Page 1

BEFORE THE

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD

In Re:

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

College Park, Maryland

Tuesday, July 16, 1996

The deposition of JOHN T. STRINGER, called for examination in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to notice, at Archives II, 6381 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland, convened at 9:55 a.m. before Robert H. Haines, a notary public in and for the State of Maryland, when were present on behalf of the parties:


Page 2

APPEARANCES:

On Behalf of the Plaintiff:

T. JEREMY GUNN, ESQ.

General Counsel

Assassination Records Review Board

600 E Street, N.W., Second Floor

Washington, D.C. 20530

(202) 724-0088

(202) 724-0457 Fax

ALSO PRESENT:

DOUGLAS P. HORNE, Senior Analyst

DAVID R. MONTAGUE, Investigator

PHILIP D. GOLRICK, ESQ., Chief Analyst

Assassination Records Review Board

STEVEN TILLEY

U.S. National Archives

CONTENTS

WITNESS EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR

U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

John T. Stringer 3

STRINGER DEPOSITION EXHIBITS MARKED

Deposition Exhibit No. 90 21

Deposition Exhibit No. 91 24

Deposition Exhibit No. 92 25

[All exhibits retained by Mr. Gunn.]


Page 3

[1] PROCEEDINGS
[2] Whereupon,
[3] JOHN T. STRINGER
[4] was called for examination by counsel for the U.S.
[5] Department of Justice and, having been first duly
[6] sworn by the notary public, was examined and
[7] testified as follows:
[8] EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR U.S. JUSTICE
[9] BY MR. GUNN:
[10] Q: Would you state your name for the record,
[11] please?
[12] A: John Stringer.
[13] Q: Mr. Stringer, have you ever had your
[14] deposition taken before?
[15] A: I have not.
[16] Q: As I mentioned to you just before we
[17] started the deposition, that I will be asking
[18] questions to you in the deposition. All of the
[19] answers that you provide will be recorded by the
[20] court reporter.
[21] We will send a copy of your transcript as
[22] printed to you, to give you the opportunity to make


Page 4

[1] any changes to make the testimony more accurate.
[2] And we will then incorporate those changes into the
[3] final version of the transcript.
[4] The tape recording that is being made of
[5] the deposition will be kept in the Archives, as
[6] well as the copy of the transcript before your
[7] changes and the copy of the transcript after your
[8] changes.
[9] During the course of the deposition, I
[10] will be doing my best to ask clear questions to
[11] you. If you don't understand the question or it's
[12] unclear, don't hesitate to ask me to rephrase the
[13] question or restate the question. Anything that's
[14] unclear, don't hesitate to stop me. And we can try
[15] and do it in some other way.
[16] If you'd like to take a break at anytime
[17] during the deposition, don't hesitate to say so.
[18] And that can easily be accommodated.
[19] Mr. Stringer, you are under oath. And
[20] unlike in the telephone conversation that you and I
[21] had earlier, federal law pertaining to perjury
[22] would apply here. And, so, we ask that you give


Page 5

[1] your best and most honest recollection to the
[2] extent that you can.
[3] If you don't recall, then, you should say
[4] that you don't recall. But it's very important
[5] that we get as best a recollection as we can from
[6] you. Do you understand what I'm saying?
[7] A: Yes.
[8] Q: Mr. Stringer, were you present at any time
[9] during the autopsy of President Kennedy?
[10] A: Yes, I was.
[11] Q: What was your role generally at the
[12] autopsy?
[13] A: I took photographs of the body.
[14] Q: Is there any reason today that you would
[15] be unable to answer the questions that I'm going to
[16] ask you honestly, fully, and accurately?
[17] A: No reasons.
[18] Q: Were you ever previously under any kind of
[19] order or restraint from being able to talk about
[20] the autopsy?
[21] A: Yes, I was.
[22] Q: Can you explain, very briefly, what the


Page 6

[1] nature of the order was or the circumstances that
[2] put you under the order?
[3] A: Well, I think it was the morning after the
[4] autopsy. We were gathered into the commanding
[5] officer's office of the Naval Medical School, who
[6] through the fear of God and everyone - and he had
[7] a paper that we all had to sign that we would not
[8] talk to anyone about what had happened on that
[9] particular night.
[10] Q: Do you remember the name of the person who
[11] gave you the order?
[12] A: John Stover.
[13] Q: Did he say why you were being put under an
[14] order not to discuss the autopsy?
[15] A: Not as far as I can recall. He just said
[16] that it was a very important thing that we were not
[17] to speak to anyone about it.
[18] Q: Did he use the term "secret" or "top
[19] secret", in terms of the substance of what had
[20] happened at the autopsy?
[21] A: I think he did.
[22] Q: Which term did he use?


Page 7

[1] A: I remember it as "secret". Whether it was
[2] "top secret" or not, I don't know.
[3] Q: Did Captain Stover say anything about
[4] orders coming from the White House?
[5] A: I think he said it was orders from the
[6] Surgeon General.
[7] Q: Mr. Stringer, have you ever had a security
[8] clearance?
[9] A: Yes, I have.
[10] Q: Did you have a security clearance at the
[11] time of the autopsy?
[12] A: Yes, I did.
[13] Q: When is the last time, as best you recall,
[14] that you had your security clearance?
[15] A: Oh, I don't remember. I don't remember.
[16] It was on my card what I was cleared for. I know I
[17] had it when I went to Vietnam.
[18] Q: When was that?
[19] A: It was in '68 or something, I think.
[20] Q: Did you ever have access to classified
[21] information?
[22] A: Yes.


Page 8

[1] Q: What was the highest level of security
[2] clearance that you had?
[3] A: I think it was top secret, I believe.
[4] Q: I'll switch the topic a little bit.
[5] Mr. Stringer, do you have any records in your
[6] possession that relate to the autopsy of President
[7] Kennedy?
[8] A: No, I do not. I had a copy of that thing
[9] that I had to sign at one time, but I don't know
[10] where it is now.
[11] Q: When you're referring to the thing that

[12] you signed, do you mean -
[13] A: From -
[14] Q: - the order from Captain Stover?
[15] A: Yes, from Captain Stover.
[16] Q: As far as you know, you don't have a copy
[17] of that any longer?

[18] A: No. I had someone send me some copies of
[19] the pictures, which I sent back.
[20] Q: Do you remember who it was who sent you a
[21] copy of the pictures?
[22] A: Livingstone.


Page 9

[1] Q: Was that Harry Livingstone? Does that -
[2] A: Yes. They were in black and white.
[3] Q: Mr. Stringer, have you spoken to anyone
[4] about the fact that you would be having your
[5] deposition taken today?
[6] A: Only my wife.
[7] Q: Would it be fair, then, to say that you
[8] didn't speak to anyone, other than your wife, about
[9] the substance of the deposition or anything about
[10] the autopsy?
[11] A: That's correct.
[12] Q: Have you ever received any instructions
[13] from anyone affiliated with the United States
[14] govermnent about statements that you should or
[15] should not make regarding the autopsy, other than
[16] the order not to discuss the autopsy?
[17] A: No. I was - At one time, I was told
[18] that I could talk to a Dr. Lattimer when I was
[19] under that order.
[20] Q: Do you remember approximately what time
[21] that was that you spoke to Mr. Lattimer - Dr.
[22] Lattimer?


Page 10

[1] A: No. It was when I was still in Bethesda.
[2] In fact, he came out there to speak to me.
[3] Q: It's my understanding that the
[4] conversation with Dr. Lattimer took place around
[5] 1972. Does that seem generally correct to you,
[6] or -
[7] A: It could be.
[8] Q: After the autopsy, did you ever speak to
[9] any of the physicians who were present at the
[10] autopsy regarding the autopsy?
[11] A: No, I don't think so.
[12] Q: So, for -
[13] A: I can't remember.
[14] Q: You don't remember, for example, ever
[15] speaking to Dr. Humes about the autopsy?
[16] A: No, I don't think so.
[17] Q: Do you remember speaking with anyone else
[18] who was present at the autopsy, other than the
[19] doctors, about the autopsy?
[20] A: Well, I had a corpsman there, but we never
[21] spoke about it.
[22] Q: Is the corpsman named Mr. Riebe?


Page 11

[1] A: Yes, correct.
[2] Q: When is the last time you saw Mr. Riebe,
[3] approximately?
[4] A: Well, when he graduated from the photo
[5] school there. I haven't seen or heard from him
[6] since then. And that was - that was soon after
[7] the autopsy, I believe.
[8] Q: So, that would be the early to mid '60s
[9] was the last time you saw Mr. Riebe; is that
[10] correct?
[11] A: Yes.
[12] Q: Do you recall that you and I had a
[13] telephone conversation a few weeks ago?
[14] A: Yes.
[15] Q: Other than that conversation, I'd like to
[16] find out what other times you have spoken to
[17] officials of the U.S. government about the autopsy.
[18] And let me go back and ask, did you ever
[19] speak to anyone about the autopsy during the time
[20] that the Warren Commission was in existence?
[21] A: No.
[22] So, you then never testified to the Warren


Page 12

[1] Commission?
[2] A: No. That's correct.
[3] Q: Do you recall that in around 1966 you went
[4] to the Archives to review some of the autopsy
[5] material?
[6] A: Correct.
[7] Q: Do you remember speaking with anyone
[8] affiliated with the U.S. government about the
[9] autopsy between the time of the autopsy and the
[10] 1966 inventory?
[11] A: No.
[12] Q: After the 1966 inventory, what was the
[13] next time that you spoke to anyone affiliated with
[14] the U.S. government about the autopsy?
[15] A: I don't think I have ever spoken to anyone
[16] with the government about it.
[17] Q: Do you remember, in the late 1970s, there
[18] was a congressional inquiry called the House Select
[19] Committee on Assassinations?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: Do you remember speaking with anyone, by
[22] telephone or in person -


Page 13

[1] A: No.
[2] Q: - affiliated with the House Select
[3] Committee?
[4] A: No.
[5] Q: Do you remember speaking with David
[6] Lifton - Let me withdraw that.
[7] Do you recall the name David Lifton?
[8] A: Yes, I do.
[9] Q: Do you remember speaking with David Lifton
[10] at or about the time that you spoke with Dr.
[11] Lattimer?
[12] A: I don't remember when I spoke to David
[13] Lifton.
[14] Q: Do you remember speaking with him on the
[15] telephone?
[16] A: Yes, I do.
[17] Q: Mr. Stringer, could we go back and talk
[18] about part of your career fora couple of moments?
[19] A: Mm-hmm.
[20] Q: Did you graduate from college?
[21] A: No. I went to Maryland University.
[22] Q: You never received a degree from Maryland?


Page 14

[1] A: No. That's correct.
[2] Q: What subjects did you study at the
[3] University of Maryland?
[4] A: I was in pre-med for a year, and then I
[5] went to the medical school and took medical drawing
[6] and photography.
[7] Q: Can you tell me what kinds of courses you
[8] would study for medical drawing and photography?
[9] A: Well, it was a course there. It was
[10] called Art As Applied To Medicine. And they had
[11] regular courses in drawing, and photography, and
[12] motion pictures. It was headed by a Dr. Clark. I
[13] was there for three years.
[14] Q: Just in a very general way, how many
[15] courses would you estimate that you took in medical
[16] illustration?
[17] A: Well, the first time - the first year, I
[18] took gross anatomy with the medical students. We
[19] were on a cadaver. And after that, we went in to
[20] drawing - in to basic drawing, and then in to
[21] medical drawing.
[22] Then we went in to the photography, and


Page 15

[1] making of slides and photographs in the operating
[2] room, and in the laboratory, and on patients pre-
[3] and post-operative.
[4] Q: During these courses, did you become quite
[5] familiar with terms of anatomy?
[6] A: Yes.
[7] Q: And did you obtain competence in medical
[8] illustration?
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: Could you tell me, just in a very general
[11] way, what medical photography is?
[12] A: Well, it's the illustration of medical
[13] cases, pre- and post-operative, for the teaching of
[14] doctors and - not teaching, but to make a medical
[15] record of the patients, and also for teaching of
[16] doctors.
[17] Q: Does medical photography involve autopsy
[18] photography, as well?
[19] A: Yes, it does.
[20] Q: Other than the subject matter, which would
[21] be presumably closeups of portions of the human
[22] anatomy, how does the technical training for


Page 16

[1] medical photography differ from other forms of
[2] photography?
[3] A: Well, basically, all of the photography is
[4] the same, but you have different uses. In
[5] medicine, you have to show the defect. In portrait
[6] photography, you get away from the defects.
[7] Q: Other than your training at the University
[8] of Maryland, did you have any other formal training
[9] in either medical illustration or medical
[10] photography?
[11] A: No.
[12] Q: What kinds of skills would you say would
[13] be required for a person to be a competent
[14] professional medical photographer?
[15] A: Well, you have to be able to take the
[16] blood and the guts. And, basically, that's about
[17] it, I think.
[18] Q: That would be the only kind of specialty
[19] that you would need for medical photography?
[20] A: Oh, no. Well, you have to be competent as
[21] a photographer.
[22] Q: After you attended the University of


Page 17

[1] Maryland, what is the first position that you had
[2] in the area of medical photography?
[3] A: I went to - it was Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
[4] to Columbia Hospital there, and set up a medical
[5] art and photo lab there. And that was in 1941, I
[6] think.
[7] Q: Was the Columbia Hospital affiliated with
[8] the U.S. government in any way?
[9] A: No, it was not.
[10] Q: So, you were a civilian at that time?
[11] A: That's correct.
[12] Q: What was your next position after the
[13] Columbia Hospital?
[14] A: After that, I joined the Navy.
[15] Q: Were you a medical photographer at the
[16] time that you joined the Navy?
[17] A: Yes, in art and photography.
[18] Q: Art and photography?
[19] A: Mm-hmm.
[20] Q: Is that around 1941?
[21] A: No, in `42. It think it was October of
[22] `42.


Page 18

[1] Q: How long were you in the Navy?
[2] A: I was in the Navy till '49, I think it
[3] was. Then I got out and became a civilian, as the
[4] director of medical photography.
[5] Q: Now, is that at Bethesda?
[6] A: Yes; correct. At the Naval Medical
[7] School.
[8] Q: During the period 1942 to 1949, was your
[9] work in the area of medical photography -
[10] A: Yes, I was -
[11] Q: - and illustration?
[12] A: I was officer in charge of medical
[13] photography.
[14] Q: Where were you in charge of medical
[15] photography?
[16] A: At Bethesda. Before that, I was in San
[17] Diego. I first came in the Navy, and went to
[18] Bethesda. I was there for almost a year. Then I
[19] went to San Diego, and set up a lab out there.
[20] Q: As of 1949, did the Navy have any
[21] photography school - medical photography schools,
[22] other than at the Bethesda Naval Medical School?


Page 19

[1] A: No, they did not.
[2] Q: So, then, you were the director of medical
[3] photography at the only -
[4] A: Yes.
[5] Q: - facility that the Navy had for teaching
[6] medical photography?
[7] A: That's correct.
[8] Q: Did you, yourself, teach photography?
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: How long did you teach photography?
[11] A: Well, from the time I was there till the
[12] time I retired.
[13] Q: When did you retire?
[14] A: In `74. In February of `74. We also had
[15] chiefs there that were also teaching. I was the
[16] director of them.
[17] Q: Do you have - or could you give me a
[18] rough estimate of how many students you taught
[19] during the time you were at Bethesda?
[20] A: There was an average of four every six
[21] months, and sometimes there were seven. So, you go
[22] with that by about 30 years.


Page 20

[1] Q: What other duties did you have as the
[2] director of medical photography, in addition to
[3] teaching courses?
[4] A: At Bethesda?
[5] Q: At Bethesda.
[6] A: Well, I was on a inventory committee, and
[7] just collateral duties that came up. But,
[8] basically, it was in charge of the photo lab.
[9] Q: Did you have any responsibility for taking
[10] autopsy photographs during the time that you were
[11] the director of medical photography?
[12] A: Yes.
[13] Q: Approximately, how many autopsies did you
[14] photograph a year?
[15] A: I don't know. Maybe - It would all
[16] depend upon the case. if it was important, then
[17] they - then it was photographed. I didn't do it
[18] all this time. We sent down a corpsman to do it.
[19] And it would maybe average one a week, I guess.
[20] Q: Would it be fair to say, then, that you
[21] had a significant amount of experience in autopsy
[22] photography as of 1963?


Page 21

[1] A: Yes.
[2] Q: Do you know if anyone in the Navy who had
[3] more experience with autopsy photography than you

[4] did, as of 1963?
[5] A: Not as far as I can know.
[6] Q: Mr. Stringer, have you ever received any
[7] citations or awards for quality of your
[8] photography?
[9] A: Well, for - I mean, just letters of
[10] commendation. And when I retired, I got a pin -
[11] or whatever it was - for outstanding service or
[12] something.
[13] Q: Mr. Stringer, during the course of the
[14] deposition, I'm going to show you certain exhibits
[15] that I'd like to ask you some questions about.
[16] The numbering of the exhibits corresponds
[17] not to simply the deposition that we're doing
[18] today, but to other depositions. So, the numbers
[19] will not appear to you to be in any kind of
[20] sequence.
[21] [Deposition Exhibit No.90
[22] marked for identification.]


Page 22

[1] BY MR. GUNN:
[2] Q: The first one I'd like to show you is
[3] number MD 90. And I'd like to ask you if you have
[4] previously seen that document?
[5] MR. GUNN: I will state for the record
[6] that it's a document that appears on its face to
[7] have been dated May 2nd, 1957. And it is marked
[8] Exhibit MD 90 for this deposition.
[9] THE WITNESS: It brings back a lot of
[10] memories.
[11] BY MR. GUNN:
[12] Q: Do you remember having seen this document
[13] before?
[14] A: No, I have not. I don't remember seeing
[15] it.
[16] Q: Do you know who R.C. Richardson is?
[17] A: No, I don't remember him. No.
[18] Q: I'd like to read one portion of this, and
[19] then ask you about whether this is a reasonably
[20] accurate description of the kind of work that you
[21] do. And the portion I'll be reading is the last
[22] third of the very first paragraph on the first


Page 23

[1] page, beginning:
[2] "In addition, since the field of color
[3] photography is an ever-changing science, it is
[4] necessary for Mr. Stringer to carry on a continuous
[5] training and research program, in order to keep the
[6] medical photography school abreast of the most
[7] advanced photographic procedures. His photographs
[8] of the various anatomical structures of the human
[8] body, body cavities, as well as fundus lesions of
[10] the human eye are outstanding examples of the
[11] photographer's art. Much of the photographic work
[12] required in compiling Volumes 1 and 2 of the Color
[13] Atlas of Pathology was accomplished by the medical
[14] photography department under the supervision of
[15] Mr. Stringer, and he is given credit for this work
[16] in the forward of Volume 2, which, together with
[17] Volume 1, are unique in the field of pathology."

[18] Just a couple of questions, if I could,
[19] about that passage.
[20] Would you say that it would be accurate
[21] that it's important - or it was important for you
[22] in your position to carry on continuous training


Page 24

[1] and research programs in the developments in
[2] photography?
[3] A: Yes.
[4] Q: And were some of your works published in
[5] the Color Atlas of Pathology?
[6] A: Yes.
[7] [Deposition Exhibit No. 91
[8] marked for identification.]
[9] BY MR. GUNN:
[10] Q: Mr. Stringer, let me show you another
[11] document, which I hope brings back some fond
[12] memories for you.
[13] A: Frank Kruez.
[14] Q: The document that you've been handed is
[15] marked Exhibit MD 91 for this deposition. It's
[16] dated on its face February 15th, 1962, to Mr. John
[17] T. Stringer from Commanding Officer, National Naval
[18] Medical Center.
[19] Mr. Stringer, have you previously seen the
[20] document that's now marked Exhibit 91?
[21] A: I think I have seen this one.
[22] Q: Is this the kind of document that you were


Page 25

[1] referring to when you stated that letters had been
[2] put into your file?
[3] A: Yes.
[4] Q: Could you tell me who F.P. Kroitz is,
[5] please?
[6] A: Kruez?
[7] Q: Kruez.
[8] A: He was the CO of the Naval Medical Center.
[9] He was an admiral. He was an orthopedic surgeon.
[10] And I used to take pictures for him when he was in
[11] surgery, when he was a captain.
[12] Q: So, Admiral Kruez was, himself, aware of
[13] your own talents by virtue of his having worked
[14] with you in-
[15] A: Correct. And on some of these other ones,
[16] like on the balloon thing, I went with a Captain
[17] Barron that.
[18] [Deposition Exhibit No. 92
[19] marked for identification.]
[20] Q: Mr. Stringer, let me show you one
[21] additional document, marked Exhibit 92, which
[22] appears to be on its face - and I'll ask you if


Page 26

[1] this is correct - an application for federal
[2] employment that you may have signed. But that's a
[3] question I will ask you.
[4] The first question for you is, have you
[5] previously seen the document that is now marked
[6] Exhibit No. 92?
[7] A: I guess, I have.
[8] Q: Is that your signature on the last page?
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: Previously in the deposition you mentioned
[11] that you went into civilian work in 1949. Do you
[12] recall that?
[13] A: Yes, I think so.
[14] Q: Do you see the date on the application on
[15] the first page, which appears to be 6/23/49?
[16] A: Yes.
[17] Q: Does this help - does that help refresh
[16] your recollection as to whether this may have been
[19] an application that you filled out for civilian
[20] employment in 1949?
[21] A: I guess, it was.
[22] Q: Could you turn to the third page of


Page 27

[1] Exhibit No. 92, and look at the portion where it
[2] refers to education, under number 18 on the
[3] application?
[4] A: Mm-hmm.
[5] Q: As you look through that now, does
[6] everything on section 18 appear to you to be
[7] accurate?
[8] A: Now, section 18; is it?
[9] Q: Yes, referring to education - the
[10] portions that we discussed just a few moments ago.
[11] A: I guess. I don't - Yes, I guess.
[12] Q: It refers to moulage and moulage
[13] prosthesis.
[14] A: Correct.
[15] Q: Could you explain what that is, very
[16] briefly?
[17] A: A moulage is where you take a copy of the
[18] body - we used to do it with plaster - and then
[19] make a model for it. Exhibits. They used to make
[20] artificial ears out of moulage.
[21] And we did - oh, when they first did the
[22] operation on the hip, we went into the morgue and


Page 28

[1] made a cast of it. And then we made a - just
[2] modeled that, and then colored it out.
[3] Q: Okay.
[4] A: In fact, there's been several books
[5] written on moulage. I think it's gone by the
[6] wayside now.
[7] Q: If we can go back for a moment to the
[8] teaching that you did at Bethesda, were there any
[9] concepts or points that you attempted to teach your
[10] students regarding any particular difficulties
[11] related to medical autopsies - photographing
[12] autopsies?
[13] A: What do you mean by that?
[14] Q: Was there anything different that you
[15] would have stressed or tried to teach the students
[16] regarding autopsies that would have been different
[17] from any other form of medical photography?
[18] A: Well, they should be identified - the
[19] autopsies - by number. And there are different
[20] angles you have to take, to show the defect.
[21] Generally, the doctor tells you what to take.
[22] Q: Anything else that you can think of that


Page 29

[1] would be of particular importance for autopsies?
[2] A: Well, these people that came in, they were
[3] trained as corpsmen. And they were not
[4] photographers. We had to teach them photography -
[5] basically, the medical training they've had as to
[6] some anatomy and things like that.
[7] So, we tried to show them the basic - It
[8] was only a six-months course. We showed them the
[9] basic facts of photography as applied to medicine.
[10] (See attached curriculum for medical
[11] photography/school.)
[12] Q: I'd like to go back to some of the things
[13] that you just mentioned. When you said that the
[14] autopsy should be identified by number, what did
[15] you mean by that?
[16] A: Well, by the autopsy number.
[17] Q: And how would a body be identified by
[18] number? I don't mean, how do you get the number?
[19] But how is it you identify the body?
[20] A: Each body as a autopsy number, A so-and-so. And
[21] we had a little ruler that you put the
[22] number on, and then put that in part of the


Page 30

[1] picture.
[2] Q: So that when the photograph was exposed,
[3] the identification number would be next to the
[4] deceased?
[5] A: Correct.
[6] Q: What would the purpose of doing that be?
[7] A: For identification.
[8] Q: So that there wouldn't be any question
[9] about whose body was in the photograph; is that
[10] fair?
[11] A: Correct. Yes.
[12] Q: Is there any other way that the decedent
[13] would be identified during the course of taking
[14] autopsy photos?
[15] A: Well, we had a thing where you could open
[16] up the cassette and put the number in on it.
[17] Q: When you say "open up the cassette", you
[18] mean of the camera?
[19] A: The film holder.
[20] Q: The film holder.
[21] A: And have it identified by the number.
[22] Q: And how did that work exactly? Did you


Page 31

[1] have a tape with the number on it, and put it on
[2] the film, or some other -
[3] A: No. You had a - Yes, you had a tape
[4] there where the light came through it. And then it
[5] put it on the film.
[6] Q: So that the film would actually be exposed
[7] to show the number?
[8] A: Yes, on that particular part.
[9] Q: Is there any other way that there would be
[10] an identification in the photography?
[11] A: Well, we had a log, where each of the jobs
[12] was given a number. And that was written in the
[13] log; the name, the diagnosis, the doctor that
[14] ordered it, the autopsy number or the surgical
[15] number. And that was written in a log every day.
[16] Q: Did the log contain a listing of the
[17] number of photographs that had been taken at the
[18] autopsy?
[19] A: Correct.
[20] Q: Where was that log maintained?
[21] A: In the office of the photo lab.
[22] Q: Would the log identify the type of film


Page 32

[1] that was used in the autopsy?
[2] A: Yes.
[3] Q: Did the log identify the type of camera
[4] that was used in the autopsy?
[5] A: No, because at that time we only used the
[6] four-by-five Graphic view camera. So, we knew what
[7] was being taken. If it were just movies, then it
[8] was written in there that it was done by motion
[9] picture.
[10] Q: Did you, at some time, take motion
[11] pictures of autopsies?
[12] A: I don't remember taking any autopsies.
[13] Q: Did the log that was in the photo lab have
[14] a particular name, other than just "log"?
[15] A: On the front of it, it said "log".
[16] Q: If we were to try to identify that log or
[17] find the log, is there any term that you could
[18] think of as how that might be identified?
[19] A: Well, what we used to do - we used to put
[20] them in the archives, but I don't know what they've
[21] done in the last 23 years. But that's not the
[22] Archives here. hat was at Bethesda.


Page 33

[1] Q: So, the archives at the Bethesda Naval
[2] Medical Center would be the place to look for that,
[3] you would guess?
[4] A: I would guess.
[5] Q: For something from the 1960s?
[6] A: [Nods head up and down]
[7] Q: Is there any other way that the decedent
[8] would be identified by number or any other unique
[9] identifier, in addition to what you've already
[10] mentioned?
[11] A: Nothing.
[12] Q: You mentioned the three different ways
[13] that there would be some identification or record
[14] of the decedent by number. Was it a standard
[15] practice in 1963 to record all of those for
[16] autopsies that were being performed at Bethesda?
[17] A: Unless they were told not to do it, yes.
[18] Q: That was standard procedure as of 1963?
[19] A: Yes, on all of the specimens in the lab.
[20] They used to bring some up from the morgue, and
[21] then do them in the lab. And they would put the
[22] number on it with a ruler.


Page 34

[1] Q: So, these then - the photographs would be
[2] not only of the body of the deceased, but any
[3] sections that had been taken -
[4] A: Correct.
[5] Q: - or any body parts?
[6] A: Correct.
[7] Q: All of them would be identified by the
[8] number?
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: After the photographs were taken or
[11] exposed, in the ordinary course what would happen
[12] to those photographs from the autopsies?
[13] A: They would be sent to our lab, and they
[14] would be then taken out of the film holders and
[15] then processed. If it were black and white, they
[16] would be done in the black and white lab. If they
[17] were color, they would then go to the color lab.
[18] Q: And you had labs at Bethesda that could
[19] handle both black and white, and color?
[20] A: Correct.
[21] Q: After the photographs had been developed
[22] in the lab, would the fact that they had been


Page 35

[1] developed in the lab also be recorded in the log
[2] that you mentioned earlier?
[3] A: Yes. In other words, this chit that we
[4] had on each of the jobs had on there what was taken
[5] in black and white, how many prints were made, if
[6] they were black and white or color. And then it
[7] would also say who did it.
[8] Q: What happened to the photographs after
[9] they had been developed?
[10] A: They were -
[11] Q: Would they be kept at the photo lab, or
[12] sent somewhere else in Bethesda?
[13] A: The photographs were released to the
[14] doctor for the patient's record and the negatives
[15] were filed in the photo lab office. And then when
[16] they got full, then they were sent to archives. In
[17] other words, we could only keep so many.
[18] Q: Were new folders or new files opened for
[19] each autopsy that was performed at Bethesda?
[20] A: Each job had its own number and file.
[21] Q: Were copies of the photographs ever sent
[22] to other patient files or some other place at


Page 36

[1] Bethesda or elsewhere?
[2] A: Well, the doctor got all the prints. In
[3] other words, he signed for the prints. And the
[4] negatives were filed in the photo lab. In other
[5] words, we didn't file any prints.
[6] Q: Okay. So, then, the print of the - taken
[7] from the autopsy would be sent to the doctor, who
[8] may or may not put it in the patient file?
[9] A: That's right, yeah. The doctor picked
[10] them up in the photo lab and signed for same.
[11] Q: Okay.
[12] A: In other words, they were supposed to go
[13] into the patient's file.
[14] Q: Okay.
[15] A: And he signed for them when he picked them
[16] up.
[17] Q: Earlier you had mentioned some things that
[18] you taught - you particularly taught your
[19] students. And we've just been talking about the
[20] identification process.
[21] The second one that you mentioned was that
[22] you needed to teach the students about the angles


Page 37

[1] that would be taken - viewing angles for the
[2] autopsy. What did you mean by that?
[3] A: Well, if it were inside the body, you had
[4] to have - had to show them how to light it and
[5] what they wanted, if it were a liver, spleen,
[6] kidney.
[7] Q: Did angles come into play in showing
[8] wounds or injuries of a person who may have died of
[9] trauma?
[10] A: Yes.
[11] Q: What kinds of angles would you typically
[12] teach students should be taken for traumatic
[13] injuries to the body?
[14] A: Well, it's mainly done in shadow and
[15] lights.
[16] Q: Would it be standard practice to take a
[17] picture of the entire body, then a mid photograph
[18] showing perhaps the torso, and then a closeup of a
[19] wound of entrance, or a knife wound, or something
[20] of that sort? How would that work?
[21] A: Well, it depended upon what the doctor
[22] wanted. But, basically, in a trauma, you would


Page 38

[1] shoot a picture of the whole body, to show what was
[2] there.
[3] Q: And was it standard practice to show
[4] closeups of a wound of entrance, whether it's a
[5] knife wound or a bullet wound?
[6] A: Well, here again, it would depend upon
[7] what the doctor told you to shoot.
[8] Q: Okay.
[9] A: Basically, you are working for the doctor,
[10] what he wants. Except when he sends a patient to
[11] the lab. And then, on the chit, it tells you what
[12] he wants. But when you're in the operating room,
[13] or in the morgue, or something, you're basically
[14] under his control.
[15] Q: Okay. You previously mentioned that, at
[16] Bethesda, you had a four-by-five camera; is that
[17] correct?
[18] A: Correct.
[19] Q: What kind of camera was the four-by-five
[20] that you had?
[21] A: It was a Graphic, G-r-a-p-h-i-c. A
[22] Graphic view camera.


Page 39

[1] Q: And is Graphic a brand name?
[2] A: Yes. Was that a monorail camera, or a
[3] field camera?
[4] A: It was on a monorail that you focused back
[5] and forth. You had the different lenses for
[6] magnification.
[7] Q: Now, if that's on a monorail, I assume
[8] that it would be somewhat heavy; is that correct?
[9] A: It's on a tripod.
[10] Q: So, it's on a tripod?
[11] A: It was mounted on a tripod, on a three-wheel
[12] Salzman tripod.
[13] Q: In the area of 1963, did you ever use a
[14] medium-format camera at autopsies?

[15] A: No. At that time, we were in the process
[16] of changing from a four-by-five to 35 millimeter.
[17] And we were - the commanding officer wouldn't let
[18] us purchase any more four-by-five film, because we
[19] were in the midst of buying the 35 millimeter
[20] cameras and the films.
[21] Q: What I'd like to do, if we could, is go
[22] through the different formats of cameras: 35


Page 40

[1] millimeter, medium format, and view cameras. Just
[2] get a very brief description about the differences
[3] among those, so we can understand what's happening.
[4] With the 35 millimeter camera, that would
[5] also be called a small-format camera -
[6] A: Yes.
[7] Q: - is that fair?
[8] A: Hand held.
[9] Q: Hand-held camera. And that's the kind
[10] that is most typically used by people today?
[11] A: At the present time, yes.
[12] Q: How does a medium-format camera differ
[13] from a 35 millimeter camera, just in a very
[14] general -
[15] A: You're talking about a 120. It's the size
[16] of the film.
[17] Q: Size of the film.
[18] A: And they are also roll cameras - I mean,
[19] roll film.
[20] Q: When you refer to 120, what does that mean
[21] - for the film?
[22] A: It's the size of the film. Like a 35


Page 41

[1] millimeter, 120.
[2] Q: Is that about two and a quarter inches?
[3] A: I think so.
[4] Q: Is that about what it is? And it would be
[5] fair to say, I assume, that a view camera is the
[6] large-format camera?
[7] A: Yes. And we had a four-by-five view
[8] camera, a five-by-seven back, and an eight-by-ten.
[9] I forget the name of the eight-by-ten, but it also
[10] had a five-by-seven back on it. And it was a very
[11] expensive camera.
[12] Q: Did you ever use the five-by-seven or
[13] eight-by-ten back cameras for autopsies?
[14] A: No. We used that generally for
[15] portraiture.
[16] Q: Could you explain, in just a very brief
[17] way, how the four-by-five camera works - the
[18] Graphic view camera that you had?
[19] A: Well, you have a ground glass, where you
[20] focus on that. And you have the patient or the
[21] body - whatever it is. And you're on a tripod.
[22] And you can move the tripod, or you can move the


Page 42

[1] camera. And, basically, it was very cumbersome,
[2] but that's the way it was years ago.
[3] And then, also, we used four-by-five speed
[4] Graphics, but basically for public relations. That
[5] was with the big flash and all.
[6] Q: Okay. The speed Graphic camera would be
[7] easier to use from hand-held positions -
[8] A: Yes.
[9] Q: - is that right?
[10] A: Correct.
[11] Q: So, both the speed Graphic and the Graphic
[12] view camera are both four-by-five, but one of them
[13] is much larger and more cumbersome than the other;
[14] is that right?
[15] A: That's correct. Or their backs - Maybe
[16] the four-by-five speed Graphic is a little bit
[17] larger than the view camera, but - It was heavy
[18] but you could hold it up to your eye; where the
[19] view camera had to be on a tripod.
[20] Q: Is the speed Graphic the kind of camera
[21] that we typically think of in old movies with -
[22] A: Yes, PR work.


Page 43

[1] Q: - with the press person taking
[2] photographs?
[3] A: That's correct.
[4] Q: Jimmy Olsen and Superman.
[5] A: Yeah, with a big flash bulb in it.
[6] Q: Okay.
[7] A: And then after that, they came out with
[8] the electronic flash - the speed flash.
[9] Q: Was there anyway of using 120 film in a
[10] Graphic view camera?
[11] A: You could have a back on it, yes.
[12] Q: A back that would hold a roll film?
[13] A: Yes.
[14] Q: Did you have any backs that would hold
[15] roll film in the photo lab in Bethesda around 1963?
[16] A: I believe we did.
[17] Q: Did you ever use that back that would hold
[18] 120 film during autopsies?
[19] A: I don't think so.
[20] Q: Now, you previously used the word
[21] "cumbersome" to describe the Graphic view camera,
[22] and said that you needed to hold - needed to have


Page 44

[1] a tripod in order to hold it.
[2] If it is larger, heavier, more cumbersome,
[3] what would be the purpose for using a Graphic view
[4] camera in an autopsy?
[5] A: Well, at that time, it was the only - the
[6] one available that was good, and that's all we had.
[7] Q: Do you need more light for a Graphic view
[8] camera than for 35 millimeter?
[9] A: Oh, yes.
[10] Q: So, it needs more light, as well?
[11] A: It needs more light, yes.
[12] Q: What about the quality of the image from a
[13] four-by-five versus a 35 millimeter in 1963. Did
[14] one of them provide a better quality image?
[15] A: I think a four-by-five did, because -
[16] Well, now, the films have become much better. But,
[17] back in those days, a four-by-five film was good.
[18] Q: For a small-format camera, usually a 50
[19] millimeter lens is considered to be standard or
[20] normal. Does that seem fair? Does that make sense
[21] to you?
[22] A: In medicine, it was a 55 millimeter.


Page 45

[1] Q: Fifty-five millimeter lens for a small-format
[2] camera?
[3] A: Yes.
[4] Q: For something that would be - for a lens
[5] that would be standard or normal for a large-format
[6] camera, what would the millimeter of the lens be?
[7] A: I think, about 50 millimeter.
[8] Q: For a Graphic view camera, what about a
[9] lens that would be a wide-angle lens? What would
[10] be the millimeter of the lens?
[11] A: Well, we had 28 millimeters. We had a
[12] series of lenses that we could choose from.
[13] Q: During an autopsy, would you change the
[14] size of the lens as you were taking photographs?
[15] A: Very seldom. You would move the camera
[16] back and forth.
[17] Q: So, would you, in the ordinary course,
[18] apply or use the standard or normal lens during an
[19] autopsy?
[20] A: Correct.
[21] Q: Typically, how many films or sheets did
[22] the back of a four-by-five camera hold?


Page 46

[1] A: Two, one on either side. You had to
[2] change it around to put it - to take the other
[3] one.
[4] Q: Was there something called a press pack
[5] that you're familiar with?
[6] A: Yes. There was a press pack that could
[7] take 12 exposures, I think.
[8] Q: During autopsies, would you ever use a
[9] press pack?
[10] A: No, not that I know of. In fact, the
[11] press pack, I don't think had the color film. That
[12] was all black and white.
[13] Q: Would it be standard practice in 1963 to
[14] have autopsy photographs all in color?
[15] A: Generally, they were done both. Color and
[16] black and white.
[17] Q: When it was done in black and white, would
[18] you use a press pack or just the back that would
[19] hold two?
[20] A: No, just the back that would hold two.
[21] Q: Did the photo lab in Bethesda in 1963 have
[22] any Calumet cameras?


Page 47

[1] A: I believe so. The Calumet is also called
[2] a graphic view type camera.
[3] Q: Were those ever used during it? Were
[4] those ever used during an autopsy?
[5] A: Probably so. I don't remember.
[6] Q: What would be the reason for using a
[7] Calumet versus a Graphic view camera, or vice
[8] versa?
[9] A: Basically, they're the same. Like a Ford
[10] and Chevrolet, I mean.
[11] Q: It was your personal preference, though,
[12] then to use the Graphic view camera? Is that fair,
[13] or some other explanation?
[14] A: No. When I used it at the autopsy?
[15] Q: Yes.
[16] A: I used the camera that was on the tripod.
[17] Q: That's what you would always use?
[18] A: Yes, the camera that was on the tripod.
[19] Q: Okay. Does that mean that - Well, could
[20] the Calumet camera go onto the tripod?
[21] A: Yes.
[22] Q: Okay. So, in some instances, there may be


Page 48

[1] the Calumet and you would use that. And some
[2] instances, the Graphic; and you would use that.
[3] A: That's correct.
[4] Q: Did the photo lab have a Graphlex camera
[5] in 1963?
[6] A: Yes. You mean the kind you look down
[7] into?
[8] Q: Yes.
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: Approximately -
[11] A: But it was never used.
[12] Q: Okay.
[13] A: It was used before that. It was an
[14] antique.
[15] Q: Approximately, how many different four-by-five
[16] cameras were used at the photo lab around
[17] 1963?
[18] A: The speed Graphic, you're talking about
[19] or -
[20] Q: Yes, including the speed Graphic.
[21] A: Each of the students had a speed Graphic
[22] outfit that they carried for their own use while


Page 49

[1] they were there. And, basically, the numbers that
[2] we had, I don't remember.
[3] Q: Other than the speed Graphic cameras that
[4] were used by the students, approximately how many
[5] other large-format cameras were available around
[6] 1963?
[7] A: There was the one eight-by-ten that had
[8] the five-by-seven back on it. And there were
[9] probably two just four-by-five, because we always
[10] kept the one in the lab.
[11] Q: Are you familiar with a camera named
[12] Burnhall?
[13] A: No.
[14] Q: Okay. Did the photo lab have any medium-format
[15] cameras around 1963?
[16] A: I think we had a 120 there. We had it,
[17] basically, for the school.
[18] Q: Was that a Mimiya flex; do you recall?
[19] A: We had some, yes, Mimiya flexes there.
[20] Q: Do you - Did you have any Hasselblads?
[21] A: No, we wish we did.
[22] Q: Any other medium-format cameras that you


Page 50

[1] remember having there?
[2] A: Yeah, Mimiya we had. I remember that now.
[3] And then the 120, 1 think it was. But then after
[4] that, we went to the Nikon. But that was after
[5] that.
[6] Q: The Nikon was a 35 millimeter -
[7] A: Correct.
[8] Q: - or a medium format?
[9] A: No, it was 35 millimeter.
[10] Q: Okay. Could we switch from cameras now
[11] and talk a little bit about film?
[12] A: Mm-hmm.
[13] Q: You mentioned that you would - it would
[14] be typical to take black and white, as well as
[15] color film during an autopsy. And that it would
[16] typically be the two sheets of black and white that
[17] would be used. What kind of black and white film
[18] was used around 1963?
[19] A: Panatomic X rings a bell. I don't
[20] remember, to tell you the truth.
[21] Q: And that would take a negative image -
[22] A: Yes.


Page 51

[1] Q: - is that right?
[2] A: The color film was basically a positive
[3] image, because it was used as a slide generally.
[4] Q: But the black and whites would always be
[5] made into prints, and not used -
[6] A: Yes. Yes, they're for publication,
[7] because generally they didn't have color
[8] reproduction, so they used black and white.
[9] Q: Do you recall the kind of color film that
[10] was used around 1963?
[11] A: Kodachrome, it was. Kodachrome.
[12] Q: Kodachrome or Ektachrome?
[13] A: I think it was Koda - I'm not sure, to
[14] tell you the truth. I think it was Kodachrome,
[15] though.
[16] Q: Did the lab have the capability of
[17] processing Kodachrome film in 1963?
[18] A: Yes.
[19] Q: What kind of equipment - and I mean this
[20] in just a very general way - was necessary for
[21] processing Kodachrome film in 1963?
[22] A: You had to have a - It was a Fisher lab


Page 52

[1] set up. It had to be temperature controlled. The
[2] room was air conditioned and temperature-controlled
[3] solutions.
[4] Q: Was Kodachrome film much more difficult to
[5] process than Ektachrome film in 1963?
[6] A: I don't think so.
[7] Q: In autopsy photography, did you ever use
[8] color negative film around 1963?
[9] A: I don't think so.
[10] Q: Could the 120 film be both - or either
[11] color or black and white?
[12] A: Yes.
[13] Q: When you would use the 120 film, did you
[14] generally use color, or black and white, or was it
[15] just depending on the particular case?
[16] A: There wasn't much color used with it, I
[17] don't think. It was basically a camera we just had
[18] there. I don't think it was used for many
[19] professional jobs. I think it was primarily
[20] teaching. Now, we had also the back that fit on
[21] the four-by-five.
[22] Q: When you would put the 120 film back on a


Page 53

[1] four-by-five, did you typically use color, or black
[2] and white; or it just would depend on the case?
[3] A: I think it was probably black and white.
[4] And it was mostly for identification pictures, I
[5] think. I don't think it was used that much for
[6] medicine.
[7] Q: Okay. What I'd like to do is to take a
[8] short break now, and I'd like to show you a
[9] document which I'll identify for you. And you can
[10] take some time to take a look at it.
[11] I'm going to ask you if this - if the
[12] document helps refresh your recollection about any
[13] contacts that you may have had with the House
[14] Select Committee on Assassinations?
[15] And take your time to read it.
[16] A: Okay.
[17] Q: Though you don't need to read it word for
[18] word, you're welcome to do so, if you wish.
[19] MR. GUNN: The document is marked Exhibit
[20] No. 19. And it appears on its face to be a memo to
[21] the file from Andy Purdy, dated August 17th, 1977.
[22] It is a 17-page memorandum, and I would like to


Page 54

[1] draw Mr. Stringer's attention particularly to pages
[2] 9 through 17 of the document.
[3] We'll take a short break.
[4] [Recess.]
[5] BY MR. GUNN:
[6] Q: Mr. Stringer, have you had an opportunity
[7] to look through Exhibit 19?
[8] A: Yes.
[9] Q: Does the exhibit help refresh your
[10] recollection as to whether you ever spoke with
[11] people on the House Select Committee staff?
[12] A: I don't remember speaking to them.
[13] Q: Do you recall ever having seen the
[14] document before that's now marked Exhibit No. 19?
[15] A: No, I've never seen it.
[16] Q: After 1966, regarding what you previously
[17] testified that you had gone to the Archives to make
[16] an inventory, have you ever seen the autopsy
[19] photographs at the Archives at any point after
[20] that?
[21] A: I have not. Not that I can recall.
[22] Q: In the document marked Exhibit 19, it


Page 55

[1] refers on page 14 to a visit that a Mr. Stringer
[2] and Jim Kelly and Colleen Boland took to the
[3] NationalArchives. Does that help refresh your
[4] recollection as to whether you ever went to the
[5] Archives?
[6] A: It does not. I don't remember it.
[7] Q: As you're sitting here today, does it seem
[8] to you to be very unlikely that you went to the
[9] Archives; or you just have no recollection, one way
[10] or the other?
[11] A: I don't think I went. I don't have any
[12] recollection of it. And after `77, I was living in
[13] Vero Beach. It does say that I was staying with my
[14] daughter. Whose name is wrong here. It's R-u-s-k.
[15] Q: Mrs. Rusk, rather than Mrs. Ross?
[16] A: Rusk. I certainly don't remember going to
[17] the Archives with these people. I don't know how I
[18] would have gotten there.
[19] Q: Do you believe that if you had gone to the
[20] Archives in 1977 to look at autopsy photographs
[21] that you would probably remember that, as you're
[22] sitting here today?


Page 56

[1] A: I would think I would.
[2] Q: I'd like to turn now to the autopsy of
[3] President Kennedy and ask some questions about
[4] that. As you're sitting here today, do you recall
[5] whether you took any black and white photographs at
[6] the autopsy?
[7] A: To tell you the truth, I don't remember.
[8] But we should have, if we didn't. I think we saw
[9] some negatives when we went in `66 - some black
[10] and white negatives. But, generally, the flim
[11] holders have on it whether they're color or black
[12] and white.
[13] Q: In the autopsy of President Kennedy, was
[14] there anyone else present taking photographs in
[15] addition to yourself?
[16] A: No.
[17] Q: You have previously mentioned the name of
[18] Mr. Riebe.
[19] A: Correct.
[20] Q: Do you recall that?
[21] A: Yes.
[22] Q: Do you have any recollection as to whether


Page 57

[1] Mr. Riebe took any photographs during the autopsy.
[2] A: Mr. Riebe had a camera. We thought it was
[3] an occasion, and that we might take some pictures
[4] of some of the people in the room. And one of the
[5] FBI agents - or CIA, whoever it was - saw the
[6] camera, and he took the film out of the camera
[7] before there was any exposures made.
[8] Q: When he took the film out of the camera,
[9] did you see him take the film out of the camera, or
[10] did you hear about that?
[11] A: I heard about it from Riebe.
[12] Q: Okay. Was it your understanding that the
[13] film had been exposed to light?
[14] A: Correct.
[15] Q: Now, if a film is exposed to light would
[16] it be something like translucent or transparent, or
[17] would it be black, if it were subsequently
[18] developed?
[19] A: It would - I mean, if it were developed,
[20] it wouldn't show anything.
[21] Q: It wouldn't show anything. But would the
[22] film be dark, or would it be clear?


Page 58

[1] A: It should be clear. There's no exposure.
[2] Q: Do you know what kind of camera Mr. Riebe
[3] had at the autopsy?
[4] A: It was a 120. I don't know what - I
[5] don't remember the name of it.
[6] Q: Are you familiar with the name of Mr.
[7] Robert Knudsen?
[8] A: Knudsen. A doctor?
[9] Q: White House photographer.
[10] A: Not that I can recall, no.
[11] Q: Do you ever recall meeting with anyone who
[12] was a White House photographer anytime during the
[13] Kennedy orJohnson administrations?
[14] A: Meeting? Not that I -
[15] Q: Meeting, or knowing, or conversing with
[16] any White House photographers.
[17] A: I know they had a photographer at the
[18] White House. But I don't remember that, no.
[19] Q: Is the name Knudsen familiar to you at
[20] all?
[21] A: I knew a Dr. Knudsen. But if I ever met
[22] him, I don't remember.


Page 59

[1] Q: Okay. In addition to Mr. Riebe, was there
[2] anyone else at the autopsy who had a camera that
[3] you recall?
[4] A: None at all.
[5] Q: If there had been someone else at the
[6] autopsy with a camera, do you believe, as you're
[7] sitting here today, that you would recall that?
[8] A: Yes. If he had a camera, he couldn't have

[9] taken a picture there anyway.
[10] Q: Other than Mr. Riebe, was there anyone
[11] else at the autopsy who was assisting you in taking
[12] photographs?
[13] A: No.
[14] Q: What kind of lighting did the morgue at
[15] Bethesda have, other than any artificial lighting
[16] that you would have brought in?
[17] A: It had florescents, I believe, in the
[18] overhead. And then it had a light over the table.
[19] Q: Was the lighting that was normally in the
[20] morgue at Bethesda sufficient for taking autopsy.
[21] photographs?
[22] A: No.


Page 60

[1] Q: What did you take with you to the autopsy?
[2] A: We had speed lights.
[3] Q: Can you explain, briefly, what a speed
[4] light is?
[5] A: Well, it's like a flash. And you press it
[6] along with the camera. It's synchronized, and
[7] exposes it.
[8] Q: Okay. Did you take any other kind of
[9] lighting with you, in addition to the speed lights?
[10] A: No. Now, these were mounted on a stand,
[11] and they had rollers on them.
[12] Q: Approximately, how many speed lights did
[13] you take with you?
[14] A: Two.
[15] Q: Was that standard procedure, to have two
[16] speed lights?
[17] A: Yes.
[18] Q: Were the lights always behind you when you
[19] were taking photographs?
[20] A: On the side of the camera.
[21] Q: On the side. Were speed lights ever
[22] called floodlights?


Page 61

[1] A: No. A floodlight would be an incandescent
[2] lamp. That would be hot. Now, that's what we just
[3] used to use before the speed lights came into
[4] effect.
[5] Q: The speed lights were in existence in
[6] 1963?
[7] A: That's correct.
[8] Q: Could you look at the top of page 10 of
[9] the document marked No. 19, please?
[10] Will you look on the top paragraph of the
[11] last sentence, which reads, "He said there were
[12] probably floodlights used."
[13] Do you see that at the top of the page?
[14] A: Yes.
[15] Q: Would it be your understanding that that
[16] statement is inaccurate?
[17] A: Yes.
[18] Q: By the way, with respect to Exhibit No.
[19] 19, do you have any understanding or idea of how
[20] that document might have come into existence, or
[21] why there would be references to a Mr. Stringer?
[22] A: No.


Page 62

[1] Q: Does it surprise you to see Exhibit 19?
[2] A: Yes, it does. Although, there are things
[3] in there that are true.
[4] Q: Without your answer to this being
[5] necessarily exhaustive, are there other things that
[6] stood out in Exhibit No.19 as being incorrect? Is
[7] there anything that you now recall that seem to be
[8] incorrect?
[9] A: I don't know.
[10] Q: I'd like to show you a document that has
[11] been marked as Exhibit MD 80. Could you take a
[12] look at that document and tell me whether you've
[13] ever seen that previously?
[14] A: Yes. I, evidently, wrote that; yes.
[15] MR. GUNN: I'll state for the record that

[16] on its face Exhibit MD 80 appears to be a letter,
[17] dated September 11th, 1977, from Mr. John T.
[18] Stringer, Jr. to Mr. Donald A. Purdy, Jr.
[19] BY MR. GUNN:
[20] Q: Mr. Stringer, do you have any recollection
[21] of having written the letter?
[22] A: I guess, I must have. But that was in


Page 63

[1] 1977. I don't have a copy of it.
[2] Q: As best you can tell, is that your
[3] signature -
[4] A: Yes.
[5] Q: - at the bottom of the page?
[6] A: Yes, I would say it is. Yes.
[7] Q: Does the letter help refresh your
[8] recollection about any contacts, even through
[9] writing, that you may have had with the House
[10] Select Committee on Assassinations?
[11] A: Well, evidently, this was from them,
[12] but - But I don't even - I mean, this is
[13] bringing back memories, but I don't remember -
[14] Q: Does Exhibit No. 80 refresh your
[15] recollection as to whether you may have met with
[16] anyone on the House Select Committee staff?
[17] A: I don't remember meeting with anyone on
[18] the House Committee staff, no.
[19] You mean physically, face to face?
[20] Q: Yes.
[21] A: No.
[22] Q: Do you recall going to Washington at any


Page 64

[1] time during 1977?
[2] A: I generally went up to see my kids, yes.
[3] But I don't remember going down with anybody to see
[4] the pictures.
[5] Q: In Exhibit 19, there are a couple of
[6] references, which I have recorded as being on pages
[7] 11 to 12 and 16, that state that you did not take
[8] color photographs - excuse me - you did not take
[9] black and white photographs at the autopsy. Are
[10] those statements correct or incorrect?
[11] Although, on pages 11 to 12, it's right at
[12] the end of the page.
[13] A: Well, I don't know whether I did or not,
[14] but I think I did when I see all this.
[15] Q: You think that you did -
[16] A: Took some black and white.
[17] Q: When you say "see all of this", what are
[18] you referring to?
[19] A: Well, seeing what was said back in those
[20] days.
[21] Q: You're referring to Exhibit 19?
[22] A: Well, I am referring to some of the other


Page 65

[1] things that were said that there were black and
[2] whites taken.
[3] Q: Okay.
[4] A: If we had the chit from the thing, it
[5] would say how many films were taken.
[6] Q: Do you recall having filled out the chit
[7] with respect to the autopsy of President Kennedy?
[8] A: I think so, yes.
[9] Q: Could you look at the top of page 16?
[10] A: Yes.
[11] Q: The first full sentence, which I'll read
[12] for the record. "He said in the general autopsy he
[13] took only color photo -" Excuse - Let me try
[14] that again.
[15] "He said in the general autopsy he only
[16] took color photographs." Do you see that at the
[17] top of the page?
[18] A: Yes.
[19] Q: Is that a correct statement as to what you
[20] did during the autopsy?
[21] A: I actually don't remember, but we
[22] generally took black and white and color at the


Page 66

[1] same time. Now, if we have black and white
[2] negatives, then, we probably took it. But, then,
[3] you can also take black and white negatives from a
[4] color print.
[5] Q: When you say took them, who do you
[6] mean by "we"?
[7] A: I. Excuse me.
[8] Q: Could you describe for me how the
[9] photography took place at the autopsy of President
[10] Kennedy? And maybe if we can just start out by,
[11] were you present in the morgue when the body
[12] arrived?
[13] A: Yes, I was in the morgue when the body
[14] arrived.
[15] Q: Prior to the time the body arrived, had
[16] you taken any photographs?
[17] A: No.
[18] Q: When did you first start taking
[19] photographs?
[20] A: After they had finished the X-rays, and
[21] put the X-rays on the view box, and interpreted
[22] them.


Page 67

[1] Q: Do you remember approximately how much
[2] time there was between the time that the body was
[3] taken out of the casket and you began to take
[4] photographs?
[5] A: Oh, it must have been more than an hour by
[6] the time they took the X-rays. And they had to
[7] develop them, and bring them back down.
[8] Q: Do you recall what kind of casket the body
[9] arrived in?
[10] A: It was a metal casket.
[11] Q: What color was it?
[12] A: I think it was sort of a brownish.
[13] Q: Do you remember what kind of lid it had?
[14] A: One that opens.
[15] Q: On hinges?
[16] A: Yes.
[17] Q: What was President Kennedy's body wrapped
[18] in, if anything, when it arrived?
[19] A: It was wrapped in two sheets; one around
[20] the head, and one around the body.
[21] Q: These were cloth sheets? Plastic sheets?
[22] A: They were just like off of the bed.


Page 68

[1] hospital sheets.
[2] Q: Okay. Once you started taking
[3] photographs, did you take all of the photographs
[4] all at approximately the same time, or did you take
[5] photographs throughout the autopsy?
[6] A: It was throughout the autopsy.
[7] Q: You mentioned previously the photographs
[8] were in two to a pack; is that right?
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: When you -
[11] A: To a film holder.
[12] Q: To a film holder. When you pulled out the
[13] film holder from the camera, what did you do with
[14] it?
[15] A: Held it in my hand, because It's
[16] silver when it's not exposed. And then when you
[17] expose it, then you put the black side in. Then
[18] you take it out, turn it over, and put the other
[19] side in.
[20] Q: Okay. And when you had the film holder in
[21] your hand with exposed film, what did you then do
[22] with the film holder?


Page 69

[1] A: I gave it to the agent or to Riebe - to
[2] someone, and they took it. And they put them in a
[3] box, because they did not want anybody else to have
[4] them.
[5] Q: When you say "they", you're referring
[6] to -
[7] A: Either Secret Service or CIA, whoever it
[8] was. They said that's what we were to do.
[9] Q: Okay. Did anyone show you any
[10] identification, so you would have known whether it
[11] was Secret Service or any other agency?
[12] A: No.
[13] Q: They were wearing civilian clothes?
[14] A: Wearing civilian clothes. And I believe
[15] Dr. Humes and Dr. Stover said to do what they
[16] wanted.
[17] Q: Do you recall at any point taking just one
[18] of the sheets - or exposing one of the sheets in a
[19] holder, and not exposing the other sheet?
[20] A: Never.
[21] Q: That wouldn't have been your practice?
[22] Just to do one side -


Page 70

[1] A: No.
[2] Q: - and then hand it to them. And so,
[3] roughly, you would estimate that there would be two
[4] sheets that had been exposed for each holder; is
[5] that right?
[6] A: For each holder.
[7] Q: Did you alternate between black and white
[8] sheets, or did you take all color and then black
[9] and white? Do you have any recollection?
[10] A: No, you'd have to alternate.
[11] Q: Did you take any exposures that would show
[12] the full length of the body of President Kennedy?
[13] A: Yes.
[14] Q: So, it would be from head to toe?
[15] A: Yes.
[16] Q: From the side?
[17] A: From above.
[18] Q: From above?
[19] A: Shooting down.
[20] Q: Okay. Did you take any that would take
[21] the full length of the body from the left side or
[22] the right side?


Page 71

[1] A: I don't remember.
[2] Q: Is it difficult, with the size lens that
[3] you have, to take a photograph of the entire length
[4] of the body in the room - in the morgue?
[5] A: Well, you get back far enough, you could
[6] do it. Yes.
[7] Q: So, that didn't present any particular
[8] difficulties?
[9] A: No.
[10] Q: Did you take any photographs of the head
[11] before the scalp was pulled down?
[12] A: Yes.
[13] Q: Did you take any photographs of the head
[14] after scalp had been pulled down or reflected?
[15] A: Yes.
[16] Q: Did you take any photographs of the body
[17] before Y incision?
[18] A: Yes.
[19] Q: Did you take any photographs after there
[20] had been a Y incision?
[21] A: We took pictures of the insides, yes.
[22] What kinds of pictures did you take of the


Page 72

[1] insides?
[2] A: What they told us to take.
[3] Q: Do you have any recollection now as to
[4] what those shots would have been?
[5] A: Well, there was some in - an anterior
[6] shot up around the neck, and down around the
[7] adrenals.
[8] Q: Did you take any photographs of organs
[9] after they had been removed from the body?
[10] A: Not that I can recall, no.
[11] Q: Did you take any photographs showing the
[12] inside of the cranium?
[13] A: After the brain was removed?
[14] Q: Yes.
[15] A: I don't remember. I know we did with the
[16] brain in there. It seems to me, we did. It's
[17] vague.
[18] Q: Did you see metal or any other kind of
[19] probes being used during the autopsy?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: Did you take any photographs with probes
[22] in the body?


Page 73

[1] A: Not that I can recall.
[2] Q: Were any probes put inside the cranium
[3] that you recall?
[4] A: I don't think so. I think it was
[5] primarily in the neck area.
[6] Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it
[7] come out of the neck?
[8] A: It was put into the back part.
[9] Q: The back of the body. And then did the
[10] probe come out the neck?
[11] A: No.
[12] Q: So, when you're referring to the neck,
[13] you're referring from behind?
[14] A: From behind.
[15] Q: Did you take any photographs with the
[16] President lying on his - of the President lying on
[17] his back?
[18] A: Yes.
[19] Q: Did you take any photographs with the
[20] President lying on his stomach?
[21] A: I think so.
[22] Q: Did you take any photographs with the


Page 74

[1] President in a seated position?
[2] A: Yes. From the back.
[3] Q: Would his body then have been, roughly, at
[4] a 90 degree angle with his -
[5] A: Well, a little bit less than 90; yes. But
[6] it was held up.
[7] Q: Basically, his trunk would have been
[8] vertical - -
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: - with his legs still straight?
[11] A: Correct. Correct.
[12] Q: Do you remember what you were
[13] photographing when the President was in a seated
[14] position?
[15] A: Some things on the back. Some openings
[16] sort of.
[17] Q: On the back of his - in the back of his
[18] head, or the back of his body - his torso?
[19] A: Well, from the neck down.
[20] Q: Neck down.
[21] A: Below the neck.
[22] Q: Did you, yourself take any roll film out


Page 75

[1] and expose it during the course of the autopsy
[2] or -
[3] A: No.
[4] Q: - or for any film taken that night?
[5] A: No. But we did not use roll film. The
[6] only one was in that camera that Riebe had that was
[7] exposed by someone from the Secret Service.
[8] Q: The one - the camera that you mentioned
[9] earlier?
[10] A: Yeah, the 120. That's the only roll film
[11] that was in there.
[12] Q: Could you turn again to Exhibit No. 19,
[13] page 10? Could you look at the bottom paragraph on
[14] page 10, please, and read that through.
[15] A: Mm-hmm.
[16] Q: As you're sitting here today and you see a
[17] reference to a small camera, would that prompt in
[18] your mind a 35 millimeter, or a medium-format?
[19] A: A medium format, because we didn't have a
[20] 35 millimeter.
[21] Q: Mr. Stringer, we have an audio recording
[22] that has been told to us is an audio recording of a


Page 76

[1] telephone call between you and Mr. Lifton that was
[2] mentioned earlier. That was - it's been told to
[3] us - was recorded about 1972.
[4] We'd like to play some excerpts of it for
[5] you, to see if it helps refresh your recollection,
[6] whether you can identify - or whether you can
[7] verify that the conversation took place or not.
[8] What I'd like to do is to give you a copy
[9] of the transcript that we have made from this
[10] recording. And you should listen - The
[11] transcript should be to help you find it, and you
[12] can verify whether the transcript seems accurate to
[13] you as we play part of the tape. After we play it
[14] through once, you're welcome to have us play it
[15] through again.
[16] Some of the portions of this are going to
[17] be of greater interest to us than others. And let
[18] me just state for you that, in some portions of the
[19] tape, Mr. Lifton states his opinion about issues.
[20] And we're not interested in Mr. Lifton's opinions.
[21] We're interested about the questions that he asked
[22] you and the substance of your answers.


Page 77

[1] So, if Mr. Lifton says that somebody said
[2] something or somebody didn't, we're not asking you
[3] verify whether that's true or not. And we'd
[4] just as soon that you not pay any attention to
[5] that. This is down at the bottom of the page.
[6] This is Excerpt #2.
[7] MR. GUNN: Wait, just one moment before we
[8] start.
[9] BY MR. GUNN:
[10] Q: Mr. Stringer, the first question that I
[11] will ask you when the recording is over is whether
[12) you recall having had this conversation with
[13] Mr. Lifton.
[14] A: I've had several conversations with
[15] Mr. Lifton.
[16] MR. GUNN: Okay.
[17] [Whereupon, the audio tape was played.]
[18] LIFTON: Were any bullets taken out of the
[19] body in your presence?
[20] STRINGER: No.
[21] LIFTON: Yeah, that's what I - you know,
[22] that's what I was wondering, because they were


Page 78

[1] pretty puzzled that they couldn't find any.
[2] STRINGER: I think there were some
[3] portions, or slivers, or something.
[4] LIFTON: Yeah. Okay. Well, when
[5] you...when you...when you lifted him out, was the
[6] main damage to the skull on the top, or in the
[7] back?
[8] STRINGER: In the back.
[9] LIFTON: In the back? In the back. High
[10] in the back, or lower in the back?
[11] STRINGER: Oh, the occipital part in the
[12) back there, (GARBLED) up above the neck.
[13] LIFTON: Yeah. In other words, the main
[14] part of his head that was blasted away was in the
[15] occipital part of the skull?
[16] STRINGER: Yes, the back part.
[17] LIFTON: The back portion? Okay. In
[18] other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top
[19] of his head?
[20] STRINGER: Oh, it was - Some of it was
[21] blown off, yeah. I mean, towards - out of the top
[22] in the back, yeah.


Page 79

[1] LIFTON: Top in the back. I see. But the
[2] top in the front was pretty...pretty - oh, I don't
[3] know what word - intact?
[4] STRINGER: Yeah, sure.
[5] LIFTON: The top front was intact?
[6] STRINGER: Right.
[7] [End of audio tape portion.]
[8] MR. GUNN: Please stop for a moment.
[9] The next portion, we're not particularly
[10] interested in. So, there's no need to particularly
[11] pay attention till we come down to what on the
[12] transcript is the bottom of page six, starting with
[13] Mr. Lifton saying, "I see. I see."
[14] Off the record.
[15] [Discussion off the record.]
[16] [Whereupon, the audio tape continued.]
[17] LIFTON: I see. I see. Let me ask you
[18] another way of stating that. And this is a good
[19] way of stating what I asked you before.
[20] If you lie back in a bathtub - you know,
[21] just in a totally prone position and you...and your
[22] head rests against the bathtub, is that the part of


Page 80

[1] the head - you know, is that the part of the head
[2] that was damaged?
[3] STRINGER: Yeah.
[4] LIFTON: That part?
[5] STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
[6] LIFTON: Back in the part that would be
[7] against the tile of the bathtub?
[8] STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
[9] LIFTON: I see. Whereas, the part that
[10] would be straight up ahead - you know, vertically
[11] in that position - was...was undamaged?
[12] STRINGER: Oh, no. I probably wouldn't
[13] say undamaged", no. I mean, it was - Some of it
[14] was gone. I mean, out of the - some of the bone.
[15] LIFTON: Yeah. I see.
[16] [End of audio tape portion.]
[17] MR. GUNN: Okay.
[18] BY MR. GUNN:
[19] Q: Mr. Stringer, do you recall having had the
[20] conversation that we just listened to with Mr.
[21] Lifton?
[22] A: I don't recall it, but from the tape.


Page 81

[1] Somebody else played it for me.
[2] Q: Does that sound as if it was an accurate
[3] recording of the conversation that you had with
[4] Mr. Lifton?
[5] A: I don't know whether it was or not, but
[6] it's not true - what's on there.
[7] Q: In what respect is it not true, what's on
[8] there?
[9] A: Well, it - Well, the bullet came in the
[10] back and came out the side.
[11] Q: The question that I'd be interested in is
[12] not what the trajectory of the bullet was, which
[13] wasn't discussed there -
[14] A: Yeah.
[15] Q: - but just where the wound was on
[16] President Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Lifton that
[17] the wound was in the occiput or the occipital
[18] region?
[19] A: I don't remember telling him that, no.
[20] Q: Was there a wound in the occipital region
[21] of the President -
[22] A: Yes, the entry.


Page 82

[1] Q: By "the entry", you mean what?
[2] A: Where the bullet went.
[3] Q: And how big was the entry wound?
[4] A: About the size of a bullet, from what you
[5] could see. On the inside where the bone was, I
[6] guess it was different.
[7] Q: Could you describe what the skull looked
[8] like as best you can now recall?
[9] A: Well -
[10] Q: I'm sorry. If I can just add one more -
[11] Just the nature of the damage to the skull
[12] of the President, without respect to entrance or
[13] exit. Just what the wound looked like.
[14] A: Well, the side of the head, the bone was
[15] gone. But there was a flap, where you could lay it
[16] back. But the back - I mean, if you held it in,
[17] there was no vision. It was a complete head of
[18] hair.
[19] And on the front, there was nothing - the
[20] scalp. There was nothing in the eyes. You could
[21] have - Well, when they did the body, you wouldn't
[22] have known there was anything wrong.


Page 83

[1] Q: Can you think of any reason why you would
[2] have used the word occiput or oecipital portion to
[3] describe the wound to Mr. Lifton?
[4] A: I can't think of any reason.
[5] Q: I would like to show you a skull that we
[6] showed to Dr. Boswell during his deposition, where
[7] he was sitting in exactly the same seat where you
[8] are now, and ask you to comment on that.
[9] MR. GUNN: I'll state for the record that
[10] this plastic skull has been marked as ARRB MD
[11] Exhibit No. 74, and it has the initials of J.T.
[12] Boswell from February 26,1996 on it.
[13] BY MR. GUNN:
[14] Q: I'd like to show you - Although, Mr. -
[15] Dr. Boswell's transcript will speak for itself, he
[16] identified the mark, number one, as the extent of
[17] the damage of the wound in the skull. And he
[18] marked line number two as being a tear in the
[19] scalp.
[20] I'd just like to ask you to comment of
[21] whether the drawing by Dr. Boswell, which he said
[22] and certainly not exact -


Page 84

[1] whether that corresponds to your recollection?
[2] A: Well, when I saw it, the scalp was here
[3] with the hair on it.
[4] Q: Now, the scalp -
[5] A: When I took a picture.
[6] Q: And when you're saying -
[7] A: And when they -
[8] Q: I'm sorry.
[9] A: Yes?
[10] Q: It's just that it won't be clear on the
[11] transcript.
[12] A: Okay.
[13] Q: When you say "here", you're covering the
[14] entire back of the skull -
[15] A: Yes, the entire -
[16] Q: - including the occipital region?
[17] A: Right. Right.
[18] Q: Okay. And at that place, the scalp was
[19] intact?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: Okay.
[22] A: But you could peel it back.


Page 85

[1] Q: Okay. Peel the scalp back?
[2] A: Yes.
[3] Q: Okay. And when the scalp was peeled back,
[4] did the injury to the skull appear to be of the -
[5] very raw, for general dimensions - what Dr.
[6] Boswell marked on the plastic skull here?
[7] A: Well, all I saw was this out. But this
[8] might have been cracked and stuff. But this was
[9] all gone - this bone - from here.
[10] Q: Okay. Now, when you say "this bone",
[11] you're referring to the portion between - on the
[12] model, between -
[13] A: The parietal, yes.
[14] Q: The parietal bone.
[15] A: Yeah.
[16] Q: And the portion between the numbers one
[17] that is in a circle and the number two in a circle?
[18] A: Let's see. That may be a little bit back
[19] here behind the ear, right out through here.
[20] Q: Okay. So, you're pointing right now
[21] chiefly to the parietal -
[22] A: Yes.


Page 86

[1] Q: - region; is that fair?
[2] A: Correct
[3] Q: Above the ear?
[4] A: Right.
[5] Q: And, now, in terms of the back of the
[6] skull, was the portion that would include part of
[7] the occiput also severely damaged when you saw the
[8] President's head?
[9] A: Yes. But when - When I first saw it,
[10] this was all intact. But then they peeled it back,
[11] and then you could see this part of the bone gone.
[12] But some of it was up in here. The bone was still
[13] here.
[14] Q: Okay. Once again, because it won't be
[151 clear on the transcript -
[16] A: Yeah.
[17] Q: - I'm going to try and put it into words.
[18] A: Okay.
[19] Q: And tell me if I'm saying it correctly.
[20] When you were pointing to the skull, you were
[21] pointing chiefly to the right parietal -
[22] A: Yes.


Page 87

[1] Q: - area, as being the area that was
[2] missing; is that correct?
[3] A: Yeah, from here up.
[4] Q: Okay. And you're pointing roughly from -
[5] A: By the ear.
[6] Q: - from the ear forward.
[7] A: To just about up there. It did not come
[8] into the optic area.
[9] Q: Okay. Now, in terms of the wound in the
[10] back of the head, you said previously that when the
[11] scalp - before the scalp was peeled back, the
[12] scalp was all -
[13] A: Intact.
[14] Q: - intact. Now, let me point out to you a
[151 circle, which is on the back of the skull - that's
[16] a small, self-contained circle - which Dr. Boswell
[17] identified as being the entrance wound, or what he
[18] believed to be the entrance wound.
[19] Does that small circle seem to be, to you,
[20] accurate in terms of showing where there was a hole
[21] in the -
[22] A: I thought it was over here.


Page 88

[1] Q: When you say "over here", you're pointing
[2] more towards the external occipital protuberance?
[3] A: Yes.
[4] Q: Is that right?
[5] A: Yes.
[6] Q: Now, slightly above the portion where
[7] there is a self-contained circle and what Dr.
[8] Boswell drew, there is a - again, a large circular
[9] - or a large area where Dr. Boswell identified the
[10] skull as being severely disrupted.
[11] Does that seem to correspond to what you
[12] observed, or is that - does that not correspond?
[13] A: No, it corresponds. But he was there
[14] right at the - and he could see, where I was to
[15] the side. So, all I saw was this part and this
[16] part.
[17] Q: Okay. And when you are pointing now to -
[18] when you say "this part and this part", you're
[19] first to the occipital -
[20] A: That was intact. It was intact.
[21] Q: Okay. It was intact still when the scalp
[22] was reflected; or just when the scalp was all the


Page 89

[1] way up, it looked intact?
[2] A: Well, it was intact up here, but then they
[3] could peel it back. And the same way down here.
[4] This could be peeled up.
[5] Q: Okay.
[8] A: All of his hair was intact.
[7] Q: Okay. So, the hair was intact. When the
[8] scalp was pulled back - and we're now just -
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: - talking about the skull, not the scalp
[11] at all -
[12] A: Yes.
[13] Q: - was the occipital bone intact, or was
[14] it severely disrupted?
[15] A: Well, some of it was disrupted, yes.
[16] Q: So that it would be fair to say that there
[17] was a significant disruption in the -
[18] A: There were fractures in there.
[19] Q: Fractures in there.
[20] A: But some of the bone was still there. It
[21] wasn't destroyed.
[22] Q: So, the bone was in place, but there were


Page 90

[1] fractures -
[2] A: Yes.
[3] Q: - through the occipital region?
[4] A: Yes.
[5] Q: Was any portion of the occipital bone
[6] missing after the scalp was reflected?
[7] A: Not that I can recall.
[8] Q: Mr. Stringer, I'd like to show you a
[9] document that was shown to Mr. Thomas E. Robinson,
[10] who was one of the morticians who reconstructed
[11] President Kennedy's skull afterwards. Unlike Dr.
[12] Boswell's testimony, the statements of Mr. Robinson
[13] were not made under oath, so - Just so that
[14] information is disclosed to you.
[15] On page - the last page of Exhibit No.
[16] 88, Mr. Robinson drew a picture of the portion of
[17] the skull that was missing at the time that he did
[18] the reconstruction. I'd like you to look at that,
[19] and see whether that corresponds to your own
[20] recollection.
[21] A: Now, what does he say that's missing? All
[22] of this?


Page 91

[1] Q: The portion that is the circle -
[2] A: Oh.
[3] Q: - towards the back is the portion that is
[4] missing - or there's a large part. And that there
[5] is disruption in the dotted portions of the skull.
[6] A: Well, I saw the most missing over here on
[7] the parietal. It was gone.
[8] Q: So, when you say "here", you're referring
[9] to what on the sheet of paper is the right side.
[10] A: Yes.
[11] Q: And which is marked "parietal bone"?
[12] A: Correct. From the ear, like in here.
[13] Q: Okay. And where Mr. Robinson drew a
[14] circle showing missing occipital bone, would it be
[15] - do you have any recollection of whether that -
[16] any portion of that occipital bone was missing?
[17] A: I don't know, because I don't - I don't
[18] think I ever saw the whole hair pulled down that
[19] far.
[20] Q: Did you ever take a picture of the back
[21] with the scalp reflected?
[22] A: I think we did.


Page 92

[1] Q: Then, wouldn't you have seen the back of
[2] the head with the scalp reflected?
[3] A: Should have. But whether it was - they
[4] had taken some of the bone away or something, I
[5] don't know.
[6] Q: When you saw the back of the head with the
[7] scalp reflected, was there bone missing, regardless
[8] of when that bone was taken out?
[9] A: I didn't see it missing.
[10] Q: You didn't see any missing. So, when you
[11] saw the back of the head, the occipital bone -
[12] other than a bullet - what you've characterized as
[13] a bullet entry wound, you saw no missing -
[14] A: Not as far as I can remember, no.
[15] Q: Okay.
[16] A: No.
[17] Q: Are you fairly confident that your
[18] recollection that you have now is accurate?
[19] A: As far as I can think about it. But, here
[20] again, I was away from the table. The only time I
[21] was up at the table - when we took a picture.
[22] Then I stepped back. I was within three or four


Page 93

[1] feet of the table at all times.
[2] Q: In terms of standard autopsy procedure,
[3] would it have been standard procedure to take a
[4] closeup photograph of any wound that was identified
[5] as a possible entry wound?
[6] A: Yes. But, here again, whatever they told
[7] us to take, I took.
[8] Q: Do you recall during the autopsy believing
[9] that a photograph should be taken, but one was not
[10] asked for you to take?
[11] A: I don't - I don't know. I don't know -
[12] I don't know how much they wanted to show. But
[13] they told us what to take, and we took it.
[14] Q: When you say "they", whom are you
[15] referring to now?
[16] A: Dr. Humes was, primarily. Dr. Boswell and
[17] Dr. Finck.
[18] Q: Did you have the sense at some point that
[19] Dr. Humes did not want you to take a photograph of
[20] the back of the head with the scalp reflected?
[21] A: No, I didn't have any idea at that time.
[22] Q: In your conversation with Mr. Lifton, you


Page 94

[1] referred to the wound on President Kennedy's head
[2] as an occipital wound; is that -
[3] A: That's what I heard.
[4] Q: In terms of the drawing that we've
[5] identified as Exhibit No. 88, showing the back of
[6] the head, would you agree that the place where Dr.
[7] - or where Mr. Robinson drew the large part - the
[8] large wound, the missing wound - was in the
[9] occipital bone?
[10] A: Well, yes. That's what his drawing shows,
[11] yes. Occipital.
[12] Q: Okay. Mr. Stringer, I'd like to show you
[13] some videotape of an interview between Mr. Lifton
[14] and Floyd Riebe.
[15] And I can say to you that, yesterday, I
[16] spoke with Mr. Riebe by telephone about this
[17] interview. Although I did not discuss any very

[18] specific portion of the interview, I asked him
[19] generally whether the statements in the interview
[20] were correct to the best of his understanding. And
[21] he said yes, they were; and that he was prepared to
[22] testify to that under oath.


Page 95

[1] So, I'd like to show you some of those.
[2] Because of the way that it's located on the
[3] videotape, we're going to show you one of the last
[4] portions of the videotape. Then return, and show
[5] you some earlier portions.
[6] I have, once again, a transcript of the
[7] videotape, if that would help you hear it.
[8] Although, this is much clearer than the telephone
[9] conversation that was recorded.
[10] MR. GUNN: Go ahead, please.
[11] [Whereupon, the videotape was played.]
[12] RIEBE: A broad circle.
[13] MR. VALENTINO: Look straight into that,
[14] please. Could I turn this sideways? Just make
[15] that circle again, please, as you're talking.
[16] That was all gone; right?
[17] RIEBE: Mm-hmm. Right.
[18] MR. VALENTINO: They didn't have any other
[19] piece of it?
[20] DSL: How high did it come up back of the
[21] head?
[22] RIEBE: About up to here.


Page 96

[1] DSL: Okay. And just keep - Do the
[2] whole perimeter.
[3] MR. VALENTINO: Thanks.
[4] [End of videotape portion.]
[5] [Videotape shows Mr. Riebe finger-tracing
[6] on the photograph an area at the back of
[7] the head, where he remembers a wound.]
[8] MR GUNN: Okay, Doug.
[9] Let me state for the record that the
[10] portion of the videotape that we just viewed on the
[11] timer on the videotape is at 1:3:54 to 1:4:43.
[12] BY MR. GUNN:
[13] Q: Mr. Stringer, were you able to see the
[14] videotape?
[15] A: Yes.

[16] Q: Did you see the circle that Mr. Riebe drew
[17] on the photograph of the back of the head?
[18] A: Yes.
[19] Q: Based upon your experience in anatomy,
[20] would it be fair to say that the circle that he was
[21] drawing on the photograph of the head was
[22] principally in the occipital -


Page 97

[1] A: Yes, it was.
[2] Q: - region of the head?
[3] A: Mm-hmm.
[4] MR. GUNN: Okay. Could we go back to
[5] page 11? Off the record.
[6] [Discussion off the record.]
[7] MR. GUNN: Okay. Mr. Stringer, I'm about
[8] to show you part of a videotape that was recorded
[9] on the transcript between pages 11 and 13. It
[10] starts on the videotape timer at 11:30.
[11] Hold off for just one moment.
[12] THE WITNESS: Now, is this it?
[13] MR. GUNN: That's not.
[14] THE WITNESS: Which ones now?
[15] MR. GUNN: The document I'm going to show
[16] you is a transcript of the videotape, the
[17] authenticity of which has not been independently
[18] verified.
[19] The portion that we're going to be turning
[20] to is page 11. And we will be starting at
[21] portion - We'll actually start a little bit
[22] before, but -


Page 98

[1] THE WITNESS: Okay.
[2] MR. GUNN: - here's where we're going to
[3] be particularly starting to pay attention.
[4] THE WITNESS: Okay.
[5] MR. GUNN: Okay, if we can go to the
[6] videotape.
[7] [Whereupon, the videotape was played.]
[8] DSL: What did you see, in terms of like
[9] the head?
[10] RIEBE: From that angle, I didn't see
[11] anything wrong with the head, other than the notch
[12] right here.
[13] DSL: The notch right there. So, tell me
[14] how you learned more about the head.
[15] RIEBE: Well, when they sat him up -
[16] DSL: Yeah.
[17] RIEBE: - right after, I think it was
[18] Colonel Finck, an Army ballistics specialist, came
[19] in.
[20] DSL: Yeah.
[21] RIEBE: Pathologist. And they were - him
[22] and the Navy pathologist were all talking. And


Page 99

[1] then they sat the President up. And, see, nothing
[2] was left there, back of his head.
[3] DSL: Well, what did the back of the head
[4] look like?
[5] RIEBE: Nothing.
[6] DSL: Well -
[7] RIEBE: There was nothing there.
[8] DSL: What was there? When you say -
[9] RIEBE: A big hole.
[10] DSL: A big hole?
[11] RIEBE: A big hole, right in the occipital
[12] region of the head.
[13] DSL: And put your hand again - Where
[14] was it?
[15] RIEBE: Right back here.
[16] DSL: I see. How high did it go, if you
[17] would give me a rough estimate from memory?
[18] RIEBE: Well, from this figure - the
[19] center of the head, maybe three inches back was
[20] Still bone.
[21] DSL: Was there?
[22] RIEBE: Yeah. And then from three inches


Page 100

[1] down to the base of the skull was gone.
[2] DSL: Just gone?
[3] RIEBE: Yeah.
[4] DSL: When they raised him up like that -
[5] And then you're looking at him; right?
[6] RIEBE: Well, I was in front, but then I
[7] walked around back to get some broad views of what
[8] was happening.
[9] DSL: Had he already been flapped?
[10] RIEBE: What do you mean, flapped?
[11] DSL: Well, when you and I talked, you
[12] used the expression "flapped" - the business of
[13] removing the scalp.
[14] RIEBE: Oh, yeah. That had already been
[15] done. That was already open, the skin.
[16] DSL: The skin was already open?
[17] RIEBE: Yeah.
[16] DSL: I see. And, so, you saw this hole
[19] back there?
[20] RIEBE: Mm-hmm.
[21] DSL: So, it looked like - Can you tell
[22] me - You say it looked like a hole, or what?


Page 101

[1] RIEBE: It looked like a hole, yeah. It
[2] looked like it was just blown away.
[3] DSL: Just blown away.
[4] RIEBE: Mm-hmm.
[5] [End of videotape portion.]
[6] MR. GUNN: Okay. That's -
[7] BY MR. GUNN:
[8] Q: Mr. Stringer, are you able to recognize
[9] Floyd Riebe from the videotape?
[10] A: Yes. I guess, it's him. It sort of looks
[11] like him.
[12] Q: It looks like him. He's a little bit
[13] older -
[14] A: Older.
[15] Q: - than the last time you saw him?
[16] A: Yes.
[17] Q: Does Mr. Riebe's recollection of sitting
[18] the President correspond with your own
[19] recollection?
[20] A: They did sit him up, yes.
[21] Q: Mr. Riebe, as I'm sure you heard, referred
[22] to the wound being in the occipital region. Did


Page 102

[1] you hear that?
[2] A: Yes.
[3] Q: Does that correspond with your own
[4] recollection?
[5] A: No, it does not.
[6] Q: Okay.
[7] MR. GUNN: Doug, if we can go to page -
[8] go to timer 17:33. This will be page 17 of the
[9] transcript.
[10] [Whereupon, the videotape continued.]
[11] DSL: So, did you take pictures of this
[12] area on the back of the head?
[13] RIEBE: Yes.
[14] DSL: You did?
[15] RIEBE: Long shots.
[16] DSL: Long.
[17] RIEBE: Mr. Stringer was doing all the
[18] closeup photography.
[19] DSL: And you were doing the long shots?
[20] RIEBE: Right.
[21] DSL: Okay.
[22] RIEBE: That's anything from three feet or


Page 103

[1] more away.
[2] DSL: And you did take pictures showing
[3] the back of the head -
[4] RIEBE: Yes.
[5] DSL: - blown out?
[6] RIEBE: Yes.
[7] DSL: So, let me just put it, so you'll be
[8] saying it to our camera. Could you just tell us
[9] what kind of pictures you took of the back of the
[10] head?
[11] RIEBE: Well, I took several color
[12] four-by-five shots. And then I switched to my 35,
[13] which - I had a small, telephoto lens on it.
[14] DSL: Okay.
[15] RIEBE: Nothing big.
[16] DSL: And if those shots showed what
[17] you've described, what would you...what would you
[18] expect your pictures to show of the back of the
[19] head?
[20] RIEBE: That there was a gaping hole
[21] there.
[22] DSL: So, you took pictures showing a


Page 104

[1] gaping hole?
[2] RIEBE: Right.
[3] DSL: At any time, did you or anybody
[4] assisting you lift up scalp or put scalp in place
[5] to prevent us from seeing the gaping hole?
[6] RIEBE: No, not that I know of.
[7] DSL: So, you at no time lifted anything
[8] up to obstruct the hole?
[9] RIEBE: No.
[10] DSL: So, you would expect your pictures
[11] to show a gaping hole?
[12] RIEBE: Right.
[13] [End of the videotape portion.]
[14] MR. GUNN: Okay, Doug.
[15] BY MR. GUNN:
[16] Q: Mr. Stringer, were you able to hear the
[17] words of Mr. Riebe in the videotape?
[18] A: Yes, I was.
[19] Q: To the best of your recollection, did
[20] Mr. Riebe take any photographs of the President's
[21] body?
[22] A: No, he did not.


Page 105

[1] Q: Did Mr. Riebe, to the best of your
[2] recollection, have a 35 millimeter camera in -
[3] A: No, he did not. There was only the one
[4] camera in the autopsy room, the four-by-five.
[5] Q: Previously, you mentioned that there was a
[6] camera that took 120 - that used 120 film.
[7] A: On the back, yes. There was an adapter.

[8] Q: Okay. So, that was not a medium-format
[9] camera. It was an adapter for a four-by-five.
[10] A: That's correct. The only other medium was
[11] the one that he'd carried in, which the film was
[12] destroyed.
[13] Q: Okay. I'm interested in that camera, that
[14] the film was destroyed on. What camera was that,
[15] that had been taken in?
[16] A: The 135 - I mean, the 120.
[17] Q: Okay. And that was the one that you had
[18] thought was likely to be a Mimiya flex; is that
[19] right?
[20] A: No, it was not a Mimiya flex.
[21] Q: Oh. What kind of 120 -
[22] A: It was a cheap, little camera that we had


Page 106

[1] around the lab.
[2] Q: Okay. And, so, if Mr. Riebe were to have
[3] taken any photographs of the body, it would have
[4] been with that cheap, medium-format camera?
[5] A: Yeah, but there wasn't any film in it.
[6] Q: Okay.
[7] A: They took the film.
[8] Q: Okay.
[9] MR. GUNN: Doug, can we go to page 21;
[10] 21:35.
[11] [Discussion off the record.]
[12] [Whereupon, the videotape continued.]
[13] RIEBE: But this is the occipital region
[14] here.
[15] DSL: And what did you see there?
[16] RIEBE: Nothing. There was nothing there.
[17] DSL: But there's something here in the
[18] picture.
[19] RIEBE: Right. That's not a picture that
[20] I've taken.
[21] DSL: How come...how come it's at the
[22] National Archive? How come this is there?


Page 107

[1] RIEBE: I don't have any idea.
[2] [End of videotape portion.]
[3] MR. GUNN: Okay.
[4] BY MR. GUNN:
[5] Q: Mr. Stringer, were you able to hear
[6] Mr. Riebe in the videotape?
[7] A: Yes, I was.
[8] MR. GUNN: Doug, could you go ahead to -
[9] this is a change, but to 35. And it would be
[10] 35:40.
[11] We've got a slight change here. We're
[12] going to start on page 34 of the transcript, 34:22
[13] of the tape. "Say it again" is the first line.
[14] [Discussion off the record.]
[15] [Whereupon, the videotape continued.]
[16] DSL: Say it again. So, when you got
[17] through with the 12 pack, what did you do with the
[18] 12 pack?
[19] RIEBE: I gave it to the Secret Service.
[20] It was either the Secret Service or FBI, one of the
[21] two.
[22] DSL: Civilian?


Page 108

[1] RIEBE: Civilian; right.
[2] DSL: And he...he was right there?
[3] RIEBE: Right.
[4] DSL: They would know to count.
[5] RIEBE: Everything - every film, every
[6] picture that I took, I'm pretty sure he got a
[7] mental count on it.
[8] DSL: And were any - And these scene
[9] photographs were taken with the four-by-five?
[10] RIEBE: Mm-hmm.
[11] DSL: Not with any other camera?
[12] RIEBE: No, with four-by-five.
[13] DSL: Did you take any pictures at all
[14] with 120 roll?
[15] RIEBE: Not 120.1 did with 35.
[16] DSL: With 35?
[17] RIEBE: Right. The only 120 camera we had
[18] at the school, I was not that good with. It was an
[19] old Mimiya flex.
[20] DSL: Yeah.
[21] RIEBE: And I didn't like that camera,
[22] really, that much at all. So, I used a Canon 35


Page 109

[1] millimeter.
[2] DSL: So, you didn't take any pictures at
[3] all with a 1 -
[4] RIEBE: Not with a 120, no.
[5] DSL: Your pictures of the body were taken
[6] with a 35 mil - Did you take any pictures of the
[7] body with a 35 millimeter?
[8] RIEBE: Some, yeah. More or less, general
[9] overview. I had a small...a small roll. It was 20
[10] exposures or - yeah, 20 exposures.
[11] DSL: Do you remember the incident of
[12] taking pictures inside the chest?
[13] RIEBE: No.
[14] DSL: Well, I mean, did they - Do you
[15] remember finding a bruise inside the chest when
[16] they opened him up? Do you remember the Y
[17] incision?
[18] RIEBE: Yeah.
[19] DSL: Did they do - You were there when
[20] they did the Y incision?

[21] RIEBE: Right.
[22] DSL: Did they ask you to take any


Page 110

[1] pictures internal?
[2] RIEBE: No. Pictures internally would
[3] have had to have been done with a tripod, I'm sure.
[4] DSL: Yeah.
[5] RIEBE: Because that's the only way we've
[6] done this is - You know, after I got out of
[7] school when I was at the Pathology Institute, we
[8] always used a tripod, because you have to take a
[9] timed exposure.
[10] DSL: I see. And you weren't using the
[11] tripod?
[12] RIEBE: No. Mr. Stringer -
[13] DSL: So that -
[14] RIEBE: - had the tripod in there.
[15] DSL: Mr. Stringer was using the tripod?
[16] RIEBE: Right. He had -
[17] DSL: So, if they called for pictures
[18] inside the chest, which needed the tripod, Mr.
[19] Stringer -
[20] RIEBE: Right. Mr. Stringer was right
[21] there with the four-by-five view camera. And he
[22] could have got all the angles and corrections -


Page 111

[1] everything to make a decent picture.
[2] DSL: Okay.
[3] RIEBE: But with a hand-held camera, it's
[4] awfully hard to do.
[5] DSL: So, you were doing the hand-held
[6] work?
[7] RIEBE: Right.
[8] DSL: By the way, what kind...what kind
[9] of - What was it they needed your hand-held work
[10] for, if Stringer was using the tripod?
[11] RIEBE: Just general overviews mostly.
[12] DSL: General overviews?
[13] RIEBE: Right. Mr. Stringer did the
[14] closeups.
[15] DSL: Okay. But with the back of the
[16] head, you did those? Or Stringer?
[17] RIEBE: Mr. Stringer did some.
[18] DSL: Yeah.
[19] RIEBE: He got the closer views. And I
[20] did from about him to the wound.
[21] DSL: Yeah.
[22] RIEBE: We'd swing the camera out of the


Page 112

[1] way, and I took a few shots with the big camera.
[2] DSL: And, so, the one you're using for
[3] the back -
[4] RIEBE: That showed the head.
[5] DSL: Yeah.
[6] RIEBE: And Mr. Stringer showed just the
[7] immediate area.
[8] DSL: I see. And your camera, that you
[9] did just the head with, is four-by-five?
[10] RIEBE: It was a four-by-five speed
[11] Graphlex.
[12] DSL: Okay. So, the 35 millimeter camera
[13] was used for what, then?
[14] RIEBE: I did some general overviews, took
[15] pictures of the throat and the face, side views of
[16] the body.
[17] DSL: About how many pictures do you think
[18] you took that night?
[19] RIEBE: Well, I took 24 four-by-fives and
[20] one rollof 35.
[21] DSL: One roll of 35?
[22] RIEBE: Uh-huh. So, that was another 20


Page 113

[1] exposures. It would be about 44.
[2] DSL: Forty-four that you took?
[3] RIEBE: Yeah.
[4] DSL: That's not counting Stringer?
[5] RIEBE: No. I don't know how many he
[6] took. He was - I think Mr. Stringer was using
[7] color.
[8] DSL: Yeah.
[9] RIEBE: Because we had big stack of film
[10] cassettes in there.
[11] DSL: Were you using color, or black and
[12] white, or both?
[13] RIEBE: Black and white.
[14] DSL: Black and white only?
[15] RIEBE: Color on the 35.
[16] DSL: Okay. Color on the 35.
[17] RIEBE: Right.
[18] DSL: So, if you have a complete
[19] collection of everything from that night - from
[20] the work of you and Stringer, there's supposed to
[21] be 35 millimeter film in there?
[22] RIEBE: Mm-hmm.


Page 114

[1] DSL: No question about that?
[2] RIEBE: No question about that.
[3] You took 35 -
[4] RIEBE: Right.
[5] DSL: - millimeter pictures?
[6] RIEBE: Yeah.
[7] [End of videotape portion.]
[8] MR. GUNN: Okay, Doug.
[9] BY MR. GUNN:
[10] Q: Mr. Stringer, were you able to hear the
[11] words of Mr. Riebe?
[12] A: Yes, I am. Yes, I was.
[13] Q: Mr. Riebe referred to his having exposed
[14] two 12 packs. Does that refresh any recollection
[15] you have?
[16] A: No.
[17] Q: Are you fairly confident that Mr. Riebe is
[18] incorrect about the two 12 packs?
[19] A: I don't remember him taking any pictures
[20] at all.
[21] Q: The photo lab did have a speed Graphic
[22] camera, though?


Page 115

[1] A: Yes.
[2] Q: So, that is something that Mr. Riebe would
[3] have had access to, as a student?
[4] A: He had one that was assigned to him as a
[5] student; correct.
[6] Q: Okay. And the 12 pack would refer to -
[7] A: A film pack.
[8] Q: - black and white negatives?
[9] A: Black and white, yes. And the 35
[10] millimeter he said was a Canon, I don't know where
[11] that came from.
[12] Q: Okay. The transcript will speak for
[13] itself. I think that he said that was his personal
[14] camera earlier.
[15] A: Okay.
[16] Q: Mr. Riebe referred to his impression that
[17] one of the agents in the room was attempting to
[18] keep track of photographs. Does that correspond to
[19] your own recollection?
[20] A: Well, he was picking them up as they were
[21] exposed, yes.
[22] Q: Do you have any recollection, other than


Page 116

[1] picking up the holders after the film was exposed,
[2] of anyone attempting to keep track of numbers?
[3] A: No. I gave them to Riebe. He gave me the
[4] film. I exposed it, and then I gave it back to
[5] him. He gave me another one to put in. And he
[6] gave them to the agent, whoever it was.
[7] Q: Was there flashes taking place as the
[8] photographs were exposed?
[9] A: Only from the two - just the lights we
[10] had in there, the speed lights.
[11] Q: Speed lights. And did you get any sense
[12] that people were counting numbers of the flashes,
[13] to keep track of photographs?
[14] A: No. They were keeping track of them by
[15] the holders.
[16] Q: Mr. Riebe also refers to your having taken
[17] color photographs in four-by-five format, whereas
[18] he took black and white photographs in four-by-five
[19] format. Does that help refresh any recollection
[20] that you have?
[21] A: No, it does not.
[22] Q: As far as you understand, that is


Page 117

[1] inaccurate?
[2] A: I would say it was. You'd have to prove
[3] it to me to -
[4] Q: How would one be able to prove that?
[5] A: By showing me the negatives.
[6] Q: If they were from a speed Graphic 12 pack,
[7] there would be black and white negatives?
[8] A: There would be not like a firm base. It
[9] would be like a piece of paper - the negative.
[10] Q: Okay. And if we were to show you camera
[11] originals from the night of the autopsy, you would
[12] be able to -
[13] A: You mean from a print?
[14] Q: From a print.
[15] A: No.
[16] Q: Is there any way that - in looking at
[17] original materials that you would be able to
[18] identify photographs taken with a speed pack - or
[19] with a 12 pack versus those that were exposed two
[20] at a time?
[21] A: Not as far as I know. I don't think so.
[22] He'd have to have the use of the flash.


Page 118

[1] Q: Well, I'm not talking about the use of the
[2] flash, but the photographs themselves. Let me try
[3] the question a different way.
[4] A: Yeah.
[5] Q: Are there notches that appear on
[6] photograph - on photograph sheets -
[7] A: On sheets.
[8] Q: - that would identify the type of film?
[9] A: That's correct.
[10] Q: Would the notches for a 12 pack be
[11] different from notches for other black and whites?
[12] A: There wouldn't be a notch. There would be
[13] a number on the negative. In other words, they're
[14] numbered from one through 12.
[15] Q: So, if we had negatives here to show you,
[16] and they had numbers of one through 12, that would
[17] indicate that there was a 12 pack that was
[18] exposed -
[19] A: Yes, it would.
[20] Q: - on the night of the autopsy?
[21] A: Yes, it would.
[22] MR. GUNN: Okay, Doug, if we could go to


Page 119

[1] the next one - 52. Page 52.
[2] [Whereupon, the videotape cntinued.]
[3] RIEBE: ...very, very good at, you know,
[4] retouching photographs. In fact, she did quite a
[5] bit on it. Who was that man from the Civil War;
[6] Brady?
[7] DSL: Yeah.
[8] RIEBE: She did a lot of touch-up work on
[9] some of this photographs that they were copying for
[10] the Smithsonian. And she made them look like he
[11] just went out in the street and took them.
[12] DSL: Well, if you were to choose between
[13] the fact that this was real - this is an authentic
[14] picture, or the fact that it's been phonied, would
[15] you say it's -
[16] RIEBE: I'd say it's not an authentic
[17] photograph. Not one that I took or that I - I'm
[18] sure Mr. Stringer didn't take it.
[19] DSL: Because - How do you know Mr.
[20] Stringer didn't take it?
[21] RIEBE: Because this looks all solid back
[22] here.


Page 120

[1] DSL: Right. And you don't remember
[2] holding up a piece of scalp or something like -
[3] RIEBE: No.
[4] DSL: So...so, KRLN asked you something
[5] like this.
[6] RIEBE: Mm-hmm.
[7] DSL: And...and you actually said, "Well,
[8] I think it's been phonied."
[9] RIEBE: It's very possible. Very possibly
[10] it's been phonied - touched up, or another body
[11] used in its place.
[12] DSL: Well, in other words,
[13] psychologically, the way you react to the way it is
[14] that it's one of these two possibilities?
[15] RIEBE: Right.
[16] DSL: Because you remember the body that
[17] night?
[18] RIEBE: I remember what I saw, and this is
[19] not what I saw.
[20] DSL: Floyd, let me ask you this. In...
[21] in - And people are in court all the time on
[22] traffic accidents. And witnesses - we hear about


Page 121

[1] the unreliability of eye witness testimony.
[2] RIEBE: Right.
[3] DSL: You know, "Well, my client is
[4] innocent, because - You know, I don't care what
[5] the witness says. Memory plays tricks."
[6] How possible is it that your own memory is
[7] faulty; and that the back of the head was
[8] absolutely solid, and that the hole is, you know,
[9] at the front of the head?
[10] RIEBE: I don't think, on this instance
[11] that - This was such a shock, seeing this -
[12] seeing the President like that, that it was
[13] imbedded in my brain - in my mind. I don't think
[14] I'm mistaken at all.
[15] DSL: Would you bet your life on it? What
[16] would be the odds that -
[17] RIEBE: I'd say no. That - you know, I'd
[18] bet my reputation and my life on it.
[19] DSL: That there was a hole at the -
[20] RIEBE: Yes.
[21] DSL: What? Tell me what you'd bet your
[22] life on.


Page 122

[1] RIEBE: The - That there was a very
[2] large hole in the occipital region - this area
[3] right in here - in the back of the President's
[4] head.
[5] DSL: And you'd bet your life and
[6] reputation on that?
[7] RIEBE: Yeah.
[8] [End of videotape portion.]
[9] MR. GUNN: Okay, Doug.
[10] THE WITNESS: What is showing, I mean, to
[11] him?
[12] BY MR. GUNN:
[13] Q: The photograph that he's showing is the
[14] same one that we saw at the beginning of -
[15] A: With the hair?
[16] Q: With the hair in the back.
[17] Mr. Stringer, were you able to hear
[18] Mr. Riebe in the portions of the video that we just
[19] watched?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: Do you believe that Mr. Riebe is
[22] inaccurate with regard to his memories from the


Page 123

[1] night of the autopsy?
[2] A: Yes.
[3] Q: Mr. Riebe did employ the same term,
[4] "occipital", that you employed in your conversation
[5] with David Lifton; is that correct?
[6] A: That's correct.
[7] Q: And -
[8] A: If I said it, yes.
[9] Q: Is there a question in your mind about
[10] whether you said that to Mr. Lifton?
[11] A: Yes, there is.
[12] Q: In what way is there a question in your
[13] mind?
[14] A: I don't know why I should have said it, if
[15] I said it.
[16] Q: You also referred in the conversation with
[17] Mr. Lifton to the injury on the back of your head
[18] - the part that you would lean up against a
[19] bathtub - without referring to occipital region.
[20] Was that incorrect, as well?
[21] A: Yes, it was.
[22] Q: And, so, your understanding also would be


Page 124

[1] that the person who did the reconstruction work on
[2] President Kennedy's head, Mr. Robinson, would have
[3] been incorrect, as well?
[4] A: I don't know about what he - I don't
[5] know. I don't -
[6] What I saw was the hair down. Once it was
[7] cut down - I mean, pulled back, I don't remember
[8] seeing a big hole there; no. I'd say he was wrong,
[9] too.
[10] [Interruption to the proceedings.]
[11] [Lunch recess, 12:15-1:05 p.m.]


Page 125

[1] AFTERNOON SESSION
[2] Whereupon,
[3] JOHN T. STRINGER
[4] was recalled for examination by counsel for the
[5] U.S. Department of Justice and, having been
[6] previously duly sworn by the notary public, was
[7] examined and testified further as follows:
[8] CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR U.S. JUSTICE
[9] BY MR. GUNN:
[10] Q: Mr. Stringer -
[11] A: Yes?
[12] Q: - to the best of your recollection, what
[13] is the total number of exposures that you made
[14] during the night of the autopsy?
[15] A: I haven't the slightest idea.
[16] Q: Do you recall any attempt to record
[17] numbers of photographs after the autopsy was
[18] concluded?
[19] A: No, because we didn't have the holders.
[20] We took in so many film holders, and then we saw
[21] that we needed some more.
[22] So, we called the photo lab. And there


Page 126

[1] was a first-class corpsman over there, who was an
[2] instructor - and asked him to have some loaded up,
[3] which he did himself. And he brought them over
[4] himself, and handed them through the door. And
[5] then they brought them up to the table.
[6] Q: Are you able to visualize in your mind's
[7] eye an approximate number of holders there were,
[8] the volume of holders?
[9] A: Oh, there must have been at least 20, 25,
[10] I would imagine.
[11] Q: And if there were somewhere in the area of
[12] 20 to 25 holders, that would mean there would be
[13] somewhere in the area of 40 - possibly 40 to -
[14] A: Times two.
[15] Q: Times two. So, 40 to 50 exposures. And
[16] to the best of your recollection, that would have
[17] been both black and white and color?
[18] A: As far as I remember.
[19] Q: Okay. Do you remember anyone typing up
[20] any receipts on the night of November 22nd to -
[21] A: No.
[22] Q: - document the number?


Page 127

[1] A: No. I think I received a copy from
[2] Captain Stover.
[3] Q: Were you ever asked to count the number of
[4] holders?
[5] A: No.
[6] Q: Were you ever asked to verify - this is
[7] in November of 1963 - ever to verify the number of
[8] exposures that had been made?
[9] A: No.
[10] Q: So, for example, the Secret Service didn't
[11] come to you and say, "How many did you make?"
[12] A: No. I think they put them in a box and
[13] took them out. It was in a cardboard box. I
[14] believe that's what happened.
[15] We could have counted them. I guess,
[16] we - Had we thought about it, we could have
[17] counted how many were in the box. Or we could have
[18] counted them when they sent them back. But, no, we
[19] didn't know whether they were all sent back, or
[20] not.
[21] Q: Did you have any role whatsoever in terms
[22] of developing or processing any of the autopsy


Page 128

[1] photographs?
[2] A: No.
[3] Q: And that was different from standard
[4] procedure; is that correct?
[5] A: Yes; correct.
[6] Q: Did you ever play any role in developing
[7] or making copies of any of the X-ray work that had
[8] been done at Bethesda on President Kennedy?
[9] A: I don't know. I don't think so, but I
[10] don't know.
[11] Q: Did you have an expertise in making
[12] duplicates of autopsy - of X-rays?
[13] A: No. We would make them for a print to be
[14] printed in the article. But to copy the X-rays
[15] themselves, they did that in the X-ray department.
[16] Q: Okay. Did you have any training at all
[17] working with X-rays?
[18] A: Just by shooting them off a box onto film.
[19] Q: Okay. I'd like to show you a document we
[20] have marked Exhibit No. 78, and ask you whether you
[21] recall having seen the document before?
[22] A: Yes.


Page 129

[1] Q: Yes, you recall having seen it?
[2] A: Yes.
[3] MR. GUNN: Let me state for the record
[4] that Exhibit No. 78 appears on its face to be a
[5] memorandum, dated November 22nd, 1963, from Captain
[6] Stover to Roy H. Kellerman.
[7] BY MR. GUNN:
[8] Q: When did you first see the document that's
[9] marked Exhibit 78?
[10] A: I don't remember. It was sometime after
[11] the autopsy, because the captain had me sign it.
[12] Q: Do you remember whether it was within a
[13] week of the autopsy, or a month of the autopsy?
[14] A: Well, I wouldn't know. Maybe a week or
[15] so. I don't know.
[16] Q: Do you remember seeing the document, now
[17] marked Exhibit 78, on the night of the autopsy?
[18] A: No.
[19] Q: Is that your signature, as best you can
[20] tell -
[21] A: Yes.
[22] Q: - on the bottom left?


Page 130

[1] A: Yes, it is.
[2] Q: Do you have any reason to question the
[3] accuracy of the numbers that are recorded on -
[4] A: No.
[5] Q: - No. 78?
[6] A: No.
[7] Q: Do you notice there's a change - a
[8] handwritten change, with what appear to be the
[9] initials JHS next to the changes?
[10] A: Yes. That was Stover.
[11] Q: Do you have any knowledge about why there
[12] was a change?
[13] A: Yes, because we talked about the - In
[14] some sort of way, we talked about it.
[15] Q: In what way did you talk about it?
[16] A: They talked about the number of holders,
[17] and whether it was - Rittmar or somebody said he
[18] gave so many holders to us. And the 8 and,
[19] evidently, the 6 were changed from 11 to 9.
[20] Q: When you signed the document now marked
[21] 78, did you - were you assuming that you were
[22] either agreeing, or disagreeing, or making any


Page 131

[1] comment about the accuracy of the numbers?
[2] A: I was agreeing with, it should be 11 and
[3] 9. There was some sort of a meeting. It's hazy,
[4] as to what was going on. But it was with Stover.
[5] Q: Approximately, when did the meeting take
[6] place, as best you can recall?
[7] A: I think it was probably on the morning
[8] after. I don't remember. Because I didn't see
[9] Stover that eve - I saw him, but I didn't see him
[10] when I left. He was there all during the autopsy.
[11] Q: Now, previously in your deposition today,
[12] if I recall correctly, you said that it was your
[13] habit to expose both of the two sheets of film in
[14] each holder; is that correct?
[15] A: Mm-hmm.
[16] Q: Now, if there had been 11 holders, how
[17] many sheets would that, then, be?
[16] A: It would be 22.
[19] Q: Now, I notice up in the - under sub A
[20] there, it refers, with the change, to 11 Graphic
[21] film holders containing 16 sheets of exposed
[22] Ektachrome E3 film. Should the number of sheets


Page 132

[1] have been 22?
[2] A: Yes. In other words - I remember now -
[3] they said they had received some holders without
[4] film, which - I say, it couldn't have happened.
[5] Q: Who was "they" who received some holders
[6] without film?
[7] A: Whoever it was that took the film over to
[8] be developed. They said they had received some
[9] holders that didn't have film in it. And I
[10] disputed it.
[11] Q: Did you say - With whom did you dispute
[12] it?
[13] A: With Captain Stover.
[14] Q: Did the number 11 seem to be correct to
[15] you for the number of holders for the color film?
[16] A: Well, I don't know where the number came
[17] from, but it sounds sort of correct.
[18] Q: Now, when I had asked you what your
[19] estimate was for the number of holders, you
[20] suggested that it would be somewhere between 20 and
[21] 25.
[22] A: Yeah.


Page 133

[1] Q: Now, if you add the 11 holders together
[2] with the 9 holders, that certainly comes up with
[3] the number 20, which would be roughly what your
[4] recollection was.
[5] A: Yes.
[6] Q: If those numbers for the holders, 11 and
[7] 9, were correct, then, your assumption would be
[8] that there would have been approximately 40
[9] negative - or 40 films exposed on the night of the
[10] autopsy.
[11] A: Yeah.
[12] Q: Give or take one or two, I presume.
[13] A: Yeah. There were some views that we -
[14] that were taken that were missing.
[15) Q: Why is it that you say that some of the
[16] views that were taken are missing?
[17] A: We went down to see them two years
[18] afterwards, and I remember some things inside the
[19] body that weren't there.
[20] Q: Is there anything else that you remember
[21] that wasn't there?
[22] A: I think it had to do with the adrenal


Page 134

[1] system.
[2] Q: Any others that you remember?
[3] A: Not off -
[4] Q: Or, I guess, remember not being there?
[5] A: Not offhand.
[6] Q: Do you remember seeing an image of the
[7] entire - or the full length of the body of the
[8] President?
[9] A: I don't remember.
[10] Q: Under sub A on Exhibit 78, it refers to
[11] Ektachrome E3 film. Does that help refresh your
[12] recollection as the type of film -
[13] A: Yes, it does.
[14] Q: - that was used?
[15] A: Yes.
[16] Q: Earlier, if I recall correctly, you had
[17] said that you understood that it was Kodachrome.
[18] A: Yeah.
[19] Q: It was Ektachrome E3?
[20] A: I would say it was Ektachrome, yes.
[21] Q: And does Ektachrome E3 create color
[22] transparencies?


Page 135

[1] A: Yes.
[2] Q: And those are positive color
[3] transparencies?
[4] A: Yes.
[5] Q: For the portrait pan film in sub B, is
[6] that black and white film?
[7] A: Yes.
[8] Q: And would that create a negative
[9] transparency?
[10] A: Yes, it would. So, it could be printed
[11] black and white.
[12] Q: Under sub C, there's a reference to a roll
[13] of Ektachrome 120 E3 exposed film. Previously, I
[14] had asked you about the one 120 film; and I
[15] believe, if I recall correctly, that you had said
[16] that you presumed that it was black and white.
[17] A: It was black and - Well, it says
[18] Ektachrome here, but I thought it was black and
[19] white.
[20] Q: Which would you think is more likely to be
[21] correct; your recollection from that, or what is
[22] stated on Exhibit 78?


Page 136

[1] A: I wouldn't have any idea. It was a roll
[2] of 120. I would have thought it was black and
[3] white, but it could have been Ektachrome. I didn't
[4] see it after it was done. I didn't see it when it
[5] was loaded.
[6] Q: Okay. Would you be able to tell today -
[7] If we had the roll of film that's identified as
[8] being the same as in sub C here, would you be able
[9] to tell whether that was Ektachrome E3, or whether
[10] it was a portrait pan film?
[11] A: I would think so.
[12] Q: Do you see the phrase, next to last
[13] sentence, of the document - and I'll read it to
[14] you: "To my personal knowledge, this is the total
[15] amount of film exposed on this occasion."
[16] Do you see that?
[17] A: Yes.
[18] Q: Is it your understanding that that
[19] statement is incorrect?
[20] A: Well, yes. If they say that there were
[21] only 16 sheets out of 11, I'd say that's incorrect.
[22] Q: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78,


Page 137

[1] were you intending to either agree or disagree with
[2] the conclusion reached in the second to last -
[3] next to last sentence?
[4] A: I told him that I disagreed with him, but
[5] they said, "Sign it."
[6] Q: And who is "they" who said, "Sign it"?
[7] A: Captain Stover.
[8] Q: Was Mr. Riebe in the room when you signed
[9] this?
[10] A: I don't remember. His signature is on it,
[11] so I guess he was there. But I don't remember.
[12] Q: Do you recall anything further regarding
[13] the discussion with Dr. Stover regarding the number
[14] of exposures that had been taken at the autopsy?
[15] A: No. I don't remember.
[16] Q: For example, did Captain Stover make any
[17] reference to who it was who told him that the
[18] numbers were different from what your own
[19] recollection was?
[20] A: He said from wherever they were processed
[21] that they said they had received some empty film
[22] holders on one side or the other.


Page 138

[1] Q: Did he tell you where they would have been
[2] processed?
[3] A: I don't know whether it was he or -
[4] Somebody told me they were done at Anacostia.
[5] Q: Had you ever been to the facility -
[6] You're referring to the naval yard at Anacostia?
[7] A: The naval photo center at Anacostia, yes.
[8] Q: Had you ever been to the photo center at
[9] Anacostia?
[10] A: Yes.
[11] Q: Did you know any of the people who worked
[12] there?
[13] A: I think so.
[14] Q: Did you ever talk to anyone who worked
[15] there about processing the autopsy photos?
[16] A: No. I don't think so, no.
[17] Q: Do you recall the names of any people, who
[18] worked there, now?
[19] A: That work there now?
[20] Q: No. Do you recall now any of the names of
[21] the people who worked there in 1963?
[22] A: There was a fellow name, I think, of


Page 139

[1] Rusteberg. He was a Commander in charge of
[2] research, I think. But - there were several
[3] others, but I don't remember their name.
[4] Q: Do you have any understanding as to why
[5] this would have been processed at the naval center
[6] at Anacostia, rather than at Bethesda?
[7] A: They said they want to keep everything
[8] secret, and they had the facilities over there to
[9] do it.
[10] Q: Were the facilities at Anacostia better
[11] than the facilities at Bethesda, or were they
[12] practically equivalent, or -
[13] A: I'd say they're almost the same. Of
[14] course, they had a much larger lab.
[15] Q: Was there any reason that you would not
[16] have been able to process the Ektachrome E3 film -
[17] A: No.
[18] Q: - at Bethesda?
[19] A: No.
[20] Q: And would the same be true for the
[21] portrait pan film?
[22] A: Yes.


Page 140

[1] Q: Other than the numbers on Exhibit 78 and
[2] the statement that we made reference to, the next
[3] to last sentence, is there anything else that you
[4] can identify in Exhibit 78 that is inaccurate to
[5] the best of your understanding?
[6] A: No.
[7] Q: At the time that you signed Exhibit
[8] No. 78, do you recall whether the signature of
[9] Mr. Kellerman down at the bottom was there or not?
[10] A: No, I don't. From reading it, I imagine

[11] it was sent to him, and then he signed it as
[12] receiving it. I don't remember, to tell you the
[13] truth.
[14] Q: Okay.
[15] A: All I got was a copy of it, and I don't
[16] know where that is.

[17] Q: Did you ever hear any discussion about
[18] whether there had been any frames on - any frames
[19] from the 120 film that had been exposed?
[20] A: I don't think there was any exposed, no.
[21] Q: Mr. Stringer, I'd like to show you a
[22] document that is marked Exhibit MD 44. I assume


Page 141

[1] that you have not previously seen the document
[2] before, but I'd just like you to take a quick look
[3] and tell me whether you have seen it before, or
[4] not.
[5] MR. GUNN: I'll state for the record that
[6] MD 44 appears on its face to be a memorandum, dated
[7] 11/26/63, written by Francis X. O'Neill and James
[8] W. Sibert.
[9] THE WITNESS: No, I've never seen it
[10] before.
[11] BY MR. GUNN:
[12] Q: Could you turn to page five of Exhibit
[13] No. 78? Do you see down towards the bottom there's
[14] - there are numbers of X-rays and photographs?
[15] A: Mm-hmm.
[16] Q: Do you see where it stated, "One roll of
[17] 120 film containing five exposures"?
[18] A: Yes, I do.
[19] Q: Does that help refresh your recollection
[20] about any exposures from the 120 film?
[21] A: No. I saw the film got taken out of the
[22] camera. That's all I know.


Page 142

[1] Q: You saw it yourself as it was being taken
[2] out of the camera?
[3] A: Yes.
[4] Q: In the hypothetical case that there had
[5] been some film with some exposures, and then the
[6] film is taken out of the camera and exposed to
[7] light, would you be able to identify exposures on
[8] the film, or would it all be clear?
[9] A: It should be all clear.
[10] Q: So, you wouldn't be able to identify the
[11] number of exposures by looking at film exposed to
[12] light?
[13] A: I don't think so.
[14] Q: Do you recall having previously heard of
[15] the names of Francis O'Neill or James Sibert?
[16] A: Well, faintly; yeah.
[17] Q: In what respect do you have - do you
[18] recall having heard the names?
[19] A: They were agents, I believe; weren't they?
[20] Q: FBI agents?
[21] A: Yes.
[22] Q: Did you ever speak to Mr. Sibert or


Page 143

[1] Mr. O'Neill?
[2] A: Not that I can remember.
[3] Q: According to the document marked Exhibit
[4] 44, they were both FBI agents present at the
[5] autopsy. Does that help refresh any recollection
[6] that you might have regarding any conversations you
[7] might have had with them?
[8] A: No. I didn't know who I talked to there,
[9] because there were a lot of people there that I
[10] didn't know.
[11] Q: Would it be fair to say that if you talked
[12] to them, you did not know what their names were at
[13] the time?
[14] A: Correct.
[15] Q: Did you ever speak to Mr. Riebe about the
[16] apparent discrepancy in the number of films that
[17] had been exposed on the night of the autopsy?
[18] A: I don't know whether I did or not.
[19] Q: After the conversation with Captain Stover
[20] that you discussed earlier, did you ever raise the

[21] issue with him again?
[22] A: I don't know, but we raised the issue when


Page 144

[1] we saw the photographs in `66.
[2] Q: What happened in 1966 when you raised the
[3] issue?
[4] A: Nothing.
[5] Q: To whom - When you say "we raised the
[6] issue", whom are you referring to?
[7] A: Well, when we were at the Archives -
[8] whoever was there.
[9] Q: Did you go with Dr. Humes?
[10] A: Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell.
[11] Q: Were Drs. Humes and Boswell under the
[12] impression that there were some photographs
[13] missing?
[14] A: We talked about it, yes.
[15] Q: And whom did you talk to about it?
[16] A: We talked when we were there. I said
[17] there were some missing - because of that
[18] memorandum that it came back that there were some
[19] empty holders there. And the fellow that loaded
[20] them said there was no way there were any empty
[21] holders there.
[22] Q: Was the person with whom you spoke in 1966


Page 145

[1] an official connected with the Archives, or with
[2] the Justice Department; or do you know whom?
[3] A: No, I don't know. I guess, he was from
[4] the Archives. I don't know.
[5] Q: Do you recall the name Carl Belcher from
[6] the Department ofJustice? Does that ring a bell?
[7] A: No.
[8] Q: Do you have any idea who the person was
[9] whom you met with, either the name, or the
[10] position, or -
[11] A: You mean at the Archives?
[12] Q: At the Archives.
[13] A: No.
[14] Q: Was there more than one person that you
[15] met with?
[16] A: I think there was. At least two, I
[17] believe.
[18] Q: Did you meet with them on more than one
[19] occasion?

[20] A: No.
[21] Q: So, just that once. How long were you at
[22] the Archives in 1966?


Page 146

[1] A: Hour and a half, I'd say. I don't
[2] remember, actually, the time. I know they logged
[3] us in and out.
[4] Q: I'd like to come back from 1966 and return
[5] to November of 1963, if we could. After the night
[6] of the autopsy, November 22nd and 23rd, did you
[7] ever attend a supplementary brain examination
[8] related to the autopsy of President Kennedy?
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: Approximately, how long after the autopsy
[11] of President Kennedy did you go to the
[12] supplementary examination?
[13] A: I'd say it was three or four days. I
[14] don't remember.
[15] Q: I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 19, three
[16] different passages - pages 12, 13, and 15 - where
[17] there is reference made to the supplementary
[18] autopsy two or three days afterwards.
[19] Does that help refresh any recollection
[20] that you have regarding the amount of time?
[21] A: No.
[22] Q: Is there any event that you can connect


Page 147

[1] the timing of the supplementary autopsy to? For
[2] example, a workday versus a weekend?
[3] A: I think it was on a Monday, after a
[4] weekend. I'm not sure, but I think.
[5] Q: President Kennedy was buried on Monday.
[6] Do you have any recollection -
[7] A: No. It wasn't the day of the funeral, no.
[8] Q: Do you recall whether it was before or
[9] after the funeral?
[10] A: No, I don't.
[11] Q: Why is it that you feel confident that it
[12] was not the day of the funeral?
[13] A: Because I saw the funeral on television.
[14] Q: And you were at home that day?
[15] A: Yes.
[16] Q: You didn't go into the office?
[17] A: No, I don't think so.
[18] Q: Okay
[19] A: Now, this was done in a morning - when
[20] they took the brain out. I mean, when they had it
[21] out of the formalin.
[22] Q: Okay. When did you first hear or


Page 148

[1] understand that you would be involved in the
[2] supplementary examination of the brain?
[3] A: Gee, I don't remember. They took the
[4] brain out and put it in the jar with the formalin,
[5] and said, "We will get to this later."
[6] Q: Okay. When they took the brain out, do
[7] you recall whether they weighed the brain or not?
[8] A: I believe so. I'm not sure, but I think
[9] they - They generally weigh everything.
[10] Q: Do you have any recollection as to what
[11] the - or how much of the brain had been blasted
[12] away, or any - Do you have any mental picture of
[13] the size of the brain at the time that it was
[14] removed?
[15] A: There was some, but I don't think there
[16] was much more than the side of your fist that was
[17] gone. Of course, the brain is soft in there. And
[18] it's hard to see what it's laying down in.
[19] Q: Do you recall how you got the message that
[20] it was time to start the supplementary exam?
[21] A: Well, Dr. Humes, I guess, called and said,
[22] "We'll meet in the autopsy room and section the


Page 149

[1] brain."
[2] Q: Okay. Who else was present at the time of
[3] the supplementary exam?
[4] A: I think it's just - that it was Boswell,

[5] Humes, and myself. I don't know whether there was
[6] a corpsman in the room or not.
[7] Q: Would the corpsman have been with you for
[8] photographic purposes?
[9] A: No.
[10] Q: This is -

[11] A: No. No.
[12] Q: So, this would have been a medical
[13] corpsman?
[14] A: It would have been somebody from the lab
[15] - from pathology, from the morgue.
[16] Q: Okay. About how long did the
[17] supplementary exam take place?
[18] A: I don't think much more than an hour.
[19] Q: After the supplementary exam, did you ever
[20] have any further involvement with any supplementary
[21] examination of tissues or organs of the President?
[22] A: No.


Page 150

[1] Q: What happened during the supplementary
[2] exam, if you could describe the process?
[3] A: They took it out, and put it on the table,
[4] and describe it as to the condition, took some
[5] sections of it.
[6] We took some pictures of it. I had a copy
[7] board there with the light coming from the - well,
[8] from underneath and with the lights down on it, and
[9] shot pictures of the brain.
[10] Q: As it was being sectioned?
[11] A: Yes.
[12] Q: Were the sections small pieces, or cross
[13] sections of the entire brain? How did that work?
[14] A: If I remember, it was cross sections.
[15] Q: And what was the purpose of doing the
[16] cross section of the brain?
[17] A: To show the damage.
[18] Q: Was the cross purpose at all related to
[19] showing the path of the bullet?
[20] A: I don't know.
[21] Q: Was the brain weighed at the time of the
[22] supplementary exam?


Page 151

[1] A: I don't think so.
[2] Q: Do you recall whether there was a scale in
[3] the room at the time of the supplementary exam?
[4] A: I don't think in the room where we were,
[5] no. We were in a off-room from the actual autopsy
[6] room.
[7] Q: So, it wasn't in - It was in the morgue,
[8] but not -
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: - in the autopsy room?
[11] A: Yes.
[12] Q: Okay. Who is the one who did the
[13] sectioning of the brain?
[14] A: Dr. Humes. And Boswell was there,
[15] assisting.
[16] Q: What kind of photographic equipment did
[17] you take with you?
[18] A: The four-by-five view camera.
[19] Q: The very same camera you'd had before?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: Did you have the same lights that you had
[22] had before?


Page 152

[1] A: Yes.
[2] Q: Were the speed lights left at the
[3] morgue -
[4] A: No.
[5] Q: - or do they go back and forth?
[6] A: They go back and forth.
[7] Q: Did anyone help you carry the camera to
[8] the morgue?
[9] A: I think I sent it down by several
[10] corpsmen. And they set it up, and then I came
[11] down.
[12] Q: What kind of film did you use during the
[13] supplementary exam?
[14] A: It was color film.
[15] Q: Did you take any black and white
[16] photographs?
[17] A: I don't know. Normally, I would have.
[18] Q: Had you taken black and white photographs,
[19] would it have been portrait pan film?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: Would you have taken black and white
[22] photographs with a press pack -


Page 153

[1] A: No.
[2] Q: - or would it have been the two film
[3] holder -
[4] A: Two film holder things.
[5] Q: Do you recall approximately how many
[6] photographs you took of the brain?
[7] A: There wasn't too many. I don't remember;
[8] but there wasn't more than six or eight, I don't
[9] think.
[10] Q: Six or eight views, or six or eight
[11] holders?
[12] A: Six or eight holders.
[13] Q: What angles did you take of the brain?
[14] A: Top down.
[15] Q: Top down. Did you take any pictures of
[16] the brain as a whole?
[17] A: Yes.
[18] Q: And did you take a basilar view of the
[19] brain?
[20] A: No.
[21] Q: So, it's just from above?
[22] A: Above. And then when they sectioned, the


Page 154

[1] section was done.
[2] Q: Okay. Early in the deposition, you made
[3] reference to identification tags being used. Do
[4] you have a recollection as to whether there were
[5] identification tags used at the time of the
[6] photography of the brain?
[7] A: No, I don't remember. But there should
[8] have been.
[9] Q: Do you remember identification tags during
[10] the time of the original autopsy?
[11] A: There were one or two. The rest of the
[12] time, they were done away with.
[13] Q: Why were they done away with?
[14] A: There was not time to put them in to get
[15] them set up.
[16] Q: When you're referring, then, to being done
[17] away with, are you referring to the exposure on the
[16] film that would identify it? Or do you mean to the
[19] ruler, or the -
[20] A: Well, the ruler.
[21] Q: Does it really take that much time to put
[22] a ruler into a photo?


Page 155

[1] A: Well, they get it set up and all that. I
[2] mean, when they were doing it, they were in a hurry
[3] and said, "Let's get it over with."
[4] Q: Did you object to that at all?
[5] A: You don't object to things.
[6] Q: Some people do.
[7] A: Yeah, they do. But they don't last long.
[8] Q: Was the person who was hurrying the
[9] photography Dr. Humes, or was that somebody else?
[10] A: Well, there were a lot of people hurrying.
[11] They wanted to get it over with. From the
[12] presidential party to -
[13] Q: Do you remember anything that was said
[14] regarding the - expediting the photography?
[15] A: No, not other than saying, "Let's get
[16] going."
[17] Q: Okay. At the time the autopsy was
[18] concluded - So, we're back to November 22nd,
[19] 23rd. At the time the autopsy was concluded, had
[20] the doctors reached any tentative conclusion about
[21] the number of shots or the angle of the shots that
[22] had hit President Kennedy?


Page 156

[1] A: I think they had, yes.
[2] Q: What was your understanding of the number
[3] of shots that had hit him.
[4] A: Two.
[5] Q: And where - what was the trajectory of
[6] those shots in the body?
[7] A: One from the back that came out the side.
[8] And then the other one, from down in the neck, came
[9] out here.
[10] Q: You have a recollection that during the
[11] night of the autopsy, the doctors believed that
[12] there was - that the wound in the front of the
[13] neck was an exit wound from the back?
[14] A: I think so.
[15] Q: Do you recall any telephone call between
[16] the autopsy room and Dallas with doctors at
[17] Parkland Hospital?
[18] A: I think it was the one - Yes. I think
[19] it was one of the agents called. I'm not sure.
[20] Q: Did they report - did any of the agents
[21] report what doctors in Dallas had said regarding
[22] wounds on the President's body?


Page 157

[1] A: I heard somebody say something about a
[2] tracheotomy. Who said it, I don't know.
[3] Q: Did the agent report anything about there
[4] being a bullet wound in the same location as the
[5] tracheotomy?
[6] A: I don't remember. I don't remember if
[7] anybody said that, but -
[8] Q: I believe that when I - Sorry to jump
[9] around here a little bit, but -
[10] I believe that when I asked you about the
[11] film that was used at the supplementary exam, I
[12] asked you about the portrait pan film, but I didn't
[13] ask you about the color film.
[14] What was - what kind of color film was
[15] it -
[16] A: Ektachrome, I'm sure.
[17] Q: Ektachrome?
[18] A: Ektachrome.
[19] Q: So, it would be Ektachrome E3?
[20] A: Mm-hmm.
[21] Q: The same would have been used at the
[22] autopsy.


Page 158

[1] A: Yes.
[2] Q: Okay.
[3] A: Did they ever find that film?
[4] Q: We'll soon find out. You'll be the one
[5] who will tell us.
[6] A: Did they ever find the brain?
[7] Q: We're still looking.
[8] MR. GUNN: Why don't we take a short break
[9] here, and we'll ask Steve to get the films.
[10] [Recess.]
[11] MR. GUNN: Okay. We're now looking at
[12] transparencies - both positive and negative
[13] transparencies, four-by-five, that have been
[14] provided by the Archives.
[15] It's our understanding that, according to
[16] the chart that is marked - chart identified as
[17] "Autopsy Photographs, Numbering Supplied by
[18] November 10, 1966 Inspection", we are now looking
[19] at the first view, which has been described as
[20] "Left Side of Head and Shoulders", corresponding
[21] with color numbers 29, 30, and 31.
[22] Mr. Stringer, are you able to identify the


Page 159

[1] photographs on the screen now, both the positives
[2] and the negatives, as having been photographs that
[3] you took on the night of November 22nd, 1963?
[4] A: Well, this, I think, is.
[5] Q: When you're pointing to the one -
[6] A: The positive.
[7] Q: This would be number 31?
[8] A: Yeah, the positive.
[9] Q: And the positive you've identified is
[10] number 31 that you -
[11] A: I think so.
[12] Q: - that you took on the night of the
[13] autopsy?
[14] A: Mm-hmm.
[15] Q: And with respect to number 30 -
[16] A: The same. The same all the way through.
[17] Q: Okay. Are you able to identify whether
[18] the camera original - whether the three numbered
[19] 29, 30, and 31 positive transparencies are camera
[20] originals?
[21] A: They look like it.
[22] Q: Is it possible to make duplicates of the


Page 160

[1] positive transparencies that would be difficult to
[2] identify from the originals?
[3] A: Maybe from the first generation; but after
[4] you make more copies, then, it's -
[5] Q: But you have no reason to believe these
[6] are anything other than the camera originals?
[7] A: No, I have no reason.
[8] Q: Is there any reasonable possibility the
[9] negatives for numbers 29, 30, and 31 could have
[10] been camera originals?
[11] A: I don't think so.
[12] Q: Why is it that you would say that you
[13] think that they couldn't be?
[14] A: Because I don't think I took those. I
[15] mean, I think these were copied from them.
[16] Q: So, the negatives were - are
[17] internegatives taken from the -
[18] A: Yes.
[19] Q: - positive transparencies; is that fair?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: Is there anything about photographs
[22] numbers 29, 30, and 31 that look to you as if they


Page 161

[1] have been altered in any way from the way that you
[2] took them on November 22nd?
[3] A: No.
[4] Q: Had President Kennedy's body been cleaned
[5] or had his hair been combed in any way prior to the
[6] time that you started the autopsy photograph?
[7] A: I don't think so, no. Well, the body had
[8] been washed, yes, but -
[9] Q: Was the hair washed at any point that you
[10] saw?
[11] A: I don't remember. It does not look like
[12] it.
[13] MR. GUNN: Okay. If we could take numbers
[14] 1 - or numbers 29 and 30 off the screen, and put
[15] on black and white numbers 1 through 4, and just
[16] keep -
[17] [Discussion off the record.]
[18] BY MR. GUNN:
[19] Q: Mr. Stringer, you have just been shown the
[20] black and white negative transparencies that are
[21] identified as numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the first
[22] view on the 1966 inventory.


Page 162

[1] As you look at those, are you able to
[2] identify whether those are the camera originals
[3] that you exposed on the night of President
[4] Kennedy's autopsy?
[5] A: They look like it to me.
[6] Q: Is there any question in your mind about
[7] whether those are the original negatives?
[8] A: No, I don't think so.
[9] Q: Could those negatives be internegatives
[10] taken from the positive transparencies?
[11] A: I don't think so.
[12] Q: Mr. Stringer, I'd like to point out the
[13] figure in the background on the color transparency
[14] and the positioning of the figure, and ask you
[15] whether you can identify that same figure in any of
[16] the four negative transparencies?
[17] A: No.
[18] Q: Would that -
[19] A: There's something here, but then you don't
[20] get this background. And there's something there.
[21] Q: And is the figure in a different position?
[22] A: Yeah, that's a different -


Page 163

[1] Q: Based upon the background figures, are you
[2] able to identify whether any of the photographs,
[3] numbers 1 through 4, would be internegatives taken
[4] directly from photograph number 31?
[5] A: Now, these two are alike.
[6] Q: You're referring now to a positive -
[7] A: Yes.
[8] Q: - transparency and the negative
[9] transparency?
[10] A: But I don't see any black and white on it.
[11] Q: Then, the black and white - the
[12] background is different -
[13] A: Correct.
[14] Q: - between the four black and whites and
[15] the positive color transparency; is that correct?
[16] A: That is correct.
[17] Q: And, so, if the photograph - the black
[18] and white photographs are internegatives taken from
[19] number 31, there would have had to have been
[20] changes in the background, as well; is that
[21] correct?
[22] A: That's correct.


Page 164

[1] MR. GUNN: Okay. Go to the next one.
[2] Take black and white numbers 5 and 6. And then
[3] color numbers 26, 27, and 28.
[4] [Discussion off the record.]
[5] BY MR. GUNN:
[6] Q: The photographs that we're looking at now
[7] from the 1966 inventory are black and white
[8] negatives numbers 5 and 6, and positive color
[9] transparencies 26, 27, and 28, as well as the color
[10] negatives for 26, 27, and 28.
[11] Mr. Stringer, do the three color originals
[12] from 26, 27, and 28 appear to you to be the camera
[13] originals -
[14] A: Yes.
[15] Q: - that you took on November 22nd?
[16] A: Mm-hmm.
[17] Q: It appears to me, as an untrained
[18] observer, the exposure level is different in the
[19] three photographs. Is that correct?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: Was that done for any particular purpose?
[22] A: Yes. They were bracketed.


Page 165

[1] Q: And why did you bracket them?
[2] A: To get a good exposure.
[3] Q: So that one - With the theory being that
[4] one of the three exposures would come out
[5] correctly?
[6] A: Correct.
[7] Q: Mr. Stringer, are you able to determine
[8] whether the negatives that are below each of the
[9] positive transparencies are internegatives taken
[10] from the positive transparencies?
[11] A: I think they are.
[12] Q: Is there any question in your mind whether
[13] the negative - the color negatives might have been
[14] the camera originals that you took on November
[15] 22nd? Right now, again, speaking of the color
[16] negatives.
[17] A: Color negatives?
[18] Q: Yes.
[19] A: That they were taken at the time of the
[20] autopsy?
[21] Q: Could those have been camera originals?
[22] A: I don't think so.


Page 166

[1] Q: Do the photographs - color transparencies
[2] number 26, 27, and 28 appear to you to be altered
[3] in any way from the way in which you took them on
[4] the night of November 22nd?
[5] A: No, I don't think so.
[6] Q: Could you now look at the black and white
[7] negatives, numbers 5 and 6, and tell me whether
[8] those are camera originals that you took on
[9] November 22nd?
[10] A: I think they are camera originals.
[11] Q: Earlier in your deposition, you said that
[12] you would be able to identify whether black and
[13] white negatives were from a press pack or a
[14] two-film holder by notches or numbers. Are you
[15] able to identify the -
[16] A: Yes. This is not from a press pack.
[17] Q: So, the two that you just pointed out,
[18] numbers 5 and 6, were taken from a -
[19] A: From a film holder.
[20] Q: - from a film holder and not from a press
[21] pack?
[22] A: Correct.


Page 167

[1] Q: Are you able to determine now whether the
[2] two black and white photographs could be
[3] internegatives taken from the color positives?
[4] A: I don't think they're internegatives.
[5] They look like originals.
[6] Q: I'd like you to note the gray figure that
[7] is just in front of President Kennedy's nose - or
[8] just to the right of the nose in two black and
[9] white negatives, and ask you whether you can
[10] identify something equivalent in the color
[11] transparencies?
[12] A: There's something down in there. Right
[13] there.
[14] Q: For your typical mode of taking
[15] photographs, would you move the camera on the
[16] tripod between exposures?
[17] A: You wouldn't move it, but it's possible it
[16] could have been moved a fraction. But you
[19] generally don't move it to get the scene.
[20] Q: Okay.
[21] MR. GUNN: Okay. Could we go now to the
[22] third view? This will be black and white numbers


Page 168

[1] 7, 8, 9, and 10, and color numbers 32, 33, 34, 35,
[2] 36, 37.
[3] We'll go off the record.
[4] [Discussion off the record.]
[5] BY MR. GUNN:
[6] Q: Mr. Stringer, are you able to identify
[7] black and white negatives 7, 8, 9, and 10 as being
[8] camera originals that you took on the night of
[9] November 22nd, 1963?
[10] A: You mean the color?
[11] Q: Black and white negatives.
[12] A: Black and white? I think so.
[13] Q: And with respect to the positive
[14] transparencies 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37, do those
[15] appear to you to be positive transparencies that
[16] you took on the night of November 22nd -
[17] A: Yes, there's a little movement in some of
[18] them.
[19] Q: What do you mean by "movement"?
[20] A: Well, this one appears over this way more
[21] in the - on the film.
[22] Q: You're talking -


Page 169

[1] A: The camera might have moved.
[2] Q: You're talking about the location -
[3] A: Yeah, shoulders. Yes.
[4] Q: - of the body within the frame of the
[5] photograph?
[6] A: Yes.
[7] Q: Is there anything on photographs numbers
[8] 32 through 37 that appears to you to be inaccurate
[9] with respect to what you observed on the night of
[10] November 22nd?
[11] A: Well, now, which one of those? Here?
[12] Q: The four - the six color.
[13] A: Six color. Well, the angle is changed.
[14] These three are alike, and these three are alike.
[15] So, you have two different angles. You can see the
[16] table above there.
[17] Q: And as you say - as you're pointing to
[18] these, you're pointing to the different
[19] photographs, and suggesting that there are two
[20] different views, even though -
[21] A: Right.
[22] Q: - they're quite close?


Page 170

[1] A: Right.
[2] Q: But one is from a slightly elevated
[3] position, elevated -
[4] A: That's correct. One shows more of the
[5] face. And there are two of these. They're
[6] together - the same as the color.
[7] Q: When you refer to that, you're pointing to
[8] the four black and white negatives -
[9] A: Black and white, yes.
[10] Q: - and suggesting that, again, two of
[11] those are from a slightly elevated position -
[12] A: Correct.
[13] Q: - over the other two?
[14] A: Correct.
[15] Q: So, they're showing very similar views of
[16] slightly different angles?
[17] A: Yes. I think they wanted to get - to
[18] show more of the forehead.
[19] Q: With respect to the four negatives, are
[20] you able to identify whether those came from a
[21] press pack versus a two-film holder?
[22] A: Well, they're - If they're imitations,


Page 171

[1] they're good.
[2] Q: Do you have any reason to believe they are
[3] imitations?
[4] A: No, I have no reason to believe it.
[5] Q: I should have asked you this question
[6] previously, but let me ask you.
[7] With these and any of the previous
[8] photographs that we've looked at, have you seen any
[9] of the identification cards that typically were
[10] used at autopsies to identify the decedent?
[11] A: No.
[12] Q: Do you recall whether you had
[13] identification cards in any of these photographs as
[14] they were taken?
[15] A: No. Evidently, they were not in there,
[16] because they're not showing. I know they were in
[17] one or two, at the most. I think they were.
[18] Q: With regard to view number 3, can you tell
[19] me at what point during the autopsy those
[20] photographs were taken?
[21] A: You mean these?
[22] Q: Yes, all of those that are on the screen


Page 172

[1] right now.
[2] A: It looks like from the beginning.
[3] Q: Can you tell whether the Y incision has
[4] been performed as of the time these photographs are
[5] taken?
[6] A: No, it has not. They started and moved
[7] down, down the neck way.
[8] Q: So, these would be, as far as you can
[9] tell, prior to the Y incision?
[10] A: Yes.
[11] Q: Has the brain been removed at the time
[12] these photographs were taken?
[13] A: It looks as though the brain is still in
[14] there. I don't know.
[15] Q: So, as far as you're aware, this is before
[16] any part of the autopsy has begun?
[17] A: Yes.
[18] MR. GUNN: Could we now go to the fourth
[19] view, which is the "Posterior View of Wound of
[20] Entrance of Missile, High in Shoulder", black and
[21] white numbers 11 and 12; color numbers 38 and 39.
[22] Off the record.


Page 173

[1] [Discussion off the record.]
[2] BY MR. GUNN:
[3] Q: Mr. Stringer, do you - can you identify a
[4] ruler in the photographs on view 3?
[5] A: Yes, there is a ruler. But there's no
[6] number on it - no autopsy number.
[7] MR. GUNN: I think I mistakenly said
[8] view 3, and this should be view 4.
[9] BY MR. GUNN:
[10] Q: Would the autopsy number that you referred
[11] to typically be placed on the ruler?
[12] A: Yes.
[13] Q: Was there an autopsy number on the ruler
[14] the night of the autopsy?
[15] A: There was on one ruler.
[16] Q: How many rulers were used?
[17] A: Well, I think this is one from the morgue.
[18] The one that we have, had a medical school emblem
[19] on it. And then they write in the number. It's
[20] maybe about this big.
[21] Q: Okay. And you're - Something in the
[22] area of four to six inches?


Page 174

[1] A: About four inches.
[2] Q: About four inches long. Was that ruler
[3] used during the night of the autopsy of President
[4] Kennedy?
[5] A: I think it was, yes.
[6] Q: Looking at the color transparencies, can
[7] you identify the type of film that was used by any
[8] markings that are on the film?
[9] A: Well, I don't know the markings anymore,
[10] but that should be the color of film that it is,
[11] whether it's Ektachrome or whatever. You mean
[12] these, the emblem?
[13] Q: Either that or the writing. That is, are
[14] you able to - either through the writing, or the
[15] notches, or in any other way - determine whether
[16] this is Ektachrome E3 or Kodachrome?
[17] A: Not anymore. But this should tell you the
[18] story, whether that's Ektachrome or Kodachrome.
[19] It's probably Ektachrome. I don't know. It's
[20] notched.
[21] Q: Mr. Stringer, I'd like you to look
[22] particularly closely at the area of the occipital


Page 175

[1] area of President Kennedy's head in the color
[2] transparencies, and tell me whether you are able to
[3] ascertain whether there has been any change at all
[4] in the photograph from the time that you took the
[5] exposures on November 22nd -
[6] A: That's the way I saw it. I don't see any
[7] hole there.
[8] Q: Are you able to determine whether the
[9] color transparencies that are in front of you now
[10] are camera originals versus duplicates made from
[11] the camera original?
[12] A: I'd say they're camera original.
[13] Q: Looking on photograph number 40, does it
[14] appear to you as though any portion of the scalp or
[15] hair is darker - excuse me, number 38 - any
[16] portion of number 38 in the occipital area on the
[17] hair is disproportionately dark to other areas of
[18] the photograph?
[19] A: No, it's - I mean, the hair was sort of
[20] wet and damp. No, I don't see anything.
[21] Q: Does either photo number 38 or 39 appear
[22] to you to be underexposed?


Page 176

[1] A: One is, yes. Well, they're both a little
[2] underexposed. This one is blacking out.
[3] Q: You're referring now to number 39?
[4] A: Yes. It's a little dark.
[5] Q: Are you able to ascertain whether the
[6] black and white negatives are camera originals
[7] taken on the night of the autopsy?
[8] A: There's a hand over here. Not on there.
[9] There's a hand showing on the shoulder. It's a
[10] different exposure.
[11] Q: So that there is somewhat of a different
[12] view -
[13] A: Yes.
[14] Q: - on the black and white versus the
[15] color?
[16] A: In other words, you see a hand in here and
[17] here; but you don't see it over here.
[18] Q: You're referring to the hand in the black
[19] and white negatives?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: Are you able to determine in any way
[22] whether the black and white negatives are camera


Page 177

[1] originals taken on the night of the autopsy?
[2] A: They just look like it. I don't know.
[3] Q: Can you explain what the orientation of
[4] the body was, in relationship to the table, in this
[5] particular view?
[6] A: He was up, sitting up.
[7] Q: This is - these are photographs with the
[8] President sitting up?
[9] A: He was holding him up. Yes, he was
[10] holding him up. See, he's holding him up there.
[11] Q: So, in view number 4 that we are looking
[12] at here, the President's body is being propped up,
[13] so that his torso is approximating a 90 degree -
[14] A: Right.
[15] Q: - or coming close to a 90 degree angle
[16] from the table?
[17] A: Correct.
[18] Q: Mr. Stringer, can you identify the notches
[19] that are on the color photographs? Do you see the
[20] two notches there?
[21] A: Yes.
[22] Q: Where are the notches on the film when the


Page 178

[1] film is in the camera; whether top right, top left,
[2] bottom left, bottom right?
[3] A: That would go back many years ago. I
[4] think it's on the bottom right. I'm not sure.
[5] Q: If it is on the bottom right, would that
[6] mean that when the color - or when the final is
[7] printed, that the notches would be on the top
[8] right, to show the same view?
[9] A: Well, this is not printed. This is the
[10] original that was taken.
[11] Q: Okay. When "developed", I should have
[12] said, rather than "printed".
[13] A: Yeah.
[14] Q: So, if you were to now put these films,
[15] that are now in front of you, in the same angle
[16] that they were at the time you took the photograph,
[17] how would it appear? Would the photograph have
[18] been vertical in the camera, or would it have been
[19] in a landscape view?
[20] A: You have to have the emulsion out. So,
[21] this is -
[22] Q: Let's go back one step. What I would call


Page 179

[1] a portrait size, which would be with the length of
[2] it going vertically -
[3] A: Four-by-five.
[4] Q: - versus a landscape, where the longer
[5] portion would be the base.
[6] A: I understand.
[7] Q: Was - Could you take either a land -
[8] Using those terms - And if you have better terms,
[9] then, I would take those.
[10] But using the terms "landscape" and
[11] "portrait", did the four-by-five camera that you
[12] used do both landscape and portrait?
[13] A: Yes, you could turn the back.
[14] Q: Okay.
[15] A: Either up or down, or horizontal.
[16] Q: Okay. And are you able to tell what the
[17] position of the body was by looking at the notches
[18] and considering the portrait versus landscape
[19] format?
[20] A: No. No, because that would be the same
[21] place, because you'd be shooting on the emulsion.
[22] Would you turn this this way a minute?


Page 180

[1] Q: One of the questions for you is whether
[2] the body could be lying on his left shoulder,
[3] rather than -
[4] A: This is what I'm trying to see. Turn this
[5] one, too.
[6] Q: Again, just to put the - And I know this
[7] is what you were thinking about right now, but to
[8] put the question a different way: Is it possible,
[9] based upon the view that you can see here and by
[10] the notches in the shoulder - in the -
[11] A: The body was on its side.
[12] Q: The body was on its - lying on its left
[13] shoulder, rather than being propped up in something
[14] like a 95 degree angle? Based upon your
[15] re-examination -
[16] A: Well, I don't know, because here's your
[17] table here. And I don't know whether this is the
[18] buttocks down here or not. In other words, the
[19] body does not extend, which it should.
[20] See what I mean?
[21] Q: Mm-hmm.
[22] A: Here now, this was more of a closeup. You


Page 181

[1] don't have it all the way like it.
[2] Q: When you say a "closeup", you're referring
[3] to the -
[4] A: Well, not as a closeup, but it shows more
[5] detail than here where you can see. Where here,
[6] it's - But here, it looks like this is the table
[7] here. I don't know.
[8] Q: Would it be fair to say that you're
[9] uncertain as to whether the body is being propped
[10] up on the left shoulder versus whether the whole
[11] torso is being placed erect?
[12] A: Well, now, this looks like his arm coming
[13] out here - the left arm.
[14] Q: You're referring to number 38?
[15] A: Yeah, the color. That sort of looks like
[16] his left arm coming out under there, but you don't
[17] see it in here.
[18] Q: When you say "his left arm", you're
[19] referring to the left arm of the doctor?
[20] A: No, of the President. Of the patient. I
[21] don't know.
[22] Q: Would it look to you as though the person


Page 182

[1] behind the - that's partly holding up the body on
[2] photograph 38 is standing erect?
[3] A: Yes.
[4] Q: And if the President were being propped up
[5] at a 90 degree angle, the person would be on the
[6] side. Would that be correct?
[7] A: Let me turn this here.
[8] Q: Because if the President is being propped
[9] up, it wouldn't make sense to have someone in the
[10] background at that particular angle.
[11] A: No. That's correct.
[12] Q: So, then, by your re-evaluation, you would
[13] think it would be more likely that the President is
[14] being propped on his left shoulder?
[15] A: Yeah, and because his arm couldn't come
[16] out this far to show - his left arm. This is what
[17] I'd thought about, too. Over here, you have three
[18] hands. And here, you only have two.
[19] Q: When you say there are three hands, you're
[20] referring to the black and white negatives?
[21] A: Yes, the black and white negatives.
[22] Q: And the three hands that are on the


Page 183

[1] President's back?
[2] A: Mm-hmm. And here, you only have two.
[3] Now, you have this arm over here - wherever it is
[4] - here, in both of these.
[5] Q: In the color photos?
[6] A: Yeah.
[7] Q: Do you see the marking that is near the
[8] ruler - just to the right of the ruler? There's a
[9] larger one towards -
[10] A: Yes.
[11] Q: - the top of the ruler, and a smaller one
[12] below. Do you have any recollection now as to what
[13] those markings were?
[14] A: Well, I think they were pointing out a
[15] bullet entrance.
[16] Q: Did you take any closeups of the bullet
[17] entrances, closer than the photographs that you're
[18] looking at here?
[19] A: I don't think so. I don't know. I don't
[20] think so.
[21] Q: Would it have been standard practice in

[22] 1963 to have taken a closeup of the bullet entrance


Page 184

[1] that you've identified on exhibits 38 and 39?
[2] A: It would, again, depend upon the doctor
[3] and what they wanted to show.
[4] Q: From your knowledge of anatomy, would
[5] having a closeup of the entrance wound help
[6] determine something like angle of entrance of a
[7] bullet - or could it help determine the angle of
[8] an entrance of a bullet?
[9] A: It would show the tearing and the size,
[10] yes. It would show the size of the hole and the
[11] tearing of the skin or the tissue underneath.
[12] Q: And that would be helpful for determining
[13] the angle of entrance of a bullet?
[14] A: Yes.
[15] Q: Did anyone in the autopsy room suggest
[16] that you should not take a closeup of the bullet
[17] entrance wound?
[18] A: No.
[19] Q: Mr. Stringer, are you able to identify the
[20] portion of the top of the two color photographs
[21] that looks something as if it is at a - almost a
[22] straight line?


Page 185

[1] A: Mm-hmm.
[2] Q: What is that that's being portrayed there?
[3] A: You mean on the film itself?
[4] Q: On the film itself that looks as though
[5] it's part of President Kennedy's head, but it seems
[6] to be some kind of a straight line - straight -
[7] A: I think it's the edge of the film that's
[8] in the holder.
[9] Q: Not below the margin of the film, but onto
[10] the portion that appears red and with biological
[11] material.
[12] A: It's the flap that's down over the ear -
[13] of bone.
[14] Q: Do you know whether - That's a portion
[15] of the scalp that has been lacerated; is that
[16] right?
[17] A: Yes, the bone.
[18] Q: And is that - was that - It appears to
[19] be in something like a straight line. Does it
[20] appear that way to you? It's perpendicular with
[21] the President -
[22] A: Well, it was sort of an angle. Well,


Page 186

[1] right there.
[2] Q: The direction that my question is going is
[3] whether that was a surgically made incision, or
[4] whether that was -
[5] A: I would say no.
[6] Q: That was part of the disruption -
[7] A: Yes.
[8] Q: - of the scalp as it came in?
[9] A: Mm-hmm.
[10] Q: Are you able to determine from these
[11] photographs whether they were taken at the
[12] beginning, middle, or towards the end of the
[13] autopsy?
[14] A: I'd say it was probably - well, it was
[15] just after the start of the autopsy. I don't know
[16] how long it was into it, but it was not after they
[17] got into the body.
[18] Q: Okay. So, this was prior to the Y
[19] incision?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: And can you tell from these photographs
[22] whether the brain is still in the cranium?


Page 187

[1] A: I think it is, yes.
[2] Q: Are you able, yourself, to identify the
[3] location that the doctors made of the entrance
[4] wound in the skull of the President?
[5] A: On this photograph?
[6] Q: On photographs 38 and 39?
[7] A: No. No.
[8] Q: Was any attempt made to photograph what
[9] the doctors believed was the entrance wound on the
[10] skull of the President?
[11] A: I think on that closeup one, there was -
[12] where they had it on the screen up there, where
[13] they were talking to Riebe.
[14] Q: Okay. That was -
[15] A: That showed the back.
[16] Q: That this photograph that was on the
[17] screen?
[18] A: No. No. No, his-
[19] Q: I apologize. It's the next one.
[20] MR. GUNN: All right. If we could go to
[21] the next view, this will be the fifth view,
[22] photographs numbers 13 and 14 in black and white,


Page 188

[1] and 40 and 41 in color.
[2] Off the record.
[3] [Discussion off the record.]
[4] BY MR. GUNN:
[5] Q: Mr. Stringer, you're now looking at what
[6] has been described as the fifth view, as the "Right
[7] Anterior View of Head and Upper Torso, Including
[8] Tracheotomy Wound"; black and white negative,
[9] numbers 13 and 14, positive transparency numbers 40
[10] and 41.
[11] Are you able to determine whether the
[12] color transparencies are camera originals that you
[13] took
[14] A: I think so.
[15] Q: - during the night of the autopsy?
[16] A: I think so.
[17] Q: Does anything appear to you to be
[18] different in any way in the photographs versus how
[19] you observed it on the night of the autopsy?
[20] A: No.
[21] Q: Are you familiar with the autopsy room at
[22] the Bethesda Hospital?


Page 189

[1] A: I think so.
[2] Q: Does the floor that you see in the color
[3] photographs appear to be the way the floor -
[4] A: Tiled, yes.
[5] Q: Tile? Do you see any discrepancy between
[6] what you were recall this tile looking like versus
[7] the photographs?
[8] A: No.
[9] Q: Do you have any recollection as to whether
[10] the eyes of President Kennedy were open at any
[11] point during the autopsy?
[12] A: Yes.
[13] Q: Were they open at all points during the
[14] autopsy?
[15] A: Well, they kept trying to close them, and
[16] they'd open again.
[17] Q: Are you able to determine on the photos
[18] that you're looking at now whether they were taken
[19] before any autopsy procedures began?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: And what is the result of that?
[22] A: What do you mean?


Page 190

[1] Q: Were they taken before?
[2] A: Yes. They were taken before anything was
[3] done. There's no incisions. There's no nothing.
[4] Q: Do you see the wound in the anterior neck
[5] on the photographs?
[6] A: Yeah.
[7] Q: Does the size of the wound appear to be
[8] the size that appeared to you on the night of the
[9] autopsy?
[10] A: Well, there's blood around it, yes.
[11] Q: Does it look larger, smaller, same size as
[12] you observed on the night of the autopsy when the
[13] body was first brought in?
[14] A: It looks about the same, I think.
[15] Q: Have you seen other tracheotomy incisions?
[16] A: Yes.
[17] Q: Would you say that this tracheotomy
[18] incision is larger, smaller, about the same size as
[19] the average tracheotomy incision?
[20] A: It looked like - it looks like it was
[21] done in a hurry, so it's probably a little larger.
[22] Q: Is it a little larger; substantially


Page 191

[1] larger? How would you characterize it?

[2] A: Maybe a little larger. It was probably
[3] done by a doctor. Off the record.
[4] Q: At any time during the autopsy, did any of
[5] the doctors attempt to determine whether there were
[6] any bullet fragments in the anterior neck wound?
[7] A: Yes.
[8] Q: What did they do?
[9] A: Well, they checked on the X-rays. Did it
[10] by feel, or vision.
[11] Q: When you say "by feel", what do you mean?
[12] A: By feeling, to see if there was anything
[13] sharp or -
[14] Q: So, the doctor's fingers then would have
[15] been put into the tracheotomy wound, to attempt to
[16] determine whether any bullet fragments -
[17] A: And I think there was a probe put in
[18] there, too.
[19] Q: And the probe was put in from the front
[20] towards the back?
[21] A: Yes.
[22] Q: And what was the direction of the probe,


Page 192

[1] if you recall?
[2] A: It went straight in. I don't know. I
[3] don't know. All - I saw it in. I don't know
[4] whether it went up, down - you know, sideways, or
[5] what.
[6] Q: Was the body propped up, so the torso was
[7] in a vertical position when the probe was put in
[8] the neck?
[9] A: I think it was, at times. I think so.
[10] Q: Do you recall now -
[11] And I know I've asked you this question
[12] before, but just if anything has helped prompt your
[13] recollection is the reason I'm asking it again.
[14] - whether you took any photographs with
[15] the probe in the body?
[16] A: I don't think so.
[17] MR. GUNN: All right. Next view.
[18] The next view is the sixth view, which is
[19] "Wound of Entrance in Right Posterior Occipital
[20] Region"; black and white numbers 15 and 16, colors
[21] numbers 42 and 43.
[22] Off the record.


Page 193

[1] [Discussion off the record.]
[2] THE WITNESS: AII the other pictures show
[3] it printed this way - that I've seen.
[4] BY MR. GUNN:
[5] Q: Referring to a vertical -
[6] A: Yeah.
[7] Q: So, these in view number 6 are the first
[8] - my term - landscape; is that correct?
[9] A: Mm-hmm.
[10] Q: Are you able to determine by looking at
[11] these whether the two color transparencies are
[12] camera originals that you took on the night of the
[13] autopsy?
[14] A: I think so, yeah. And here again, it has
[15] a ruler in it, but no number.
[16] Q: So, thus far, you haven't seen any
[17j photographs that have the -
[18] A: The medical school thing on the top.
[19] There's no hole in the back of the head
[20] there; is there?
[21] Q: That's going to be my next question for
[22] you. Are you able to identify the hole that the


Page 194

[1] doctors identified on the night of the autopsy as
[2] being the entrance wound in the skull?
[3] A: I think this was a piece of bone, but it
[4] was down near there - right about in there.
[5] Q: You're referring to what appears to be a
[6] piece of matter or something -
[7] A: Yes.
[8] Q: - that is near the hairline?
[9] A: Mm-hmm. But it was near there.
[10] Q: And you're certain that that's where the
[11] doctors identified the entrance wound as being; is
[12] that correct?
[13] A: Yeah. Yeah, I would think so. That's
[141 what I remember.
[15] Q: I'd like to point out the spot that
[16] appears somewhat red that is near the end of the
[17] ruler, and ask you whether that was an entrance
[18] wound, or whether the doctors during the night of
[19] the autopsy identified that as an entrance wound?
[20] A: I don't think so, no.
[21] Q: Do you know what that red spot is that
[22] appears to be, in layman's terms, near the cowlick?


Page 195

[1] A: It looks like blood. I would say it was.
[2] There was blood all over the place. But I don't
[3] think it was anything out of the ordinary. I don't
[4] think there was a hole there for the bullet wound.
[5] You would have seen the hole.
[6] Q: Well, can you see the hole in any of the
[7] photographs that you're looking at?
[8] A: I haven't so far, no. But it was down,
[9] right about in here.
[10] Q: Do you recall taking any photograph that
[11] would show the entrance wound from an angle or a
[12] view better than the ones that you now have before
[13] you, view number 6?
[14] A: I don't remember.
[15] Q: In an autopsy, wouldn't it be important to
[16] take closeup photographs of the entrance wound of a
[17] bullet in the brain?
[18] A: Yes. To be identified, yes.
[19] Q: Mr. Stringer, could you pay particularly
[20] close attention to the occipital area of the skull,
[21] which - you can't see the skull, but just the
[22] scalp - and look very closely and make your best


Page 196

[1] judgment of whether you can tell whether there has
[2] been any alteration of the image?
[3] A: No, I think it's just from the lighting
[4] and the reflection.
[5] Q: By looking closely at both the matting of
[6] the hair and hair strands, does it appear to you
[7] that there may be any kind of alteration of the
[8] photograph?
[9] A: I don't think so.
[10] Q: Yet, would you say that in the place where
[11] you believe the doctors identified the bullet
[12] entrance wound, you can identify no entrance wound
[13] there?
[14] A: What did you say now?
[15] Q: Let me withdraw the question and ask the
[16] question again.
[17] Would it be fair to say that you are
[18] unable to identify, from these photographs in front
[19] of you now, the entrance wound in the head?
[20] A: But having been - Yes, from the
[21] photographs. But having been there, and heard it,
[22] and seen it -


Page 197

[1] Q: Are you surprised in any way that the
[2] entrance wound is not visible in these photographs?
[3] A: No. It could be down there, where that
[4] little piece of bone - or whatever it is there.
[5] Q: You're referring to that piece of what,
[6] again, looks like matter near the hairline?
[7] A: Yeah. And here again, it shows where the
[8] hole - the scalp was intact then.
[9] Q: And the intact scalp is what you recall
[10] from the night of the autopsy; is that correct?
[11] A: Yes, there was - But there was damage
[12] under it from the brain - from the skull being
[13] fractured and things like that.
[14] Q: Is this the image that you remember being
[15] shown to Mr. Riebe in the videotape, where he
[16] identified where he believed there was missing
[17] skull?
[18] A: Yes.
[19] Q: But to the best of your recollection,
[20] there was no missing skull in that location?
[21] A: It doesn't show there. It could have been
[22] something that cracked out from under there, once


Page 198

[1] they peeled it back.
[2] Q: Could you describe for me what your
[3] understanding is of what appears, to me, to be
[4] something like a flap?
[5] On the way that we are looking at the
[6] photograph now, with the head on the side, it is to
[7] the left of the ear. If the body were vertical, it
[8] would be to the -
[9] A: This flap came down like that. The flap
[10] came down like that. It was attached here.
[11] Q: You're showing, roughly, your right
[12] temple?
[13] A: Yeah. And it came down. And under there,
[14] there wasn't any bone and part of the brain was
[15] gone. Right about in this area here.

[16] Q: You're showing the parietal area above
[17] your right ear?
[18] A: Right.
[19] Q: Do you have any recollection now as to
[20] what portion of the scalp, viewing the head from
[21] behind, was lacerated at the time the autopsy
[22] began?


Page 199

[1] A: The scalp being lacerated?
[2] Q: Lacerated. Were there any tears, cuts in
[3] the scalp on the back?
[4] A: What you have here? No, there wasn't any
[5] in back.
[6] Q: No tears at all?
[7] A: No tears at all.
[8] Q: Are you able to determine from these
[9] photographs whether the brain has been removed?
[10] A: No, the brain hasn't been removed.
[11] Q: So, these photographs also would have been
[12] taken right at the beginning of the autopsy?
[13] A: Yes.
[14] Q: And do you have any recollection as to
[15] whether the hair was cleaned, cut, or wiped off in
[16] any way -
[17] A: I don't think it was ever cleaned, or cut,
[18] or wiped off.
[19] Q: Okay.
[20] A: Now, incidentally, in the black and white,
[21] there is no ruler. It could be down there. But
[22] seeing as some of the hair has been pulled down -


Page 200

[1] Of course, it was shot at a different time, it
[2] looks like. I mean -
[3] MR. GUNN: Steve, could we see one of the
[4] positive prints from either 15 or 16, black and
[5] white.
[6] THE WITNESS: And I can't see the thing on
[7] it - the wording.
[8] BY MR. GUNN:
[9] Q: So, in other words, you think that there
[10] is a ruler in the black and white negatives?
[11] A: Yes. But you can see where the hair has
[12] been pulled out. It's a little - See there,
[13] where the hair is out over the ruler?
[14] A: Mm-hmm.
[15] Q: So, it can't be a duplicate.
[16] Q: When you say "duplicate", it could not be
[17] a duplicate from the color -
[18] A: A copy, yes.
[19] Q: - transparencies?
[20] A: Yes.
[21] Q: If we could go back to the location of the
[22] entrance wound, where would you place it in


Page 201

[1] relationship to that spot down near the hairline?
[2] A: It was about right in that spot there.
[3] Right in there.
[4] Q: So, are you able to determine whether -
[5] with any greater precision, where it was in
[6] relationship to that spot? That is, above, below,
[7] to the right, to the left?
[8] A: I'd say maybe a little to the left.
[9] Q: A little to the left. And that is if
[10] President Kennedy were standing erect? So, it
[11] would be to his left, closer to the midline?
[12] A: Right.
[13] Q: Okay. Now you're looking at a positive
[14] eight-by-ten blowup of either -
[15] A: Black and white.
[16] Q: - 17 or 18, black and white. And with
[17] this blowup, do you note - or can you ascertain
[18] any difference in hair color or fluid on the hair
[19] between the lower portion of the scalp and the
[20] upper portion of the scalp?
[21] A: That's where they're trying to say it's
[22] been retouched.


Page 202

[1] Q: Do you notice any difference yourself in
[2] the texture of the hair in the upper portion of the
[3] scalp versus the lower portion of the scalp?
[4] A: Yeah, there is a little difference.
[5] Q: How do you account for that difference?
[6] A: It's a photograph. It's - Now, this
[7] looks matted, and this looks like it's dried out.
[8] MR. GUNN: First, let me make a
[9] correction. I think I said 17 or 18. And I should
[10] have said 15 and 16 a moment ago.
[11] BY MR. GUNN:
[12] Q: Now, the portion that you're referring to,
[13] the part that's lower - lower towards the scalp
[14] appears to be dried out, where the portion a little
[15] bit higher appears to be wet.
[16] A: To be matted.
[17] Q: Appears to be matted.
[18] A: Yeah.
[19] Q: Does it seem though the hair that is
[20] farther away from the hairline is longer than the
[21] hair that's closer to the hairline?
[22] A: No. Just look at it this way. The hair


Page 203

[1] is going down.
[2] Q: Is there any thing about the hair that is
[3] closer towards the hairline - that is, from the
[4] hairline to what looks to be an inch, maybe two
[5] inches above the hairline - to be any different
[6] kind of texture, other than what you've said before
[7] with the hair that's above the -
[8] A: No. Now, you see here. This in here
[9] looks like a hole to me.
[10] Q: You're referring to that little piece of
[11] matter that was near the hairline?
[12] A: It actually looks like a little piece of
[13] bone.
[14] MR. GUNN: Steve, could we see the other
[15] one? This is number 14. Excuse me, this is number
[16] 15. Could we see number 16, please?
[17] THE WITNESS: Now, this is what they're
[18] calling a matt. That it's been retouched; right?
[19] BY MR. GUNN:
[20] Q: You're talking about the inch or inch and
[21] a half above the hairline towards the top of the
[22] skull?


Page 204

[1] A: Yes.
[2] Q: Does that make sense to you in anyway, or
[3] does that seem to be inaccurate?
[4] A: I think if it were - if it's a
[5] retouching, it's an awful job. But I don't think
[6] it has been retouched.
[7] Q: When you say -
[8] A: Let me hold it this way.
[9] Q: When you say "an awful job", do you mean
[10] an awfully good job or -
[11] A: Awfully bad job.
[12] Q: Awfully bad job, if it's a retouching.
[13] A: But it looks to me like this is his hair
[14] coming down in there. And the light is flashing
[15] off of here. It's not flashing off of here. It's
[16] coming right back to the camera from here, because
[17] this is at an angle.
[18] Q: So, the reason that it appears that the
[19] hair farther from the hairline is wet or moist is
[20] because of the angle of the view -
[21] A: Yeah.
[22] Q: - is that correct?


Page 205

[1] A: Yeah, because your lights are flashing
[2] right back here. And this is like in the shadows.
[3] You can see the hair on his arm up there.
[4] It's the same sort of a pattern.
[5] Q: Is the quality of the focus in any portion
[6] of either the President's head or the hands of the
[7] doctor that are encased in rubber or some kind of
[8] plastic glove - does the quality of focus appear
[9] to be different anywhere?
[10] A: Well, back in here. But from here to
[11] here, it seems to be sharp.
[12] Q: When you say "back here", you're referring
[13] to the President's neck, not the -
[14] A: Well, the ear.
[15] Q: The ear and the neck, but not the hair?
[16] A: No. Well, along here on the neck. This
[17] one. No, I -
[18] Q: Having examined the positive eight-by-ten,
[19] could you now go back and look at the black and
[20] white negatives, and see whether that helps you at
[21] all identify any possibility of retouching or
[22] matting in the photographs?


Page 206

[1] A: No. No. They are two different
[2] exposures, and everything looks to be in place.
[3] MR. GUNN: All right. Could we try the
[4] next view? This next one will be view number 7,
[5] which is described as the "Missile Wound of
[6] Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection
[7] of Scalp", views number - or photos number 17 and
[8] 18 for the black and white, and numbers 44 and 45
[9] for the color.
[10] [Discussion off the record.]
[11] THE WITNESS: Your brain is out.
[12] BY MR. GUNN:
[13] Q: When you say the brain is out, I assume
[14] you're referring to President Kennedy's -
[15] A: Yes.
[16] Q: - brain being removed from the cranium?
[17] A: Yes.
[18] Q: Are you able to orient these photographs
[19] with relationship to the notches and whether these
[20] are in portrait or landscape?
[21] A: Well, not by the notches, but by - tell
[22] it more by anatomical. I think this is the back of


Page 207

[1] the head, and this is the side. And this is his
[2] cheek, yeah. See?
[3] Q: Okay. So, you're referring to -
[4] A: This is his shoulder.
[5] Q: Just so we can figure this out, there's a
[6] lock of hair that's curled. And that is now in the
[7] position at the bottom right-hand corner -
[8] A: Yes.
[9] Q: - from the way that you're looking at it,
[10] with what appear to be fingers - two fingers,
[11] probably a thumb and an index finger, in the bottom
[12] left-hand corner.
[13] A: With the ruler.
[14] Q: Okay. Now, with that as the orientation,
[15] when you refer to the cheek, where is the cheek
[16] located?
[17] A: Right up here. This is the cheek here.
[18] Q: Okay. So, the cheek is in the top right-hand
[19] corner.
[20] A: And here's your shoulder here, I think.
[21] Q: Okay. And can you identify what that -
[22] if that's the shoulder, what that is on the


Page 208

[1] shoulder?
[2] A: It looks like a glob of blood.
[3] Q: Okay.
[4] A: See, here. This is down over the eye
[5] here.
[6] Q: So, you're saying a flap -
[7] A: A flap.
[8] Q: - a flap of scalp that looks as though it
[9] would be down over the face or over the eyes.
[10] A: Now, this is - the bone is out of there.
[11] And this flap is down on this side. And they've
[12] pulled it, also, down in the - over the back -
[13] side in the back - and the front.
[14] Q: So, from the way that you're describing
[15] this that we're talking about parietal - the
[16] parietal area above the right ear? Would that be
[17] correct?
[18] A: Correct.
[19] Q: So, we're looking at the front of - or
[20] the top right -
[21] A: Top of the head.
[22] Q: Top of the head. We're not looking at the


Page 209

[1] skull from behind?
[2] A: No, you're right in on it - straight in
[3] on it. In fact, I think this is where it was cut
[4] - the brain. It comes up through the neck.
[5] Q: Do you see the things that look like
[6] something like ridges that appear towards the
[7] center of the photograph? Can you identify what
[8] those are?
[9] A: I think they're pieces of bone.
[10] Q: In the 1966 inventory, this is referred to
[11] as the "Posterior Skull" - this photograph showing
[12] the posterior skull. Based upon your own
[13] examination right now, is that a correct
[14] description?
[15] A: I'd say it is the top and the posterior.
[16] In other words, this is the top of the skull here.
[17] This is the top here. And this is the posterior.
[18] It's looking down into it, I'd say.
[19] Q: Now, this is being described as the
[20] "Missile Wound of Entrance". Would it be accurate
[21] to say that the missile wound of entrance is in the
[22] top of the skull?


Page 210

[1] A: Well, if they said it. But it wasn't
[2] true.
[3] MR. GUNN: Okay. Could we get the 1966
[4] inventory?
[5] BY MR. GUNN:
[6] Q: I'd like to show you a document that is
[7] marked Exhibit No. 13, and ask you whether you have
[8] previously seen that document?
[9] A: I've never seen it, as far as I recall.
[10] Q: Turn to the last page.
[11] A: I signed it; didn't I?
[12] Q: As best you can tell, is that your
[13] signature on page 11?
[14] A: That's my signature, yeah. And John
[15] Ebersole.
[16] Q: Could you turn to page eight of Exhibit
[17] 13, and look at numbers 44 and 45 - which, as far
[18] as I can understand, are the two transparencies
[19] that we're looking at now - where they are
[20] described as color prints of the "Missile Wound in
[21] Posterior Skull With Scalp Reflected"?
[22] A: That would be here. And then the exit


Page 211

[1] would be over here.
[2] Q: We can go back - also looking at number
[3] 17 and number 18, which refer to the "Missile Wound
[4] of Entrance in Posterior Skull".
[5] A: Mm-hmm.
[6] Q: Now, as you're standing here today in
[7] 1996, is there anything that you can determine as
[8] being inaccurate in description number 17 as a
[9] "Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull,
[10] Following Reflection of Scalp"?
[11] A: Well, it's in the posterior, but - But,
[12] anatomically, I would say this is the top of his
[13] head here. And this is the back of his head.
[14] Q: When you say the back of the head, you're
[15] referring to the portion below the photograph as we
[16] have oriented it previously -
[17] A: Yes.
[18] Q: - and not visible on the photograph?
[19] A: Yes.
[20] Q: So, it really is the top of the head,
[21] rather than the posterior that is shown?
[22] A: Well, I would think it was. I mean, they


Page 212

[1] were the doctors. I mean, they identified it.
[2] Q: Well, that is your signature on there.
[3] A: Yeah, but I did not identify it.
[4] Q: Who is the one who identified it?
[5] A: I was there to identify the photographs
[6] had been taken. They sat down and went over the
[7] photographs, Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. And
[8] Ebersole did the X-rays.
[9] Q: Was it your understanding at the time that
[10] they identified this that it was their
[11] understanding that this photograph depicted the
[12] entrance wound?
[13] A: I don't remember. I don't remember. But
[14] if it did, I don't think it's right.
[15] Q: So, in other words, your understanding
[16] right now would be this photograph - this view
[17] that we're looking at, numbers 17, 18, 44, and 45,
[18] do not depict the entrance wound in President
[19] Kennedy's skull; is that correct?
[20] A: No, it's - There's a wound there. But
[21] now whether they're saying this was it down here,
[22] where his finger is - But I don't know why the


Page 213

[1] ruler is up there.
[2] Q: So, if the ruler - if that is the
[3] entrance wound, the ruler is obstructing the
[4] entrance wound; is that correct?
[5] A: I would say.
[6] Q: Now, the photographs that you've looked at
[7] so far are all of the photographs that we have at
[8] the Archives that are purported camera originals
[9] taken during the night of the autopsy.
[10] Could you now think back - and we have
[11] been over this to some extent before - of any
[12] images that you remember having taken that are not
[13] present here?
[14] A: In the body cavity
[15] Q: The body cavity. Do you remember any
[16] photographs, other than the ones that you're
[17] looking at, that should have depicted the entrance
[18] wound in the skull, either from inside the cranium,
[19] outside the cranium, with scalp reflected, or scalp
[20] not reflected?
[21] A: Are there some color prints of this?
[22] Q: Yes. You're pointing to numbers 44 and


Page 214

[1] 45.
[2] A: Was this done when we went down to
[3] Archives? I signed it, but I never got a copy of
[4] it. I've never seen it before - only when I
[5] signed it, I guess.
[6] Q: At the time that you signed it, did you
[7] have an opportunity to read through the entire
[8] document?
[9] A: I guess, I did.
[10] Q: Do you remember whether you had an
[11] opportunity to question the accuracy of anything in
[12] the document?
[13] A: We talked there being missing photographs.
[14] I don't know whether this says anything about that
[15] in here, or not.
[16] Q: Could you look at the last sentence of the
[17] document, just before the signatures?
[18] A: That, to me, is wrong.
[19] Q: So, the statement that says that where
[20] it says that, "We have no reason to believe that
[21] any other photographs or X-rays were made during
[22] the autopsy" - is that the portion that you think


Page 215

[1] is incorrect?
[2] A: Photographs.
[3] Q: Photographs. That there were other
[4] photographs taken?
[5] A: Yes.
[6] Q: Another one that you had mentioned
[7] previously in your deposition was a full-view of
[8] the body from above.
[9] A: Yes.
[10] Q: And you don't see that photograph -
[11] A: No, I haven't seen that at all.
[12] Q: Would it be fair to say, then, that in the
[13] first inventory that we have record of, that was
[14] signed by you, a document dated November 22nd -
[15] that that inventory was incorrect? There were more
[16] photographs than were recorded on that inventory?
[17] A: We went over what they had there, yes.
[18] Q: And then in the inventory that was made in
[19] 1966, that that was inaccurate, as well; is that
[20] correct?
[21] A: Yes. Well, that was from the `66 one?
[22] Q: Yeah.


Page 216

[1] A: Yes. I think Dr. Humes, also, says there
[2] were some taken up by the top of the lung area,
[3] according to what I've been reading.
[4] Q: Can you explain to me any reason why Drs.
[5] Humes, Boswell, and yourself would have signed this
[6] statement in 1966, saying that it's a complete
[7] inventory, if you had reason to believe it was not
[8] a complete inventory?
[9] A: No.
[10] Q: Did anyone tell you to sign it?
[11] A: I don't know. I know we did talk about
[12] all of the pictures that were exposed were not
[13] there, because I brought up a thing about Captain
[14] Stover and his receipt of that.
[15] MR. GUNN: Okay. Could we go to the
[16] eighth view, which is the basilar view of the
[17] brain? It's going back to the 1966 inventory;
[18] black and white negatives numbers 19, 21, and 22,
[19] and color numbers 46, 47, 48, and 49.
[20] THE WITNESS: You did have one. There's
[21] another ruler, but that gives it to Fisher
[22] instruments.


Page 217

[1] MR. GUNN: Off the record.
[2] [Discussion off the record.]
[3] BY MR. GUNN:
[4] Q: Mr. Stringer, if I remember correctly from
[5] earlier in your testimony, you said that you had
[6] not recalled that there were any basilar
[7] photographs of the brain of President Kennedy.
[8] Can you identify whether the photographs
[9] that are in front of you now are basilar or
[10] superior views of a brain?
[11] A: They're basilar.
[12] Q: If I recall correctly, earlier in your
[13] testimony, you said that there were identification
[14] cards that were used for identification of the
[15] brain when photographs were taken. Was that
[16] correct?
[17] A: Well, there's a ruler there, but there's
[18] no identification on there.
[19] Q: Based upon these being basilar views of a
[20] brain and based upon there being no identification
[21] cards, are you able to identify with certainty
[22] whether these photographs before you now are


Page 218

[1] photographs of the brain of President Kennedy?
[2] A: No, I couldn't say that they were
[3] President Kennedy's. I mean, there's no
[4] identiflcation. AII I know is, I gave everything
[5] to Jim Humes, and he gave them to Admiral Burkley.
[6] Q: Do you have any recollection in 1996 about
[7] what the appearance of the brain of President
[8] Kennedy looked like at the supplementary
[9] examination?
[10] A: No.
[11] Q: Are you able to determine whether the
[12] photographs in front of you now are consistent with
[13] or not consistent with the brain, as you remember
[14] it from 1963?
[15] A: Well, it has to be, if that's Mr. Kennedy.
[16] Q: Well, that's the question.
[17] A: Yeah.
[18] Q: Does the brain in the photograph that
[19] you're looking at seem to be more hardened or drier
[20] than you recall at the time that you conducted this
[21] supplementary autopsy?
[22] A: No.


Page 219

[1] Q: The consistency looks to you, roughly,
[2] consistent with -
[3] A: A brain that has been fixed, yes.
[4] Q: Can you tell anything from the color of
[5] the brain in the photographs of how long it has
[6] been fixed?
[7] A: No, I couldn't.
[8] Q: Can you tell anything from the consistency
[9] as it appears in the photograph about how long the
[10] brain has been fixed from the -
[11] A: No, I would have no idea.
[12] Q: Okay. When you took the black and white
[13] photographs of the brain of President Kennedy, did
[14] you use a press pack?
[15] A: No.
[16] Q: Can you identify from the negatives in
[17] front of you whether those photographs are from a
[18] press pack? And I'm referring to numbers 19, 21,
[19] and 22.
[20] A: I think they are. Yes.
[21] Q: Would it be fair to say, then, that by
[22] your recollection, that the black and white


Page 220

[1] negatives in front of you now were not taken by you
[2] during the supplementary autopsy of President
[3] Kennedy?
[4] A: Correct. This is Ansco.
[5] Q: When you say "This is Ansco", what do you
[6] mean?
[7] A: This is Ansco film.
[8] Q: What is Ansco film?
[9] A: Well, it's a super high pan. And I think
[10] it's from a film pack.
[11] THE WITNESS: Have you got one of those
[12] other negatives I can see, from the -
[13] MR. GUNN: Seventeen or 18. Black and
[14] white negatives.
[15] THE WITNESS: See, the difference in
[16] them -
[17] BY MR. GUNN:
[18] Q: Just so I can identify this for the
[19] record, you now have in your hands a negative.
[20] A: A negative.
[21] Q: Number 18.
[22] A: It is identified with the film code on it.


Page 221

[1] Q: With the notches up on the corner?
[2] A: With the notches. On this, it has no
[3] notches.
[4] Q: When you say "this", you're now referring
[5] to the black and white negative -
[6] A: Yes. Yes, to the black and white
[7] negative, which is from a film pack.
[8] Q: Mr. Stringer, if I recall correctly,
[9] during the course of the deposition you identified
[10] three different factors relating to photography of
[11] the brain that would suggest that you would have
[12] had an identification number in it; you would not
[13] have used a film pack; and you did not take a
[14] basilar view of the brain. Is that correct?
[15] A: I think so, yeah. That's what - Whether
[16] I took that, I don't know. But, see, this is from
[17] a film pack, because they are numbered. This is
[18] film number two, film number one, and three. And
[19] that's from a film pack.
[20] Q: Okay.
[21] A: Because when it comes out of a holder, it
[22] is identified by the notch, because you have to


Page 222

[1] load it in the holder with a notch.
[2] Q: Okay. So, the first three black and white
[3] negatives would, presumably, have been taken
[4] sequentially by a black and white film pack; is
[5] that correct?
[6] A: Right. That's the way it was done.
[7] Q: Okay.
[8] MR. GUNN: Could we now go to the second
[9] view of the brain? So, this will be the ninth view
[10] - the superior of view of the brain; black and
[11] white negative numbers 20, 23, 24, 25, and color
[12] numbers 50, 51, and 52.
[13] [Discussion off the record.]
[14] BY MR. GUNN:
[15] Q: Mr. Stringer, what did you notice about
[16] the color positive transparencies when they were
[17] just brought out from their folders?
[18] A: Well, there's some spots on them. There's
[19] some white spots in the black portion.
[20] Q: That's in the margin?
[21] A: In the margin. And some white spots, but
[22] that's in the actual photograph - the white spots.


Page 223

[1] Q: In the image itself?
[2] A: In the image itself.
[3] Q: Do you know what those dots are - or
[4] perforations, whatever they - not perforations in
[5] the film, but what appear to be perforations -
[6] A: I don't know what it is. It's - but the
[7] same pattern in everything. It could be - But
[8] they're not on the black and white.
[9] Q: Have you ever noticed that before in any
[10] photographs that you have taken personally?
[11] A: I've never looked so closely before.
[12] Q: On the color photograph showing the
[13] superior view of the brain, do you recognize any

[14] identification tags or markings?
[15] A: Now, this film is also different than the
[16] other. You see the code in here? On all the other
[17] photographs, it's Ektachrome.
[18] Q: Okay. And these are not Ektachrome
[19] notches, or you're not certain? It's just that
[20] they're different.
[21] A: I'm not certain, but they're different.
[22] It's - I think it's a different type of film. It


Page 224


[1] could be Ansco film, like this.
[2] Q: Did you ever use Ansco film yourself in
[3] conducting medical photography?
[4] A: Not very often.
[5] Q: Did you use Ansco film in the - taking
[6] the autopsy -
[7] A: Not as far as I know.
[8] Q: - photographs of President Kennedy?
[9] A: Not as far as I know.
[10] Q: Is there any question in your mind whether
[11] you were the photographer of these images that are
[12] before you right now?
[13] A: Yes, if it's Ansco film, and if it's a
[14] film pack. I have no - I have no recollection of
[15] using a film pack.
[16] Q: Do you see any identification markers or
[17] identification numbers on the photographs?
[18] A: No. The only thing is, there's a Fisher
[19] instrument ruler, I think. Fisher Scientific. I
[20] don't know whether there was one in one of the
[21] medical photographs or not. There was a ruler, but
[22] I don't know whether it was a Fisher or not.


Page 225

[1] Q: You've now been shown all of the images of
[2] - from the supplementary autopsy. Did you see any

[3] images that would show a brain that had been
[4] sectioned in any way?
[5] A: No. No, I don't.
[6] Q: Are there any other photographs that you
[7] remember taking yourself during the supplementary
[8] autopsy that you haven't seen today?
[9] A: I had thought we had done some sections,
[10] cutting through the brain. But I don't see them.
[11] I could be mistaken. But this could be identified
[12] by a photo, the place where they have all of the
[13] notches.
[14] Q: Without looking at the photographs since,
[15] do you have a recollection in your mind of whether
[16] the cerebellum on President Kennedy was disrupted?
[17] I see you're looking at the photographs.
[18] A: You mean the - What do you mean?
[19] Damaged?
[20] Q: Whether it was damaged, lacerated, cut?
[21] A: Yes.
[22] Q: Was it?


Page 226

[1] A: Yes.
[2] Q: Do you see any damaged cerebellum in these
[3] photographs?
[4] A: No. Well, now, this was the damage over
[5] here. It didn't come through here. It came
[6] through, and then out this way.
[7] Q: Okay. Now, when you say "the damage
[8] here", you're pointing to the right cerebral
[9] hemisphere?
[10] A: Yes.
[11] Q: Okay. But not to the cerebellum?
[12] A: No.
[13] Q: That is, pointing at the photograph?
[14] A: Yes.
[15] Q: But your recollection is that the
[16] cerebellum of President Kennedy was disrupted. How
[17] seriously disrupted?
[18] A: No, it was not disrupted to - I don't
[19] think it actually was disrupted. It was up and out
[20] this way.
[21] Q: When you say "up and out this way", you're
[22] pointing at your head. So from, roughly, the


Page 227

[1] external occipital protuberance -
[2] A: Right here.
[3] Q: - out?
[4] A: Out here.
[5] Q: Out the side?
[6] A: Yeah.
[7] Q: On the parietal bone above the ear?
[8] A: Yeah, and then out here.
[9] Q: And is it your understanding that the
[10] trajectory of the bullet going from down below -
[11] near the external occipital protuberance out the
[12] side of the head in the parietal bone is consistent
[13] with a shot from above and behind?
[14] A: Yes.
[15] Q: In what way would that be consistent with
[16] a shot from above and behind?
[17] A: Well, he was bent over sort of. It went
[18] right through here, and then out.
[19] Q: Assuming, hypothetically, that he is not
[20] bent over, but was reasonably erect, would the
[21] trajectory that you have just described be
[22] consistent with a shot from above and behind?


Page 228

[1] A: I don't think so.
[2] Q: One last question, and this is probably
[3] repetitive from earlier questions we have. Was
[4] there anyone taking any motion picture
[5] photographs -
[6] A: Negative.
[7] Q: - during the night of the autopsy?
[8] A: Negative.
[9] MR. GUNN: Thank you very much.
[10] THE WITNESS: And how about Mr. Pitzer?
[11] BY MR. GUNN:
[12] Q: Was Mr. Pitzer present at the autopsy?
[13] A: He was not present. In fact, I shot his
[14] autopsy.
[15] Q: Photographed his autopsy?
[16] A: Yeah, excuse me.
[17] MR. GUNN: Okay. Thank you very much,
[18] Mr. Stringer.
[19] [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the taking of
[20] the deposition concluded.]
[21] [Signature waived.]
[22]


Home .. Alphabetical list of witnesses