstances in which Mr. Kennedy was removed from the hospital were precipative and abrupt, and most of us, quite frankly, weren't asked or consulted or anything about any of it and it was all just done. And as a result, we were essentially moved out of the area of environment and involvement and we assumed that that was it. And I -- perhaps that was our error. It'd been nice if we'd of talked to them before they started; I think we could have helped them a lot. And we probably should have initiated that ourselves, knowing what we knew.
PURDY: Thank you. Okay, Time is now 6:15. This taping session is Over.

FACSIMILE - No. 003490
Name Dr. Jack Reynolds
Date 11/9/77
2:15 Time 3:45
Address Parkland Hospital Place Dallas County Department of Forensic Sciences ,
Dallas, Texas Dallas, Texas
Dr. Charles Petty's Office
Dr. Reynolds was the radiologist who conducted the X-raying of the wounds of Governor Connally. He submitted nine Reports of Diagnostic X-ray Consultation pertaining to the examination Of these X-rays. These reports occurred between 11-22-63 and 12-4-63- Andrew Purdy and myself interviewed Dr. Reynolds for two reasons:
(1) to determine if Dr. Reynolds had any additional >comments or corrections to make concerning Gov. Connally's X-rays; and
(2) to show Dr. Reynolds the enhanced versions of Gov. Connally's X-rays. Dr. Reynolds had no new revelations; his comments can be summarized as follows:

(these observations are based on the examination of the original and enhanced X-rays)
Interviewer Signature
Typed Signature T. Mark Flanagan, Jr.
Date transcribed
By: __
Form #4_
1)Wrist - After examining the original and the enhanced x-rays, Dr. Reynolds stated that there are at least four fragments of metal identifiable in Gov. Connally's wrist wound. Further, since these fragments are all volar to the wrist bone, this indicates that the missile traversed the wrist from the dorsal to the volar side.
Dr. Reynolds stated that all of these fragments are extremely small in size; he stated the actual size could possibly be ascertained but that the density and thus mass would remain unknown. Dr. Reynolds stated the [sic] Gov. Connally's wrist suffered a comminuted fracture, which means fractured into three or more pieces. Dr. Reynolds also stated that he was not qualified to determine whether the missile struck the wrist directly or tangentially
2)Thigh - Dr. Reynolds stated that only identifiable opacity exist in the thigh x-rays and that it definitely has metal characteristics. He stated that his 11-29-63 report, describing the location of this fragment as just beneath the skin in the region of the subcutaneous fat, is correct. The fragment is definitely not imbedded in the femur.
3)Chest- Dr. Reynolds stated that the X-rays show two areas of abnormality within the fifth rib. One area shows approximately 10 cm of the fifth rib missing; the other area is a simple fracture which Dr. Reynolds feels resulted from the stress of a missile striking the area where the 10 cm is missing. Dr. Reynolds stated that no metal fragments are present.
After terminating the discussion of the substantive issues, Andy and myself advised Dr. Reynolds that he could contact us at anytime if he had any additional comments or questions regarding Gov. Connally's X-rays or the assassination generally.
Also present during this interview:
1) Dr. Charles Petty - Director of the Dallas County Dept. of Forensic Sciences
2) Dr. Robert R. Shaw - the thoracic surgeon who attended Gov. Connally-

FEBRUARY 27, 1978.
Name: Dr. William B. Seaman.
address: Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, New York City.
Type of Contact: Telephone.
X Person.
Contact By: Andy Purdy
Mark Flanagan

Dr. Seaman examined the JFK and Connally X-rays in the presence of Dr. King, Dr. Michael Baden, Mark Flanagan, and Andy Purdy. He made his preliminary observation before his attention was focused on areas of particular interest to the medical panel.
JFK--Regarding the lateral skull X-ray, Dr. Seaman said pieces of metal were strewn in a track-like manner. Fractures were evident through the upper part of the right eye, including the top and bottom of the right orbit. The bottom of the frontal sinus was fractured. At the upper rear skull point of possible defect in the skull, Dr. Seaman said it could be an entrance wound and could not be a missile exit wound. He said he could not denote leveling of the skull at that point.

He found inferences difficult to draw from the extensive damage to the top of the skull, which includes overlapping skull pieces. The lower head was fairly intact, with no evidence of entrance or exit in the region ("very unlikely"). The upper point (mentioned earlier), "suggests entry, but is not conclusive."
Regarding the neck X-ray, Dr. Seaman said there was a fragment-like object present near the transverse process which is too dense to be bone ("fairly confident"). He said the transverse process appears abnormal with air present (possibly by-pro-of tracheotomy) calling it "* . . highly suspicious compared with the other side." He thinks he can "* * * see the fragment separate (also in No. 9), and concludes there is a possible fracture in C-7.
Connally--Wrist-- Comminuted fracture with fragments. He was not sure if the fragments were on the entrance (volar) or exit sides. Dr. Seaman concludes from the spatial orientation that they are fragments of metal.
Thigh--Dr. Seaman denoted a fragment of metal in the subcutaneous tissue, characterized by a tail-like end which make it recognizable on both thigh X-rays and insures it is not bone. There is no metal fragment in the femur.
Chest-- Dr. Seaman noted an area of consolidation and fluid in the right chest. In the fifth rib he noted a fracture and fragment of bone in the anterior axillary line with evidence of hemorrhage, and air in the axilla.
Regarding the possible existence of a higher fracture in the fifth rib, Dr. Seaman said he was a "little skeptical" of it as a fracture, because he couldn't see it fractured all the way as evidenced in a subsequent (even now) X-ray might provide more information about exactly what happened. Dr. Seaman found no evidence of metal fragments in the chest, and couldn't form an opinion as to the nature of the object visible on the left side.
Dr. Seaman had no one to recommend who is an expert in forensic radiology he did say Dr. Juan Taveras, of Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston) is a skull expert who might have something to contribute.

P.O. BOX 35728
February 2, 1978
Mr. Donald A. Purdy, Jr.
Staff Counsel
Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S. House Of Representatives
3331 House Office Building, Annex 2
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Purdy:

At 1:05 p.m. on November 9, 1977 Robert R. Shaw, M.D. former professor of thoracic surgery at Southwestern Medical School was interviewed in my office at the Institute of Forensic Sciences. Present at the time Of the interview were Mr. Donald A. Purdy, Jr., T. Mark Flanagan, Jr., and of course Doctor Shaw and myself.

Doctor Shaw appeared to be a very healthy, enthusiastic man whose powers of recollection are excellent, although some of the observations that he related were obviously somewhat stereotype because of many previous interviews regarding the subject at hand. To a very marked degree the information and answers given by Doctor Shaw were similar to those reported in the article published in volume 60, January 1964 of the Texas State Journal Of Medicine.
I shall attempt to condense what Doctor Shaw related to me at the time of the interview for ease of reading- I will put the report in the form of a series of very small paragraphs. You already have the original diagram made by Doctor Shaw illustrating the point of entrance and exit of the bullet and also showing to the best of his recollection the actual size of both the entrance and exit wounds-

J.B.C. was lying on his back when first seen by Shaw. A 5 cm. greatest dimension wound was present just below the right nipple It was irregular in shape, sucking and there was paradoxical motion noted.
Lateral to the scapula on the right posterior thoracic wall was a small wound.
Doctor Shaw debrieded the anterior wound.
There was a tunnel made by the missile in passing through the chest wall.
The bullet struck the fifth rib in a tangential manner and shattered approximately 10 cm. of the posterior and lateral aspect of the fifth rib. The serratus anterior muscle was torn and the fifth and sixth intercostal muscles were intact and the periostium of the rib was nearly intact.
Shaw removed more of the fifth rib to enter the chest wall. There was damage of the middle lobe of the right lung due to the impact upon the chest. It actually was ripped into two segments and there was a leak in the bronchus. The lower two thirds of the lower lobe of the right lung looked just like liver "just a bag of blood."
Shaw repaired the right middle lobe. It inflated well. There was not need to touch the lower lobe of the right lung except for a 1 cm. long rent in it. This was oversewn.
Shaw cut off approximately 5 cm. of the anteriorly placed chest tube and placed a posterior tube in the 8th interspace.
There was an obvious rent in the latissimus dorsi muscle. A Penrose drain was placed here.
The wound in the back was shaped as if the bullet had entered at a slight declination. Shaw probed through this wound with his finger and felt the Penrose drain that he had placed in the latissimus dorsi muscle.
In measuring the diagram made by Doctor Shaw at the time of this interview so the better to illustrate the size of the entrance and exit wounds, it is interesting that the entrance wound measurement taken from this diagram are 1.5 x 0.8 cm. with the long dimension in the longitudinal plane of the body (the long axis of the body) and that the exit wound is approximately 5 cm. in greatest dimension.
At the conclusion of the interview Doctor Shaw signed the diagram this was witnessed by Purdy, Flanigan, and Petty, the original copy taken by Purdy.
Although conclusions are not called for, this being merely a report of an interview, it is obvious that Doctor Shaw is describing a wound of the chest which did not pass through the plural cavity but rather was more of a "slapping" wound.

Sincerely yours,
Charles S. Petty, M.D.
CSP: jf d

NAME Dr. Robert Shaw Date 11 9 77 Time 1:OO
Dallas County Institute of
Address 7403 Villanova Place Forensic Science , Dallas
Dallas, Texas 75225 214 691 6136 --- 214 752 3752
Date of Birth: 11/15/05
Andy Purdy
Date Transcribed 11/17/77

Dr. Shaw arrived at the trauma room in which Governor Connally was being' treated five' minutes past his arrival. The residents (Drs. Boland, Duke, Giesecke) had done an excellent job. The Governor's front chest had 5 cm (obvious) wound of exit paradoxical' motions of chest were evident- There was a smaller 'tunneling wound in the back/chest- The bullet struck the 5th rib in a tangential way pushing it put., causing a fracture at a point farther up the rib. (like a tree limb breaking from pressure exerted near its end}. Bullet fragments exited out the front of the Governor causing the larger exit hole.
Shaw said the lower 2/3ds of the Governor's lower lung lobe was like liver, full of blood and holes caused by secondary (bone) missile fragments. There was a rent in the latissimus dorci-
The rear entrance wound was not 3 cm as indicated in one of the operative notes- It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a slight declination (i.e. not at a right angle). The wound was actually approximately cm. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 cm.
Wrist: The wrist wound had been described as a "comminuted" fracture, meaning (according to Dr: Shaw) it was "compounded" (I.E. in more than two pieces). The work on the wrist was primarily done by Dr. Gregory (deceased). Dr. Shires did the work on the thigh wound.
In response to Dr. Petty's questions, Dr. Shaw provided the following:
1) The bullet entering the back did not strike dead on, hitting instead on a decline.
2) The entrance wound was olvode (see Dr. Shaw's drawing attached).
3) The shape of the entrance wound was consistent with a missile striking in a slightly downward trajectory.
It is Dr. Shaw's opinion that the wound was not caused by a tumbling bullet (an inference drawn, explicitly, from his belief that a tumbling bullet would not have had sufficient force to cause the remainder of the Governor's wounds).
4) Dr. Shaw believes that the bullet which hit the Governor had not struck any other objects because of his conclusion that the bullet was not tumbling.
He does note that the entrance wound was longer along the vertical axis.
5)The bullet did not traverse the thorax; it was essentially' "..'.a chest wall wound ...," with much of the damage to the Governor being caused by a "blast-like" effect which resulted from the bullet tangentially striking the fifth rib, turning pieces of it into secondary missiles.
6)He described the chest wound as a "slap wound" exerting an inward force on the body from the secondary fragments.
7)The blood found in the lung's lower lobe was from a tear in the middle lobe and contusion from. the slapping effect of the bullet, as well as from the penetration of multiple rib fragments (" was very much like a blast injury ...").
8)The bullet did not traverse the lung; there was essentially a chest wall injury which involved the lung because of a blast injury effect ("...there was a bronchial tear in the middle lobe in addition to the rent...").
Dr. Shaw examined the original Connally X-rays and the enhanced copies. He could not detect any metal fragments in the chest or in the femur (thigh bone). The only metal fragment he denoted was a small one in the subcutaneous tissue in the thigh. He did notice the rib fracture in the chest X-ray, as well as rib pieces.
Dr. Shaw indicated that the enhanced X-ray of the fragment in the thigh convinced him that the object was metal because it has greater density than bone and the existence of a hook-like end of the object is more consistent with metallic than with bone characteristics.
Regarding press accounts that he felt the metal fragment was too heavy to have come from C.E.399, Dr. Shaw said he is not qualified to speculate as to the actual size or weight of the fragment in the thigh or those in the wrist (even though he admittedly did so before the Warren Commission 4 H 113). He did say he has never been satisfied that the bullet found on Governor Connally's stretcher had caused all of the Governor's wounds.
Shaw believes the "...bullet found on the limousine floor was more likely the one which went through Connally." He believes the bullet that went through the President's neck may have gotten caught in the Governor's clothing and another bullet struck the Governor causing his wounds.
Regarding the wrist wound. Shaw said he first thought the bullet entered through the volar aspect and exited the dorsum- he was later convinced by Dr. Gregory [and currently believes) that the exact opposite was the case.

February 2, 1978
Mr. Donald A. Purdy, Jr.
Staff Counsel
Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S. House Of Representatives
3331 House Office Building, Annex 2
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Purdy:
At 1:05 p.m. on November 9, 1977 Robert R. Shaw, M.D. former Professor Of thoracic surgery at Southwestern Medical School was interviewed in my office at the Institute of Forensic Sciences. Present at the time of the interview were Mr. Donald A. Purdy, jr., T. Mark Flanagan, Jr., and of course Doctor Shaw and myself.
Doctor Shaw appeared to be a very healthy, enthusiastic man whose powers of recollection are excellent, although some of the observations that he related were obviously somewhat stereotype because of many previous interviews regarding the subject at hand. To a very marked degree the information and answers given by Doctor Shaw were similar to those reported in the article published in volume 60, January 1964 of the Texas State Journal of Medicine.
I shall attempt to condense what Doctor Shaw related to me at the time of the interview for ease of reading. I will put the report in the form of a series of very small paragraphs. You already have the original diagram made by Doctor Shaw illustrating the point of entrance and exit Of the bullet in J.B.C. and also showing to the best of his recollection the actual size of both the entrance and exit wounds.
J.B.C. was lying on his back when first seen by Shaw. A 5 cm. greatest dimension wound was present just below the right nipple. It was irregular in shape, sucking and there was paradoxical motion noted.
Lateral to the scapula on the right posterior thoracic we]] was a small wound.
Doctor Shaw debrieded the anterior wound. There was a tunnel made by the missile in passing through the chest wall. The bullet struck the fifth rib in a tangential manner and shattered approximately 10 cm. of the posterior and lateral aspect of the fifth rib. The serratus anterior muscle was torn and the fifth and sixth intercostal muscles were intact and the periostium of the rib was nearly intact.
Shaw removed more of the fifth rib to enter the chest wall. There was damage of the middle lobe of the right lung due to the impact upon the chest. It actually was ripped into two segments and there was a leak in the bronchus. The lower two thirds of the lower lobe of the right lung looked just like liver "just a bag of blood."
Shaw repaired the right middle lobe. It inflated well. There was not need to touch the lower lobe of the right lung except for a 1 cm. long rent in it. This was oversewn.
Shaw cut off approximately 5 cm. of the anteriorly placed chest tube and placed a posterior tube in the 8th interspace.
There was an obvious rent in the latissimus dorsi muscle. A Penrose drain was placed here.
The wound in the back was shaped as if the bullet had entered at a slight declination. Shaw probed through this wound with his finger and felt the Penrose drain that he had placed in the latissimus dorsi muscle.
In measuring the diagram made by Doctor Shaw at the time of this interview so the better to illustrate the size of the entrance and exit wounds, it is interesting that the entrance wound measurement taken from this diagram are 1.5 x 0.8 cm. with the long dimension in the longitudinal plane of the body (the long axis of the body) and that the exit wound is approximately 5 cm. in greatest dimension.
At the conclusion of the interview Doctor Shaw signed the diagram this was witnessed by Purdy, Flanigan, and Petty, the original copy taken by Purdy.
Although conclusions are not called for, this being merely a report of an interview, it is obvious that Doctor Shaw is describing a wound of the chest which did not pass through the plural cavity but rather was more of a "slapping" wound.
Sincerely yours
Charles S. Petty, M.D.

Identifying Information:
Name Dr. George Thomas Shires
Date of Birth
Social Security
Date 1/9/78
New York Hospital - Rm. F739 Place East 70th street
New York City
M or S
Physical Description: Weight__ Weight__ Ethnic Group.
Color Eyes Hair
Special Characteristics
Personal History:
a. Present Employment:
Address New York, New York Telephone
b. Criminal Record
1. Arrests
2. Convictions
Additional Personal Information:
a. Relative(s):
b. Area frequented:
c. remarks:
Dr. George Thomas Shires
Date1/9/78 Time 11:40 a.m.
New York Hospital
Place East 70th Street.
New York City
Room F739
Andy Purdy Date Transcribed 1/24/78 by am

Dr. Shires was interviewed by Mark Flanagan and Andy Purdy, with assistance from medical consultant Dr. Michael Baden.
Dr. Shires initially recapped the events leading up to and comprising the medical treatment of Gov. John Connally.
Dr. Shires said Dr. Shaw was a thoracic surgeon, so he worked on the wound to the torso; Dr. Gregory was an orthopedist, so he worked on the wrist; and Dr. Shires worked on the thigh wound.
Dr. Shires arrived after the other work had already begun, coming from a Western Surgical Association meeting in Galveston, Texas.
Dr. Shires said his work on the thigh was "...largely an exploration to insure that there was no vessel damage."
Dr. Shires said the only significant wound in the thigh was a missile tract. He says he merely did a debridement. When asked if the thigh wound could have been caused by a secondary. fragment, Dr. Shires said you "...can't tell anything from the size or shape of the wounds as to whether or not it is an entrance or exit wound." He said that when dealing with fragments, there are many unknowns and variables and that it's hard to differentiate fact from fiction.
Dr. Shires said the wound was small and that the thigh had very little damage and did contain a metal fragment. Dr. Shires was asked about his Warren Commission testimony that noted a peculiarity in the nature of the wound; namely, that the tissue damage seemed more significant than the size of the fragment present. He said that it is difficult to determine how the fragment entered. He said "...all you can say is that a tangential wound occurred." He said that there are a large range of possibilities for what happened. Significantly, Dr. Shires said the main issue he was seeking to resolve by the examination of the thigh was whether the missile could have hit a major vessel. He said it did not, and that he did not physically pursue the fragment that was there because it was "...not medically significant." Dr. Shires said he was able to determine that the fragment was in the thigh bone from his examination of the original Connally X-rays.
At this time, we showed Dr. Shires the three original thigh X-rays and the enhancements of these X-rays. Dr. Shires said that it doesn't make any difference whether the metal fragment is in the femur or just under the skin with regard to the issue of whether there was a full bullet striking the thigh or a fragment of a bullet. He said the wounds were probably caused by a tangential hit. He said a tangential wound could have sent the fragment anywhere into the thigh. Dr. Shires noted that on the enhancement of the thigh the item in the bone looks more like an artifact than when he examined the original. He was open-minded about the possibility that the fragment could have been just under the skin, but preferred to reiterate his initial impressions that the fragment was in the thigh bone. Dr. Shires said that while they explored the entire track of the missile, they were not "...exploring it as a track..."; rather they were "...exploring the wound looking for a big missile injury." Dr. Shires said he found little hemorrhage, so he felt it was likely that a high velocity missile did not pass through the skin causing the wound.
Dr. Shires recollections of the treatment conducted and the nature of the thigh wound was then tape-recorded.

Introduction to tape:
DATE: January 9, 1978
TIME: 3:55 P.M.
PLACE: Dr. G. Thomas Shires Office
Cornell Medical School
New York, New York
Dr. Shires is Chief of Surgery, Cornell Medical School
INTERVIEWERS PRESENT: Donald A. Purdy, Jr., Staff Counsel T. Mark Flanagan, Staff Researcher
CONSULTANT: Dr. Michael Baden (also present) Dr. Shires consented to taping of session.
F - Flanagan
S - Shires
B - Baden

P: Okay, Dr. Shires, we have just had a general discussion of events leading up and the surgery that you performed on Governor Connally on November 22, 1963, and then had a discussion of the specific nature of the wound to the thigh which you operated on, and you have examined the original X-rays of the thigh wound and enhancements of those X-rays, is that correct?
S: Right.
P: Okay. I want to ask you about the thigh wound. Specifically, in your report of November 22, 1963, as I read to you previously, you described the wound as follows:
"There is a one centimeter puncture missile wound over the juncture of the middle and lower third, medial aspect, of the left thigh. X-rays of the thigh and leg reveal the bullet fragment which was embedded in the body of the femur in the distal third."
Is that a correct statement of your understanding of the wound in the Governor's thigh, and what the X-rays of that wound reveal?
I have here a report of November 29, 1963, prepared by Dr. Jack Reynolds, who was a radiologist at that time, where he also described the thigh wound. He said as follows:
...There is, however, one density which remains constant on both films and appears to lie beneath the skin in the region of the subcutaneous fat in the roedial aspect of the thigh."
He also said that this density lies
"...15.2 centimeters above the distal end of the medial femoral condyle on the AP film and on this film, lies 8 millimeters beneath the external surface of the skin. It is 6.25 centimeters medial to the fernoral shaft."
Now, obviously there is a difference in terms of the location of the metal fragment. Do you believe that the metal. fragment was in the thigh bone itself or do you believe Dr. Reynolds is correct, saying it's in the region of the subcutaneous fat? Or do you believe it could be either way?
S: I think it could be either way. The wound in the skin was described as a tangential wound, which means that it was larger than a direct entry of the fragment wherever it might be located, would have generally made. Therefore, the tangential nature, the long nature of the wound could have been made by the fragment on a tangent to the skin, then entering subcutaneous or bone, or it could have been made by a larger missile with a fragment coming off and lodging in subcutaneous tissue or bone. So, I think that it could be either. Medically, the fragment was not sought. Because medically the reason for exploration of the wound was to make certain there was no injury to adjacent structures, primarily artery and vein, and none was seen.
No search was made for the fragment as it generally is not, in a wound of this nature where the indication is to determine surrounding injury, so that the fragment could have been either place.
B: Did you have occasion to explore the region between the location where Dr. Reynolds said the fragment was located and the bone itself to see if there was, in fact, damage there?
S: Right. Looking for a vessel or other structure injury.
B: And, as you stated, you did not find any such injury?
S: No.
B: And it is your feeling that that does not necessarily preclude the fact that there could have been some damage there, in other words, that the fragment could have actually been in the bone itself?
S: Right. It could have been damaged. But this is a small fragment and in wounds like this, you never really look for the fragment, you're looking for significant injury that might do subsequent harm. And none was found.
B: In other words, you were not trying to remove that fragment?
S: That's right; that's right. Nor even search for it. You're searching for injury to vital structures, not for a fragment itself.
B: Does your examination of the enhancements of the Connally X-rays affect, at all, however slight, your impression as to whether or not the metal fragment was located in the bone itself or just under the skin?
S: With the artifacts that are over the bone, I think it's very difficult to tell. On the anterior, correction, on the lateral view, it appears that the most likely defect would appear opposite bone. On the other hand, on the anterior-posterior view, it would appear it could either be bone or subcutaneous tissue. I can't really say with certainty.
B: But, either way, it is your belief that your description of the possible causes of the wound in the thigh are still as plausible as before you considered the possibility of the metal fragment being located just under the skin?
S: Exactly, I think the reason the nature of the wound was described as tangential was that it was too large for a right angle fragment or a right angle bullet to have made this, with no more evidence on X-ray of fragments than there were. So that a bullet could have hit it at an angle and left the wound, leaving the fragment behind, or the fragment could have been at such an angle that it caused a linear tangential wound in the skin and then dived either subcutaneously or in the bone, but I don't think you can preclude either possibility.
B: So you're saying the wound could have been caused by either that small fragment evident in the X-ray or by a full bullet which deposited that fragment?
S: Exactly.
B: What, if anything, can we conclude from the nature of the wound of the thigh about the velocity of the bullet, or the size of the bullet?
S: Nothing definitive. In general, a high-velocity large wound will have, will leave more evidence of tissue damage. You would conclude that in general this wound showed no evidence of large-mass, high-velocity injury at any depth at all. Again, this can be, this can be in error. For example, extremely high-velocity small caliber injury can leave a tremendous amount of damage. A large caliber low velocity injury can leave a tremendous amount of damage, so there are in the injury spectrum, it's very hard to say from the nature of the wound anything more than it's less likely that there was a large-mass, high-velocity tissue injury, less likely.
B: And in layman's terms, that means you believe that it is not likely that a high-mass, high-velocity bullet struck this thigh without first being slowed down by hitting something else?
S: I can't say that. I just don't know. I think it's, from the wound, you can say that it's less likely that a high velocity, high-mass injury penetrated very far.
B: I see. Well, let me just, to recapitulate, is there anything in your review of the original X-rays of the femur which Mr. Purdy brought from Washington today, which you reviewed, the original procedure, inconsistent with the report that Mr. Purdy read to you by Dr. Reynolds?
S: No, nothing inconsistent.
B: And, do you have an opinion or do you feel it fair to ask an opinion on the basis of the injury in the thigh and on the basis of what you knew in general about Governor Connaly, since you were the chief of service at the time, consistent or inconsistent with the wound in the chest, wrist, and thigh coming from the same missile?
S: There's nothing inconsistent about that, no.
B: They could have all happened from the same, a single missile?
S: They could.
B: Well, furthermore, can you state that it is likely that those wounds were caused by the same missile?
S: No.
B: Okay. And as the middle point between likely and anything not inconsistent with, can you say that it's unlikely that they were caused by the same missile?
S: Can I say it's unlikely they were caused by the same missile?
B: All those wounds in Governor Connally.
S: No. I mean I can't say that either way, because a tangential injury, let's assume that it was not a fragment for a moment, tangential injury could be made by any size, shape or velocity missile, and still leave a fragment and give exactly what was given here, so that I can't say that it's likely or unlikely that that bullet had been somewhere else first.
B: Did you have the opportunity to sufficiently examine the other wounds of Governor Connally to draw a conclusion as to whether those wounds, as well as the wounds in the thigh, were caused by the same bullet, or was your examination just confined to the thigh wound?
S: No, mine was just too late for that because the thoracotomy and the exploration of the arm were already underway, so I never really saw an existing wound. What I saw was a surgical wound. Attempt to repair the damage that had been done, so that's why I really, you know, can't give an opinion about it at all.
B: Well, Dr. Shires, before concluding the tape, do you have anything at all you would like to add, not only pertaining to the medical evidence of Governor Connally, but any other area at all in connection with the investigation of the assassination? Do you have any comments you would like the (something) to have at this time?
S: No, nothing that I know of has happened, you know, since the day of the assassination that would have changed our opinion from what we recorded with the attorneys at the time, in terms of additional knowledge or subsequent developments in the care of the patient or any of that sort of thing. Realizing that Our testimony was given I guess several weeks after the episode, a good many days, so that the general patient care, the fact that the Governor got well and so on had already occurred, so we really, I guess, wouldn't expect anything subsequently to have happened that would have changed anything we gave as depositions at that time, when it happened. Maybe a pertinent negative, I don't know. We didn't, we haven't learned anything subsequently that would have changed what we said.
B: Dr. Shires, from the nature of the thigh wound and your examination of the X-rays, do you believe that the metal fragment today would be in pretty much the same location or would it possibly have exited the body?
S: Now?
B: Yes.
S: I have no idea, I really don't. Perhaps you can answer this better than I can.
B: Well, I would just, my impression would be that unless it were taken out in the process of debridement, which Dr. Shires did, it was so small it could be taken out without noticing it. (In background, uhum). Right; without knowing it. Then it would have stayed in and be there; it wouldn't have worked it's way out, unless there was an infection or something.
S: I agree with that. It may well have been removed in the
B: The other thing I thought would be of value is just a brief recollection that we discussed briefly before, about exactly where you were when this happened, how you, the time it took you to get to the operating room?
S: As to why I got in sort of after the others were in progress?
B: That's, yes, where you, as chief of service were, and when.
S: Yeah, the meeting of a national surgical organization, the Western Surgical Association, was meeting in Galveston, as it happened that year. This organization meets in different cities all over the country each year, and after giving a paper at that meeting that morning, I got a telephone call from Dr. Shaw, who's a thoracic surgeon, that operated on the Governor, telling me what had happened, about the President and the Governor, and saying that they were, that they had three areas of injury and they were beginning to operate on the one that was the most pressing, which was the thoracic injury, and hoped I could get back and shortly after that, some calls were made in Galveston and the Air Force actually picked me up and took me back to Dallas. So when I got to the operating room, the first, the President had already, body had already been removed and the two other procedures were well along, the thoracic and the orthopedic procedure, and then this third procedure was started to make certain there was no significant vessel injury.
B: The other part about it, would you have any comment for the record, as to your recollection about the forensic pathological aspects of what happened as far as the removal of the body, and...
S: Not firsthand, it was all resolved, hearsay. In talking to the pathologist, he thought the autopsy should have been done by him there at the time and apparently made his feelings well-known to them.
B: This was the forensic pathologist
S: There, at the hospital.
B: Who was at the hospital..
S: Dr. Reynolds, who really thought that it should be done immediately, and apparently it was decided, superceded and the body was taken to Washington.
P: Any other comments or questions? (Pause)
F: Is everything over now at this time?
P: Yeah. Just...
F: The time is now 4:14. This taping session has been concluded.


(1) FBI report, DL 100-10461, Warren Commission Document No. 205, pp. 153-154.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Letter from J. Edgar Hoover, Director, FBI, to Lee Rankin, General Counsel, the President's Commission, Mar. 23, 1964.
(4) See reference 1, pp. 153-154.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Letter from Frank Scott, photographic evidence panel, to House
Select Committee on Assassination, June 13, 1978.
(7) Autopsy descriptive sheet, U.S. Naval Medical School, Nov. 22,
1963, A63-272, p. 3 [hereinafter cited as autopsy protocol].
(8) Autopsy descriptive sheet, U.S. Naval Medical School, A63-272, Nov. 22, 1963.
(9) See reference 1, pp. 153-154.
(10) See reference 3.
(11) Report on soft X-ray and energy dispersive X-ray analysis of the
clothing of John F. Kennedy and John B. Connally, Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, Dallas, Tex., Charles S. Petty, M.D., director, Feb. 1, 1978 (JFK Document No. 005090), [hereinafter soft X-ray report], see addendum F to this report.
(12) Autopsy protocol, p. 3.
(13) Id. at p. 4.
(14) Testimony of Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, hearings before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), Volume III, p. 368, (hereinafter Perry Testimony, III Warren Report, 368).
(15) Staff interview of Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Jan. 11, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 1 (JFK Document No. 006370).
(16) Id. at p. 2.
(17) Staff interview of Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, Jan. 11, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 1 (JFK Document No. 006370).
(18) The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. Commission exhibit No. 392, vol. XVII, p. 4.
(19) Staff interview of Dr. C. James Carrico, Jan. 11, 1978, taped segment, House Select committee on Assassinations, p. 3 (JFK Document No. 005003).
(20) Ibid.
(21) Testimony of Dr. James J. Humes, hearings before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), volume II, p. 363 (hereinafter Humes testimony, II Warren Report 363.
(22) Staff interview of Dr. William B. Seaman, Feb. 27, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 2 (JFK Document No. 006132).
(23) Autopsy protocol, pp. 4-5.
(24) Id. at p. 5.
(25) Ibid.
(26) Letter and notes from Pierre A. Finck, M.D., USA, Chief, Military Environmental Pathology Division and Chief, Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch, Armed Forces Institutes of Pathology, Feb. 1, 1965, regarding personal notes on the assassination of President Kennedy, p. 3 (JFK Document No. 006165).
(27) Autopsy protocol, p. 6.
(28) See reference 17, p. 7.
(29) Id. at pp. 6-7.
(30) Id .at p. 9.
(31) Ibid.
(32) Testimony of Pierre A. Finck, M.D., Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, State of Louisiana v. Clay L. Shaw, afternoon session, Feb. 24, 1969, vol. II, p. 118-119 (JFK Document No. 002036).
(33) Autopsy protocol, p. 4.
(34) Ibid.
(35) See reference 26, p. 2.
(36) Autopsy protocol, p. 4.
(37) See reference 26, p. 2.
(38) Memorandum from J. Laurence Angel to JFK Skull Review Committee,
Oct. 24, 1977, p. 2 (see addendum E to this report).
(39) Id. at p. 3.
(40) Dissenting view to forensic pathology panel report, Cyril H. Wecht, M.D.,
J.D., Oct. 23, 1978, p. 4 (see part VI to this report.)
(41) Ibid.
(42) Statement by Dr. G.M. McDonnel to House Select Committee on Assassinations. Mar. 8, 1978, enclosure No. 1.
(43) Memorandum from Dr. David O. Davis, professor and chairman, department of radiology, George Washington University Hospital, to T. Mark Flanagan, House Select Committee on Assassinations staff member, Aug. 23, 1978, p. 3. (JFK Document No. 010958).
(44) Autopsy protocol, p. 4.
(45) Ibid.
(46) Supplementary report of autopsy No. A63-272, President John F. Kennedy, Dec. 6, 1963, p. 1 [hereinafter supplementary report].
(47) Autopsy protocol, p. 4; supplementary report, p. 1; Humes testimony, ii Warren report 355-356.
(48) Supplementary report, p. 1.
(49) Id. at p. 2.
(50) Autopsy protocol, p. 6.
(51) See reference 26, p. 2.
(52) Autopsy protocol, p. 3.
(53) Memorandum pursuant to a Department of Justice request to examine the X-rays and photographs to determine whether they are consistent with the autopsy report, from James J. Humes, M.D., J. Thornton Boswell, M.I)., and Pierre A. Finck, M.D. Jan. 26, 1967. p. 5. (Note: This is a blank letterhead memorandum. )
(54) Autopsy protocol, p. 5.
(55) Supplementary report, p. 2.
(56) Letter from .J. Edgar Hoover, Director, FBI, to J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, the President's Commission, Apr. 16, 1964. Warren Commission No. 827.
(57) See Reference 11, pp. 6-7.
(58) Parkland Memorial Hospital operative record, John B. Connally, surgeon: Robert Shaw, M.D., Nov. 22, 1963, p. 1.
(59) Staff interview of I)r. Robert R. Shaw, House Select Committee on Assassinations, Nov. 9, 1977, pp. 2-3.
(60) Memorandum from Michael M. Baden, M.D. to Gary Cornwell, Esq., Sept. 6, 1978, regarding the physical examination of Governor John Connally, p. 1.
(61) See Reference 58, p. 1.
(62) See Reference 60, p. 2.
(63) Parkland Memorial Hospital. report of diagnostic X-ray consultation, Connally, John G., Nov. 22, 1963, J. ReynoIds, M.D., reporting physician.
(64) Ibid.
(65) See Reference 58, pp. 1-2.
(66) Staff interview of Robert R. Shaw, M.D., House Select Committee on Assassinations, Nov. 9. 1977, p. 1.
(67) Letter from Charles S. Petty. M.D., director, Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences. Dallas, Tex. to Donald A. Purdy. Jr., staff counsel, House Select Committee on Assassinations. Feb.2,1978, p.2(JFK Document No. 005095).
(68) See Reference 60, p. 2.
(69) Parkland Memorial Hospital operative record. Gov. John Connally, surgeon: Dr. Charles Gregory, Nov. 22, 1963, p. 1.
Parkland Memorial Hospital surgical pathology report, Connally. John G., lab. No. $63-6750, Nov. 25, 1963, pathologist: Vernie A. Stembridge, M.D.
(71) See Reference 69, p. 1.
(72) Id. atp. 1.
(73) See Reference 70.
(74) See Reference 60, p. 2.
(75) Parkland Memorial Hospital, report of diagnostic X-ray consultation, Nov. 22, 1963.
(76) FBI report, Nov. 30, 1963, file DL 89-43, Special Agent J. Doyle Williams.
(77) FBI report, Nov. 23, 1963, file DL 89-43, Special Agent J. Doyle Williams.
(78) Parkland Memorial Hospital operative record, Connally, John B. [sic], Surgeon: Dr. Shires, Nov. 22, 1963.
(79) See Reference 70.
(80) Staff interview of Dr. George Thomas Shires, House Select Committee on Assassinations, Jan. 9, 1978, pp. 1-2 (JFK Document No. 005009).
(81) Id. at pp. 2-3.
(82) Parkland Memorial Hospital, report on diagnostic X-ray consultation, Nov. 22, 1963.
(83) Supplementary report of films of Gov. John G. Connally, dated Nov. 22, 1963, Parkland Memorial Hospital, Jack Reynolds, M.D., Nov. 29, 1963.
(84) X-ray back scatter with scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray of tissues of J.B.C., Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences at Dallas, Charles S. Petty, M.D., director, Aug. 29, 1978, p. 1 (JFK Document No. 011167).
(85) Beyer, J.C., and Coates, J. B, "Wound Ballistics" (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, 1962).
Alvarez, Luis W. "A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination Film," "American Journal of Physics," vol. 44, No. 9, September 1976.
(87) Lattimer, John K., Lattimer, John, and Lattimer, Gary. "An Experimental Study of the Backward Movement of President Kennedy's Head," "Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics," 1976, vol. 142: 246--254.
(87) Nichol, John ( personal communication to committee, 1978 ).
(88) Supplementary report, p. 1.
(90) Sherrington, C.S. "Experiments in Examination of the Peripheral Distribution of the Fibers of the Posterior Roots of some Spinal Nerves." Philos. Trans., 1898, 190B,, 45-186 (introduces the term "decerebrate rigidity").
(91) Testimony of Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D. Sept. 7, 1978, hearings before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, 95th Congress, 2d sess. (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), vol. 1, p. 347.
(92) See Reference 53, p.
(93) Ibid.
(94) Clinical record, authorization for post-mortem examination, U.S. Naval Hospital, Bethesda, Md., Nov. 22, 1963.
(95) Ibid.
(96) See Reference 53, p. 1.
(97) Humes testimony, II Warren report 348.
(98) Ibid.
(99) Ibid. 349.
(100)Vernon's Ann. Tex, Statutes, Code of Crim, Proc., Art. 49.
(101)Id. at Art. 49.01.
(104) Ibid.
(105)Id. at Art. 49.03.
(106) County, Tex., Nov. 22, 11963.
(107) Ibid.
(108) Ibid.
(109) Ibid.
(110)Tex. Crim. Pro. Code Ann. tit. , art. 49.03 (Vernon).
(111)Certificate of Death, Dallas County, Dallas, Tex., Dec. 6, 1963, Theran Ward, Justice of the Peace.
See reference 97, p..348.
See reference 26, p. 17.
See reference 32, pp. 117-118.
See reference 26, p. 17
Id. at p. 3.
Id. at p. 4
Id. at p. 17
18 L.S.C.A. S: 1751 (1965) (West).
18 U.S.C.A. S: 351 (1971) (West).