Testimony of John T. Stringer, afternoon session
Whereupon,
JOHN T. STRINGER was recalled for examination by counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice and, having been previously duly sworn by the notary public, was examined and testified further as follows:
CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR U.S. JUSTICE BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Mr. Stringer—
A:
Yes?
Q:—to
the best of your recollection, what is the total number of exposures that you
made during the night of the autopsy?
A:
I haven't the slightest idea.
Q:
Do you recall any attempt to record numbers of photographs after the autopsy was
concluded?
A:
No, because we didn't have the holders. We took in so many film holders, and
then we saw that we needed some more. So,
we called the photo lab. And there was a first-class corpsman over there, who
was an instructor—and asked him to have some loaded up, which he did himself.
And he brought them over himself, and handed them through the door. And then
they brought them up to the table.
Q:
Are you able to visualize in your mind's eye an approximate number of holders
there were, the volume of holders?
A:
Oh, there must have been at least 20, 25, I would imagine.
Q:
And if there were somewhere in the area of 20 to 25 holders, that would mean
there would be somewhere in the area of 40—possibly 40 to—
A:
Times two.
Q:
Times two. So, 40 to 50 exposures. And to the best of your recollection, that
would have been both black and white and color?
A:
As far as I remember.
Q:
Okay. Do you remember anyone typing up any receipts on the night of November
22nd to—
A:
No.
Q:—document
the number?
A:
No. I think I received a copy from Captain Stover.
Q:
Were you ever asked to count the number of holders?
A:
No.
Q:
Were you ever asked to verify—this is in November of 1963—ever to verify the
number of exposures that had been made?
A:
No.
Q:
So, for example, the Secret Service didn't come to you and say, "How many
did you make?"
A:
No. I think they put them in a box and took them out. It was in a cardboard box.
I believe that's what happened. We could have counted them. I guess, we—Had we
thought about it, we could have counted how many were in the box. Or we could
have counted them when they sent them back. But, no, we didn't know whether they
were all sent back, or not.
Q:
Did you have any role whatsoever in terms of developing or processing any of the
autopsy photographs?
A:
No.
Q:
And that was different from standard procedure; is that correct?
A:
Yes; correct.
Q:
Did you ever play any role in developing or making copies of any of the X-ray
work that had been done at Bethesda on President Kennedy?
A:
I don't know. I don't think so, but I don't know.
Q:
Did you have an expertise in making duplicates of autopsy—of X-rays?
A:
No. We would make them for a print to be printed in the article. But to copy the
X-rays themselves, they did that in the X-ray department.
Q:
Okay. Did you have any training at all working with X-rays?
A:
Just by shooting them off a box onto film.
Q:
Okay. I'd like to show you a document we have marked Exhibit No. 78, and ask you
whether you recall having seen the document before?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Yes, you recall having seen it?
A:
Yes.
MR. GUNN: Let me state for the record that Exhibit No. 78 appears on its face to be a memorandum, dated November 22nd, 1963, from Captain Stover to Roy H. Kellerman.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
When did you first see the document that's marked Exhibit 78?
A:
I don't remember. It was sometime after the autopsy, because the captain had me
sign it.
Q:
Do you remember whether it was within a week of the autopsy, or a month of the
autopsy?
A:
Well, I wouldn't know. Maybe a week or so. I don't know.
Q:
Do you remember seeing the document, now marked Exhibit 78, on the night of the
autopsy?
A:
No.
Q:
Is that your signature, as best you can tell—
A:
Yes.
Q:—on
the bottom left?
A:
Yes, it is.
Q:
Do you have any reason to question the accuracy of the numbers that are recorded
on—
A:
No.
Q:—No.
78?
A:
No.
Q:
Do you notice there's a change—a handwritten change, with what appear to be
the initials JHS next to the changes?
A:
Yes. That was Stover.
Q:
Do you have any knowledge about why there was a change?
A:
Yes, because we talked about the—In some sort of way, we talked about it.
Q:
In what way did you talk about it?
A:
They talked about the number of holders, and whether it was—Rittmar or
somebody said he gave so many holders to us. And the 8 and, evidently, the 6
were changed from 11 to 9.
Q:
When you signed the document now marked 78, did you—were you assuming that you
were either agreeing, or disagreeing, or making any comment about the accuracy
of the numbers?
A:
I was agreeing with, it should be 11 and 9. There was some sort of a meeting.
It's hazy, as to what was going on. But it was with Stover.
Q:
Approximately, when did the meeting take place, as best you can recall?
A:
I think it was probably on the morning after. I don't remember. Because I didn't
see Stover that eve—I saw him, but I didn't see him when I left. He was there
all during the autopsy.
Q:
Now, previously in your deposition today, if I recall correctly, you said that
it was your habit to expose both of the two sheets of film in each holder; is
that correct?
A:
Mm-hmm.
Q:
Now, if there had been 11 holders, how many sheets would that, then, be?
A:
It would be 22.
Q:
Now, I notice up in the—under sub A there, it refers, with the change, to 11
Graphic film holders containing 16 sheets of exposed Ektachrome E3 film. Should
the number of sheets have been 22?
A:
Yes. In other words—I remember now—they said they had received some holders
without film, which—I say, it couldn't have happened.
Q:
Who was "they" who received some holders without film?
A:
Whoever it was that took the film over to be developed. They said they had
received some holders that didn't have film in it. And I disputed it.
Q:
Did you say—With whom did you dispute it?
A:
With Captain Stover.
Q:
Did the number 11 seem to be correct to you for the number of holders for the
color film?
A:
Well, I don't know where the number came from, but it sounds sort of correct.
Q:
Now, when I had asked you what your estimate was for the number of holders, you
suggested that it would be somewhere between 20 and 25.
A:
Yeah.
Q:
Now, if you add the 11 holders together with the 9 holders, that certainly comes
up with the number 20, which would be roughly what your recollection was.
A:
Yes.
Q:
If those numbers for the holders, 11 and 9, were correct, then, your assumption
would be that there would have been approximately 40 negative—or 40 films
exposed on the night of the autopsy.
A:
Yeah.
Q:
Give or take one or two, I presume.
A:
Yeah. There were some views that we—that were taken that were missing.
Q:
Why is it that you say that some of the views that were taken are missing?
A:
We went down to see them two years afterwards, and I remember some things inside
the body that weren't there.
Q:
Is there anything else that you remember that wasn't there?
A:
I think it had to do with the adrenal system.
Q:
Any others that you remember?
A:
Not off—
Q:
Or, I guess, remember not being there?
A:
Not offhand.
Q:
Do you remember seeing an image of the entire—or the full length of the body
of the President?
A:
I don't remember.
Q:
Under sub A on Exhibit 78, it refers to Ektachrome E3 film. Does that help
refresh your recollection as the type of film—
A:
Yes, it does.
Q:—that
was used?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Earlier, if I recall correctly, you had said that you understood that it was
Kodachrome.
A:
Yeah.
Q:
It was Ektachrome E3?
A:
I would say it was Ektachrome, yes.
Q:
And does Ektachrome E3 create color transparencies?
A:
Yes.
Q:
And those are positive color transparencies?
A:
Yes.
Q:
For the portrait pan film in sub B, is that black and white film?
A:
Yes.
Q:
And would that create a negative transparency?
A:
Yes, it would. So, it could be printed black and white.
Q:
Under sub C, there's a reference to a roll of Ektachrome 120 E3 exposed film.
Previously, I had asked you about the one 120 film; and I believe, if I recall
correctly, that you had said that you presumed that it was black and white.
A:
It was black and—Well, it says Ektachrome here, but I thought it was black and
white.
Q:
Which would you think is more likely to be correct; your recollection from that,
or what is stated on Exhibit 78?
A:
I wouldn't have any idea. It was a roll of 120. I would have thought it was
black and white, but it could have been Ektachrome. I didn't see it after it was
done. I didn't see it when it was loaded.
Q:
Okay. Would you be able to tell today—If we had the roll of film that's
identified as being the same as in sub C here, would you be able to tell whether
that was Ektachrome E3, or whether it was a portrait pan film?
A:
I would think so.
Q:
Do you see the phrase, next to last sentence, of the document—and I'll read it
to you: "To my personal knowledge, this is the total amount of film exposed
on this occasion." Do you see that?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Is it your understanding that that statement is incorrect?
A:
Well, yes. If they say that there were only 16 sheets out of 11, I'd say that's
incorrect.
Q:
When you signed this document, Exhibit 78, were you intending to either agree or
disagree with the conclusion reached in the second to last—next to last
sentence?
A:
I told him that I disagreed with him, but they said, "Sign it."
Q:
And who is "they" who said, "Sign it"?
A:
Captain Stover.
Q:
Was Mr. Riebe in the room when you signed this?
A:
I don't remember. His signature is on it, so I guess he was there. But I don't
remember.
Q:
Do you recall anything further regarding the discussion with Dr. Stover
regarding the number of exposures that had been taken at the autopsy?
A:
No. I don't remember.
Q:
For example, did Captain Stover make any reference to who it was who told him
that the numbers were different from what your own recollection was?
A:
He said from wherever they were processed that they said they had received some
empty film holders on one side or the other.
Q:
Did he tell you where they would have been processed?
A:
I don't know whether it was he or—Somebody told me they were done at Anacostia.
Q:
Had you ever been to the facility—You're referring to the naval yard at
Anacostia?
A:
The naval photo center at Anacostia, yes.
Q:
Had you ever been to the photo center at Anacostia?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Did you know any of the people who worked there?
A:
I think so.
Q:
Did you ever talk to anyone who worked there about processing the autopsy
photos?
A:
No. I don't think so, no.
Q:
Do you recall the names of any people, who worked there, now?
A:
That work there now?
Q:
No. Do you recall now any of the names of the people who worked there in 1963?
A:
There was a fellow name, I think, of Rusteberg. He was a Commander in charge of
research, I think. But—there were several others, but I don't remember their
name.
Q:
Do you have any understanding as to why this would have been processed at the
naval center at Anacostia, rather than at Bethesda?
A:
They said they want to keep everything secret, and they had the facilities over
there to do it.
Q:
Were the facilities at Anacostia better than the facilities at Bethesda, or were
they practically equivalent, or—
A:
I'd say they're almost the same. Of course, they had a much larger lab.
Q:
Was there any reason that you would not have been able to process the Ektachrome
E3 film—
A:
No.
Q:—at
Bethesda?
A:
No.
Q:
And would the same be true for the portrait pan film?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Other than the numbers on Exhibit 78 and the statement that we made reference
to, the next to last sentence, is there anything else that you can identify in
Exhibit 78 that is inaccurate to the best of your understanding?
A:
No.
Q:
At the time that you signed Exhibit No. 78, do you recall whether the signature
of Mr. Kellerman down at the bottom was there or not?
A:
No, I don't. From reading it, I imagine it was sent to him, and then he signed
it as receiving it. I don't remember, to tell you the truth.
Q:
Okay.
A:
All I got was a copy of it, and I don't know where that is.
Q:
Did you ever hear any discussion about whether there had been any frames
on—any frames from the 120 film that had been exposed?
A:
I don't think there was any exposed, no.
Q: Mr. Stringer, I'd like to show you a document that is marked Exhibit MD 44. I assume that you have not previously seen the document before, but I'd just like you to take a quick look and tell me whether you have seen it before, or not.
MR.
GUNN: I'll state for the record that MD 44 appears on its face to be a
memorandum, dated 11/26/63, written by Francis X. O'Neill and James W. Sibert.
THE
WITNESS: No, I've never seen it before.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Could you turn to page five of Exhibit No. 78? Do you see down towards the
bottom there's—there are numbers of X-rays and photographs?
A:
Mm-hmm.
Q:
Do you see where it stated, "One roll of 120 film containing five
exposures"?
A:
Yes, I do.
Q:
Does that help refresh your recollection about any exposures from the 120 film?
A:
No. I saw the film got taken out of the camera. That's all I know.
Q:
You saw it yourself as it was being taken out of the camera?
A:
Yes.
Q:
In the hypothetical case that there had been some film with some exposures, and
then the film is taken out of the camera and exposed to light, would you be able
to identify exposures on the film, or would it all be clear?
A:
It should be all clear.
Q:
So, you wouldn't be able to identify the number of exposures by looking at film
exposed to light?
A:
I don't think so.
Q:
Do you recall having previously heard of the names of Francis O'Neill or James
Sibert?
A:
Well, faintly; yeah.
Q:
In what respect do you have—do you recall having heard the names?
A:
They were agents, I believe; weren't they?
Q:
FBI agents?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Did you ever speak to Mr. Sibert or Mr. O'Neill?
A:
Not that I can remember.
Q:
According to the document marked Exhibit 44, they were both FBI agents present
at the autopsy. Does that help refresh any recollection that you might have
regarding any conversations you might have had with them?
A:
No. I didn't know who I talked to there, because there were a lot of people
there that I didn't know.
Q:
Would it be fair to say that if you talked to them, you did not know what their
names were at the time?
A:
Correct.
Q:
Did you ever speak to Mr. Riebe about the apparent discrepancy in the number of
films that had been exposed on the night of the autopsy?
A:
I don't know whether I did or not.
Q:
After the conversation with Captain Stover that you discussed earlier, did you
ever raise the issue with him again?
A:
I don't know, but we raised the issue when we saw the photographs in `66.
Q:
What happened in 1966 when you raised the issue?
A:
Nothing.
Q:
To whom—When you say "we raised the issue", whom are you referring
to?
A:
Well, when we were at the Archives—whoever was there.
Q:
Did you go with Dr. Humes?
A:
Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell.
Q:
Were Drs. Humes and Boswell under the impression that there were some
photographs missing?
A:
We talked about it, yes.
Q:
And whom did you talk to about it?
A:
We talked when we were there. I said there were some missing—because of that
memorandum that it came back that there were some empty holders there. And the
fellow that loaded them said there was no way there were any empty holders
there.
Q:
Was the person with whom you spoke in 1966 an official connected with the
Archives, or with the Justice Department; or do you know whom?
A:
No, I don't know. I guess, he was from the Archives. I don't know.
Q:
Do you recall the name Carl Belcher from the Department of Justice? Does that
ring a bell?
A:
No.
Q:
Do you have any idea who the person was whom you met with, either the name, or
the position, or—
A:
You mean at the Archives?
Q:
At the Archives.
A:
No.
Q:
Was there more than one person that you met with?
A:
I think there was. At least two, I believe.
Q:
Did you meet with them on more than one occasion?
A:
No.
Q:
So, just that once. How long were you at the Archives in 1966?
A:
Hour and a half, I'd say. I don't remember, actually, the time. I know they
logged us in and out.
Q:
I'd like to come back from 1966 and return to November of 1963, if we could.
After the night of the autopsy, November 22nd and 23rd, did you ever attend a
supplementary brain examination related to the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Approximately, how long after the autopsy of President Kennedy did you go to the
supplementary examination?
A:
I'd say it was three or four days. I don't remember.
Q:
I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 19, three different passages—pages 12, 13,
and 15—where there is reference made to the supplementary autopsy two or three
days afterwards. Does that help refresh any recollection that you have regarding
the amount of time?
A:
No.
Q:
Is there any event that you can connect the timing of the supplementary autopsy
to? For example, a workday versus a weekend?
A:
I think it was on a Monday, after a weekend. I'm not sure, but I think.
Q:
President Kennedy was buried on Monday. Do you have any recollection—
A:
No. It wasn't the day of the funeral, no.
Q:
Do you recall whether it was before or after the funeral?
A:
No, I don't.
Q:
Why is it that you feel confident that it was not the day of the funeral?
A:
Because I saw the funeral on television.
Q:
And you were at home that day?
A:
Yes.
Q:
You didn't go into the office?
A:
No, I don't think so.
Q:
Okay.
A:
Now, this was done in a morning—when they took the brain out. I mean, when
they had it out of the formalin.
Q:
Okay. When did you first hear or understand that you would be involved in the
supplementary examination of the brain?
A:
Gee, I don't remember. They took the brain out and put it in the jar with the
formalin, and said, "We will get to this later."
Q:
Okay. When they took the brain out, do you recall whether they weighed the brain
or not?
A:
I believe so. I'm not sure, but I think they—They generally weigh everything.
Q:
Do you have any recollection as to what the—or how much of the brain had been
blasted away, or any—Do you have any mental picture of the size of the brain
at the time that it was removed?
A:
There was some, but I don't think there was much more than the side of your fist
that was gone. Of course, the brain is soft in there. And it's hard to see what
it's laying down in.
Q:
Do you recall how you got the message that it was time to start the
supplementary exam?
A:
Well, Dr. Humes, I guess, called and said, "We'll meet in the autopsy room
and section the brain."
Q:
Okay. Who else was present at the time of the supplementary exam?
A:
I think it's just—that it was Boswell, Humes, and myself. I don't know whether
there was a corpsman in the room or not.
Q:
Would the corpsman have been with you for photographic purposes?
A:
No.
Q:
This is—
A:
No. No.
Q:
So, this would have been a medical corpsman?
A:
It would have been somebody from the lab—from pathology, from the morgue.
Q:
Okay. About how long did the supplementary exam take place?
A:
I don't think much more than an hour.
Q:
After the supplementary exam, did you ever have any further involvement with any
supplementary examination of tissues or organs of the President?
A:
No.
Q:
What happened during the supplementary exam, if you could describe the process?
A:
They took it out, and put it on the table, and describe it as to the condition,
took some sections of it. We
took some pictures of it. I had a copy board there with the light coming from
the—well, from underneath and with the lights down on it, and shot pictures of
the brain.
Q:
As it was being sectioned?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Were the sections small pieces, or cross sections of the entire brain? How did
that work?
A:
If I remember, it was cross sections.
Q:
And what was the purpose of doing the cross section of the brain?
A:
To show the damage.
Q:
Was the cross purpose at all related to showing the path of the bullet?
A:
I don't know.
Q:
Was the brain weighed at the time of the supplementary exam?
A:
I don't think so.
Q:
Do you recall whether there was a scale in the room at the time of the
supplementary exam?
A:
I don't think in the room where we were, no. We were in a off-room from the
actual autopsy room.
Q:
So, it wasn't in—It was in the morgue, but not—
A:
Yes.
Q:—in
the autopsy room?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Okay. Who is the one who did the sectioning of the brain?
A:
Dr. Humes. And Boswell was there, assisting.
Q:
What kind of photographic equipment did you take with you?
A:
The four-by-five view camera.
Q:
The very same camera you'd had before?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Did you have the same lights that you had had before?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Were the speed lights left at the morgue—
A:
No.
Q:—or
do they go back and forth?
A:
They go back and forth.
Q:
Did anyone help you carry the camera to the morgue?
A:
I think I sent it down by several corpsmen. And they set it up, and then I came
down.
Q:
What kind of film did you use during the supplementary exam?
A:
It was color film.
Q:
Did you take any black and white photographs?
A:
I don't know. Normally, I would have.
Q:
Had you taken black and white photographs, would it have been portrait pan film?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Would you have taken black and white photographs with a press pack—
A:
No.
Q:—or
would it have been the two film holder—
A:
Two film holder things.
Q:
Do you recall approximately how many photographs you took of the brain?
A:
There wasn't too many. I don't remember; but there wasn't more than six or
eight, I don't think.
Q:
Six or eight views, or six or eight holders?
A:
Six or eight holders.
Q:
What angles did you take of the brain?
A:
Top down.
Q:
Top down. Did you take any pictures of the brain as a whole?
A:
Yes.
Q:
And did you take a basilar view of the brain?
A:
No.
Q:
So, it's just from above?
A:
Above. And then when they sectioned, the section was done.
Q:
Okay. Early in the deposition, you made reference to identification tags being
used. Do you have a recollection as to whether there were identification tags
used at the time of the photography of the brain?
A:
No, I don't remember. But there should have been.
Q:
Do you remember identification tags during the time of the original autopsy?
A:
There were one or two. The rest of the time, they were done away with.
Q:
Why were they done away with?
A:
There was not time to put them in to get them set up.
Q:
When you're referring, then, to being done away with, are you referring to the
exposure on the film that would identify it? Or do you mean to the ruler, or the—
A:
Well, the ruler.
Q:
Does it really take that much time to put a ruler into a photo?
A:
Well, they get it set up and all that. I mean, when they were doing it, they
were in a hurry and said, "Let's get it over with."
Q:
Did you object to that at all?
A:
You don't object to things.
Q:
Some people do.
A:
Yeah, they do. But they don't last long.
Q:
Was the person who was hurrying the photography Dr. Humes, or was that somebody
else?
A:
Well, there were a lot of people hurrying. They wanted to get it over with. From
the presidential party to—
Q:
Do you remember anything that was said regarding the—expediting the
photography?
A:
No, not other than saying, "Let's get going."
Q:
Okay. At the time the autopsy was concluded—So, we're back to November 22nd,
23rd. At the time the autopsy was concluded, had the doctors reached any
tentative conclusion about the number of shots or the angle of the shots that
had hit President Kennedy?
A:
I think they had, yes.
Q:
What was your understanding of the number of shots that had hit him.
A:
Two.
Q:
And where—what was the trajectory of those shots in the body?
A:
One from the back that came out the side. And then the other one, from down in
the neck, came out here.
Q:
You have a recollection that during the night of the autopsy, the doctors
believed that there was—that the wound in the front of the neck was an exit
wound from the back?
A:
I think so.
Q:
Do you recall any telephone call between the autopsy room and Dallas with
doctors at Parkland Hospital?
A:
I think it was the one—Yes. I think it was one of the agents called. I'm not
sure.
Q:
Did they report—did any of the agents report what doctors in Dallas had said
regarding wounds on the President's body?
A:
I heard somebody say something about a tracheotomy. Who said it, I don't know.
Q:
Did the agent report anything about there being a bullet wound in the same
location as the tracheotomy?
A:
I don't remember. I don't remember if anybody said that, but—
Q:
I believe that when I—Sorry to jump around here a little bit, but—I believe
that when I asked you about the film that was used at the supplementary exam, I
asked you about the portrait pan film, but I didn't ask you about the color
film. What was—what kind of color film was it—
A:
Ektachrome, I'm sure.
Q:
Ektachrome?
A:
Ektachrome.
Q:
So, it would be Ektachrome E3?
A:
Mm-hmm.
Q:
The same would have been used at the autopsy.
A:
Yes.
Q:
Okay.
A:
Did they ever find that film?
Q:
We'll soon find out. You'll be the one who will tell us.
A:
Did they ever find the brain?
Q: We're still looking.
MR. GUNN: Why don't we take a short break here, and we'll ask Steve to get the films.
[Recess.]
MR.
GUNN: Okay. We're now looking at transparencies—both positive and negative
transparencies, four-by-five, that have been provided by the Archives. It's
our understanding that, according to the chart that is marked—chart identified
as "Autopsy Photographs, Numbering Supplied by November 10, 1966
Inspection", we are now looking at the first view, which has been described
as "Left Side of Head and Shoulders", corresponding with color numbers
29, 30, and 31. Mr.
Stringer, are you able to identify the photographs on the screen now, both the
positives and the negatives, as having been photographs that you took on the
night of November 22nd, 1963?
A:
Well, this, I think, is.
Q:
When you're pointing to the one—
A:
The positive.
Q:
This would be number 31?
A:
Yeah, the positive.
Q:
And the positive you've identified is number 31 that you—
A:
I think so.
Q:—that
you took on the night of the autopsy?
A:
Mm-hmm.
Q:
And with respect to number 30—
A:
The same. The same all the way through.
Q:
Okay. Are you able to identify whether the camera original—whether the three
numbered 29, 30, and 31 positive transparencies are camera originals?
A:
They look like it.
Q:
Is it possible to make duplicates of the positive transparencies that would be
difficult to identify from the originals?
A:
Maybe from the first generation; but after you make more copies, then, it's—
Q:
But you have no reason to believe these are anything other than the camera
originals?
A:
No, I have no reason.
Q:
Is there any reasonable possibility the negatives for numbers 29, 30, and 31
could have been camera originals?
A:
I don't think so.
Q:
Why is it that you would say that you think that they couldn't be?
A:
Because I don't think I took those. I mean, I think these were copied from them.
Q:
So, the negatives were—are internegatives taken from the—
A:
Yes.
Q:—positive
transparencies; is that fair?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Is there anything about photographs numbers 29, 30, and 31 that look to you as
if they have been altered in any way from the way that you took them on November
22nd?
A:
No.
Q:
Had President Kennedy's body been cleaned or had his hair been combed in any way
prior to the time that you started the autopsy photograph?
A:
I don't think so, no. Well, the body had been washed, yes, but—
Q:
Was the hair washed at any point that you saw?
A:
I don't remember. It does not look like it.
MR. GUNN: Okay. If we could take numbers 1—or numbers 29 and 30 off the screen, and put on black and white numbers 1 through 4, and just keep—
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Mr. Stringer, you have just been shown the black and white negative
transparencies that are identified as numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the first view
on the 1966 inventory. As you look at those, are you able to identify whether
those are the camera originals that you exposed on the night of President
Kennedy's autopsy?
A:
They look like it to me.
Q:
Is there any question in your mind about whether those are the original
negatives?
A:
No, I don't think so.
Q:
Could those negatives be internegatives taken from the positive transparencies?
A:
I don't think so.
Q:
Mr. Stringer, I'd like to point out the figure in the background on the color
transparency and the positioning of the figure, and ask you whether you can
identify that same figure in any of the four negative transparencies?
A:
No.
Q:
Would that—
A:
There's something here, but then you don't get this background. And there's
something there.
Q:
And is the figure in a different position?
A:
Yeah, that's a different—
Q:
Based upon the background figures, are you able to identify whether any of the
photographs, numbers 1 through 4, would be internegatives taken directly from
photograph number 31?
A:
Now, these two are alike.
Q:
You're referring now to a positive—
A:
Yes.
Q:—transparency
and the negative transparency?
A:
But I don't see any black and white on it.
Q:
Then, the black and white—the background is different—
A:
Correct.
Q:—between
the four black and whites and the positive color transparency; is that correct?
A:
That is correct.
Q:
And, so, if the photograph—the black and white photographs are internegatives
taken from number 31, there would have had to have been changes in the
background, as well; is that correct?
A:
That's correct.
MR. GUNN: Okay. Go to the next one. Take black and white numbers 5 and 6. And then color numbers 26, 27, and 28.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
The photographs that we're looking at now from the 1966 inventory are black and
white negatives numbers 5 and 6, and positive color transparencies 26, 27, and
28, as well as the color negatives for 26, 27, and 28. Mr.
Stringer, do the three color originals from 26, 27, and 28 appear to you to be
the camera originals—
A:
Yes.
Q:—that
you took on November 22nd?
A:
Mm-hmm.
Q:
It appears to me, as an untrained observer, the exposure level is different in
the three photographs. Is that correct?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Was that done for any particular purpose?
A:
Yes. They were bracketed.
Q:
And why did you bracket them?
A:
To get a good exposure.
Q:
So that one—With the theory being that one of the three exposures would come
out correctly?
A:
Correct.
Q:
Mr. Stringer, are you able to determine whether the negatives that are below
each of the positive transparencies are internegatives taken from the positive
transparencies?
A:
I think they are.
Q:
Is there any question in your mind whether the negative—the color negatives
might have been the camera originals that you took on November 22nd? Right now,
again, speaking of the color negatives.
A:
Color negatives?
Q:
Yes.
A:
That they were taken at the time of the autopsy?
Q:
Could those have been camera originals?
A:
I don't think so.
Q:
Do the photographs—color transparencies number 26, 27, and 28 appear to you to
be altered in any way from the way in which you took them on the night of
November 22nd?
A:
No, I don't think so.
Q:
Could you now look at the black and white negatives, numbers 5 and 6, and tell
me whether those are camera originals that you took on November 22nd?
A:
I think they are camera originals.
Q:
Earlier in your deposition, you said that you would be able to identify whether
black and white negatives were from a press pack or a two-film holder by notches
or numbers. Are you able to identify the—
A:
Yes. This is not from a press pack.
Q:
So, the two that you just pointed out, numbers 5 and 6, were taken from a—
A:
From a film holder.
Q:—from
a film holder and not from a press pack?
A:
Correct.
Q:
Are you able to determine now whether the two black and white photographs could
be internegatives taken from the color positives?
A:
I don't think they're internegatives. They look like originals.
Q:
I'd like you to note the gray figure that is just in front of President
Kennedy's nose—or just to the right of the nose in two black and white
negatives, and ask you whether you can identify something equivalent in the
color transparencies?
A:
There's something down in there. Right there.
Q:
For your typical mode of taking photographs, would you move the camera on the
tripod between exposures?
A:
You wouldn't move it, but it's possible it could have been moved a fraction. But
you generally don't move it to get the scene.
Q: Okay.
MR. GUNN: Okay. Could we go now to the third view? This will be black and white numbers 7, 8, 9, and 10, and color numbers 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. We'll go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Mr. Stringer, are you able to identify black and white negatives 7, 8, 9, and 10
as being camera originals that you took on the night of November 22nd, 1963?
A:
You mean the color?
Q:
Black and white negatives.
A:
Black and white? I think so.
Q:
And with respect to the positive transparencies 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37, do
those appear to you to be positive transparencies that you took on the night of
November 22nd—
A:
Yes, there's a little movement in some of them.
Q:
What do you mean by "movement"?
A:
Well, this one appears over this way more in the—on the film.
Q:
You're talking—
A:
The camera might have moved.
Q:
You're talking about the location—
A:
Yeah, shoulders. Yes.
Q:—of
the body within the frame of the photograph?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Is there anything on photographs numbers 32 through 37 that appears to you to be
inaccurate with respect to what you observed on the night of November 22nd?
A:
Well, now, which one of those? Here?
Q:
The four—the six color.
A:
Six color. Well, the angle is changed. These three are alike, and these three
are alike. So, you have two different angles. You can see the table above there.
Q:
And as you say—as you're pointing to these, you're pointing to the different
photographs, and suggesting that there are two different views, even though—
A:
Right.
Q:—they're
quite close?
A:
Right.
Q:
But one is from a slightly elevated position, elevated—
A:
That's correct. One shows more of the face. And there are two of these. They're
together—the same as the color.
Q:
When you refer to that, you're pointing to the four black and white negatives—
A:
Black and white, yes.
Q:—and
suggesting that, again, two of those are from a slightly elevated position—
A:
Correct.
Q:—over
the other two?
A:
Correct.
Q:
So, they're showing very similar views of slightly different angles?
A:
Yes. I think they wanted to get—to show more of the forehead.
Q:
With respect to the four negatives, are you able to identify whether those came
from a press pack versus a two-film holder?
A:
Well, they're—If they're imitations, they're good.
Q:
Do you have any reason to believe they are imitations?
A:
No, I have no reason to believe it.
Q:
I should have asked you this question previously, but let me ask you. With these
and any of the previous photographs that we've looked at, have you seen any of
the identification cards that typically were used at autopsies to identify the
decedent?
A:
No.
Q:
Do you recall whether you had identification cards in any of these photographs
as they were taken?
A:
No. Evidently, they were not in there, because they're not showing. I know they
were in one or two, at the most. I think they were.
Q:
With regard to view number 3, can you tell me at what point during the autopsy
those photographs were taken?
A:
You mean these?
Q:
Yes, all of those that are on the screen right now.
A:
It looks like from the beginning.
Q:
Can you tell whether the Y incision has been performed as of the time these
photographs are taken?
A:
No, it has not. They started and moved down, down the neck way.
Q:
So, these would be, as far as you can tell, prior to the Y incision?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Has the brain been removed at the time these photographs were taken?
A:
It looks as though the brain is still in there. I don't know.
Q:
So, as far as you're aware, this is before any part of the autopsy has begun?
A:
Yes.
MR.
GUNN: Could we now go to the fourth view, which is the "Posterior View of
Wound of Entrance of Missile, High in Shoulder", black and white numbers 11
and 12; color numbers 38 and 39.
Off
the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Mr. Stringer, do you—can you identify a ruler in the photographs on view 3?
A:
Yes, there is a ruler. But there's no number on it—no autopsy number.
MR. GUNN: I think I mistakenly said view 3, and this should be view 4.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Would the autopsy number that you referred to typically be placed on the ruler?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Was there an autopsy number on the ruler the night of the autopsy?
A:
There was on one ruler.
Q:
How many rulers were used?
A:
Well, I think this is one from the morgue. The one that we have, had a medical
school emblem on it. And then they write in the number. It's maybe about this
big.
Q:
Okay. And you're—Something in the area of four to six inches?
A:
About four inches.
Q:
About four inches long. Was that ruler used during the night of the autopsy of
President Kennedy?
A:
I think it was, yes.
Q:
Looking at the color transparencies, can you identify the type of film that was
used by any markings
that are on the film?
A:
Well, I don't know the markings anymore, but that should be the color of film
that it is, whether it's Ektachrome or whatever. You mean these, the emblem?
Q:
Either that or the writing. That is, are you able to—either through the
writing, or the notches, or in any other way—determine whether this is
Ektachrome E3 or Kodachrome?
A:
Not anymore. But this should tell you the story, whether that's Ektachrome or
Kodachrome. It's probably Ektachrome. I don't know. It's notched.
Q:
Mr. Stringer, I'd like you to look particularly closely at the area of the
occipital area of President Kennedy's head in the color transparencies, and tell
me whether you are able to ascertain whether there has been any change at all in
the photograph from the time that you took the exposures on November 22nd—
A:
That's the way I saw it. I don't see any hole there.
Q:
Are you able to determine whether the color transparencies that are in front of
you now are camera originals versus duplicates made from the camera original?
A:
I'd say they're camera original.
Q:
Looking on photograph number 40, does it appear to you as though any portion of
the scalp or hair is darker—excuse me, number 38—any portion of number 38 in
the occipital area on the hair is disproportionately dark to other areas of the
photograph?
A:
No, it's—I mean, the hair was sort of wet and damp. No, I don't see anything.
Q:
Does either photo number 38 or 39 appear to you to be underexposed?
A:
One is, yes. Well, they're both a little underexposed. This one is blacking out.
Q:
You're referring now to number 39?
A:
Yes. It's a little dark.
Q:
Are you able to ascertain whether the black and white negatives are camera
originals taken on the night of the autopsy?
A:
There's a hand over here. Not on there. There's
a hand showing on the shoulder. It's a different exposure.
Q:
So that there is somewhat of a different view—
A:
Yes.
Q:—on
the black and white versus the color?
A:
In other words, you see a hand in here and here; but you don't see it over here.
Q:
You're referring to the hand in the black and white negatives?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Are you able to determine in any way whether the black and white negatives are
camera originals taken on the night of the autopsy?
A:
They just look like it. I don't know.
Q:
Can you explain what the orientation of the body was, in relationship to the
table, in this particular view?
A:
He was up, sitting up.
Q:
This is—these are photographs with the President sitting up?
A:
He was holding him up. Yes, he was holding him up. See, he's holding him up
there.
Q:
So, in view number 4 that we are looking at here, the President's body is being
propped up, so that his torso is approximating a 90 degree—
A:
Right.
Q:—or
coming close to a 90 degree angle from the table?
A:
Correct.
Q:
Mr. Stringer, can you identify the notches that are on the color photographs? Do
you see the two notches there?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Where are the notches on the film when the film is in the camera; whether top
right, top left, bottom left, bottom right?
A:
That would go back many years ago. I think it's on the bottom right. I'm not
sure.
Q:
If it is on the bottom right, would that mean that when the color—or when the
final is printed, that the notches would be on the top right, to show the same
view?
A:
Well, this is not printed. This is the original that was taken.
Q:
Okay. When "developed", I should have said, rather than
"printed".
A:
Yeah.
Q:
So, if you were to now put these films, that are now in front of you, in the
same angle that they were at the time you took the photograph, how would it
appear? Would the photograph have been vertical in the camera, or would it have
been in a landscape view?
A:
You have to have the emulsion out. So, this is—
Q:
Let's go back one step. What I would call a portrait size, which would be with
the length of it going vertically—
A:
Four-by-five.
Q:—versus
a landscape, where the longer portion would be the base.
A:
I understand.
Q:
Was—Could you take either a land—Using those terms—And if you have better
terms, then, I would take those. But using the terms "landscape" and
"portrait", did the four-by-five camera that you used do both
landscape and portrait?
A:
Yes, you could turn the back.
Q:
Okay.
A:
Either up or down, or horizontal.
Q:
Okay. And are you able to tell what the position of the body was by looking at
the notches and considering the portrait versus landscape format?
A:
No. No, because that would be the same place, because you'd be shooting on the
emulsion. Would you turn this this way a minute?
Q:
One of the questions for you is whether the body could be lying on his left
shoulder, rather than—
A:
This is what I'm trying to see. Turn this one, too.
Q:
Again, just to put the—And I know this is what you were thinking about right
now, but to put the question a different way: Is it possible, based upon the
view that you can see here and by the notches in the shoulder—in the—
A:
The body was on its side.
Q:
The body was on its—lying on its left shoulder, rather than being propped up
in something like a 95 degree angle? Based upon your re-examination—
A:
Well, I don't know, because here's your table here. And I don't know whether
this is the buttocks down here or not. In other words, the body does not extend,
which it should. See what I mean?
Q:
Mm-hmm.
A:
Here now, this was more of a closeup. You don't have it all the way like it.
Q:
When you say a "closeup", you're referring to the—
A:
Well, not as a closeup, but it shows more detail than here where you can see.
Where here, it's—But here, it looks like this is the table here. I don't know.
Q:
Would it be fair to say that you're uncertain as to whether the body is being
propped up on the left shoulder versus whether the whole torso is being placed
erect?
A:
Well, now, this looks like his arm coming out here—the left arm.
Q:
You're referring to number 38?
A:
Yeah, the color. That sort of looks like his left arm coming out under there,
but you don't see it in here.
Q:
When you say "his left arm", you're referring to the left arm of the
doctor?
A:
No, of the President. Of the patient. I don't know.
Q:
Would it look to you as though the person behind the—that's partly holding up
the body on photograph 38 is standing erect?
A:
Yes.
Q:
And if the President were being propped up at a 90 degree angle, the person
would be on the side. Would that be correct?
A:
Let me turn this here.
Q:
Because if the President is being propped up, it wouldn't make sense to have
someone in the background at that particular angle.
A:
No. That's correct.
Q:
So, then, by your re-evaluation, you would think it would be more likely that
the President is being propped on his left shoulder?
A:
Yeah, and because his arm couldn't come out this far to show—his left arm.
This is what I'd thought about, too. Over here, you have three hands. And here,
you only have two.
Q:
When you say there are three hands, you're referring to the black and white
negatives?
A:
Yes, the black and white negatives.
Q:
And the three hands that are on the President's back?
A:
Mm-hmm. And here, you only have two. Now, you have this arm over here—wherever
it is—here, in both of these.
Q:
In the color photos?
A:
Yeah.
Q:
Do you see the marking that is near the ruler—just to the right of the ruler?
There's a larger one towards—
A:
Yes.
Q:—the
top of the ruler, and a smaller one below. Do you have any recollection now as
to what those markings were?
A:
Well, I think they were pointing out a bullet entrance.
Q:
Did you take any closeups of the bullet entrances, closer than the photographs
that you're looking at here?
A:
I don't think so. I don't know. I don't think so.
Q:
Would it have been standard practice in 1963 to have taken a closeup of the
bullet entrance that you've identified on exhibits 38 and 39?
A:
It would, again, depend upon the doctor and what they wanted to show.
Q:
From your knowledge of anatomy, would having a closeup of the entrance wound
help determine something like angle of entrance of a bullet—or could it help
determine the angle of an entrance of a bullet?
A:
It would show the tearing and the size, yes. It would show the size of the hole
and the tearing of the skin or the tissue underneath.
Q:
And that would be helpful for determining the angle of entrance of a bullet?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Did anyone in the autopsy room suggest that you should not take a closeup of the
bullet entrance wound?
A:
No.
Q:
Mr. Stringer, are you able to identify the portion of the top of the two color
photographs that looks something as if it is at a—almost a straight line?
A:
Mm-hmm.
Q:
What is that that's being portrayed there?
A:
You mean on the film itself?
Q:
On the film itself that looks as though it's part of President Kennedy's head,
but it seems to be some kind of a straight line—straight—
A:
I think it's the edge of the film that's in the holder.
Q:
Not below the margin of the film, but onto the portion that appears red and with
biological material.
A:
It's the flap that's down over the ear—of bone.
Q:
Do you know whether—That's a portion of the scalp that has been lacerated; is
that right?
A:
Yes, the bone.
Q:
And is that—was that—It appears to be in something like a straight line.
Does it appear that way to you? It's perpendicular with the President—
A:
Well, it was sort of an angle. Well, right there.
Q:
The direction that my question is going is whether that was a surgically made
incision, or whether that was—
A:
I would say no.
Q:
That was part of the disruption—
A:
Yes.
Q:—of
the scalp as it came in?
A:
Mm-hmm.
Q:
Are you able to determine from these photographs whether they were taken at the
beginning, middle, or towards the end of the autopsy?
A:
I'd say it was probably—well, it was just after the start of the autopsy. I
don't know how long it was into it, but it was not after they got into the body.
Q:
Okay. So, this was prior to the Y incision?
A:
Yes.
Q:
And can you tell from these photographs whether the brain is still in the
cranium?
A:
I think it is, yes.
Q:
Are you able, yourself, to identify the location that the doctors made of the
entrance wound in the skull of the President?
A:
On this photograph?
Q:
On photographs 38 and 39?
A:
No. No.
Q:
Was any attempt made to photograph what the doctors believed was the entrance
wound on the skull of the President?
A:
I think on that closeup one, there was—where they had it on the screen up
there, where they were talking to Riebe.
Q:
Okay. That was—
A:
That showed the back.
Q:
That this photograph that was on the screen?
A:
No. No. No, his—
Q: I apologize. It's the next one.
MR. GUNN: All right. If we could go to the next view, this will be the fifth view, photographs numbers 13 and 14 in black and white, and 40 and 41 in color.
Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Mr. Stringer, you're now looking at what has been described as the fifth view,
as the "Right Anterior View of Head and Upper Torso, Including Tracheotomy
Wound"; black and white negative, numbers 13 and 14, positive transparency
numbers 40 and 41. Are you able to determine whether the color transparencies
are camera originals that you took
A:
I think so.
Q:—during
the night of the autopsy?
A:
I think so.
Q:
Does anything appear to you to be different in any way in the photographs versus
how you observed it on the night of the autopsy?
A:
No.
Q:
Are you familiar with the autopsy room at the Bethesda Hospital?
A:
I think so.
Q:
Does the floor that you see in the color photographs appear to be the way the
floor—
A:
Tiled, yes.
Q:
Tile? Do you see any discrepancy between what you were recall this tile looking
like versus the photographs?
A:
No.
Q:
Do you have any recollection as to whether the eyes of President Kennedy were
open at any point during the autopsy?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Were they open at all points during the autopsy?
A:
Well, they kept trying to close them, and they'd open again.
Q:
Are you able to determine on the photos that you're looking at now whether they
were taken before any autopsy procedures began?
A:
Yes.
Q:
And what is the result of that?
A:
What do you mean?
Q:
Were they taken before?
A:
Yes. They were taken before anything was done. There's no incisions. There's no
nothing.
Q:
Do you see the wound in the anterior neck on the photographs?
A:
Yeah.
Q:
Does the size of the wound appear to be the size that appeared to you on the
night of the autopsy?
A:
Well, there's blood around it, yes.
Q:
Does it look larger, smaller, same size as you observed on the night of the
autopsy when the body was first brought in?
A:
It looks about the same, I think.
Q:
Have you seen other tracheotomy incisions?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Would you say that this tracheotomy incision is larger, smaller, about the same
size as the average tracheotomy incision?
A:
It looked like—it looks like it was done in a hurry, so it's probably a little
larger.
Q:
Is it a little larger; substantially larger? How would you characterize it?
A:
Maybe a little larger. It was probably done by a doctor. Off the record.
Q:
At any time during the autopsy, did any of the doctors attempt to determine
whether there were any bullet fragments in the anterior neck wound?
A:
Yes.
Q:
What did they do?
A:
Well, they checked on the X-rays. Did it by feel, or vision.
Q:
When you say "by feel", what do you mean?
A:
By feeling, to see if there was anything sharp or—
Q:
So, the doctor's fingers then would have been put into the tracheotomy wound, to
attempt to determine whether any bullet fragments—
A:
And I think there was a probe put in there, too.
Q:
And the probe was put in from the front towards the back?
A:
Yes.
Q:
And what was the direction of the probe, if you recall?
A:
It went straight in. I don't know. I don't know. All—I saw it in. I don't know
whether it went up, down—you know, sideways, or what.
Q:
Was the body propped up, so the torso was in a vertical position when the probe
was put in the neck?
A:
I think it was, at times. I think so.
Q:
Do you recall now—And I know I've asked you this question before, but just if
anything has helped prompt your recollection is the reason I'm asking it
again.—whether you took any photographs with the probe in the body?
A:
I don't think so.
MR.
GUNN: All right. Next view. The
next view is the sixth view, which is "Wound of Entrance in Right Posterior
Occipital Region"; black and white numbers 15 and 16, colors numbers 42 and
43.
Off
the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
THE WITNESS: All the other pictures show it printed this way—that I've seen.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Referring to a vertical—
A:
Yeah.
Q:
So, these in view number 6 are the first—my term—landscape; is that correct?
A:
Mm-hmm.
Q:
Are you able to determine by looking at these whether the two color
transparencies are camera originals that you took on the night of the autopsy?
A:
I think so, yeah. And here again, it has a ruler in it, but no number.
Q:
So, thus far, you haven't seen any photographs that have the—
A:
The medical school thing on the top. There's no hole in the back of the head
there; is there?
Q:
That's going to be my next question for you. Are you able to identify the hole
that the doctors identified on the night of the autopsy as being the entrance
wound in the skull?
A:
I think this was a piece of bone, but it was down near there—right about in
there.
Q:
You're referring to what appears to be a piece of matter or something—
A:
Yes.
Q:—that
is near the hairline?
A:
Mm-hmm. But it was near there.
Q:
And you're certain that that's where the doctors identified the entrance wound
as being; is that correct?
A:
Yeah. Yeah, I would think so. That's what I remember.
Q:
I'd like to point out the spot that appears somewhat red that is near the end of
the ruler, and ask you whether that was an entrance wound, or whether the
doctors during the night of the autopsy identified that as an entrance wound?
A:
I don't think so, no.
Q:
Do you know what that red spot is that appears to be, in layman's terms, near
the cowlick?
A:
It looks like blood. I would say it was. There was blood all over the place. But
I don't think it was anything out of the ordinary. I don't think there was a
hole there for the bullet wound. You would have seen the hole.
Q:
Well, can you see the hole in any of the photographs that you're looking at?
A:
I haven't so far, no. But it was down, right about in here.
Q:
Do you recall taking any photograph that would show the entrance wound from an
angle or a view better than the ones that you now have before you, view number
6?
A:
I don't remember.
Q:
In an autopsy, wouldn't it be important to take closeup photographs of the
entrance wound of a bullet in the brain?
A:
Yes. To be identified, yes.
Q:
Mr. Stringer, could you pay particularly close attention to the occipital area
of the skull, which—you can't see the skull, but just the scalp—and look
very closely and make your best judgment of whether you can tell whether there
has been any alteration of the image?
A:
No, I think it's just from the lighting and the reflection.
Q:
By looking closely at both the matting of the hair and hair strands, does it
appear to you that there may be any kind of alteration of the photograph?
A:
I don't think so.
Q:
Yet, would you say that in the place where you believe the doctors identified
the bullet entrance wound, you can identify no entrance wound there?
A:
What did you say now?
Q:
Let me withdraw the question and ask the question again. Would it be fair to say
that you are unable to identify, from these photographs in front of you now, the
entrance wound in the head?
A:
But having been—Yes, from the photographs. But having been there, and heard
it, and seen it—
Q:
Are you surprised in any way that the entrance wound is not visible in these
photographs?
A:
No. It could be down there, where that little piece of bone—or whatever it is
there.
Q:
You're referring to that piece of what, again, looks like matter near the
hairline?
A:
Yeah. And here again, it shows where the hole—the scalp was intact then.
Q:
And the intact scalp is what you recall from the night of the autopsy; is that
correct?
A:
Yes, there was—But there was damage under it from the brain—from the skull
being fractured and things like that.
Q:
Is this the image that you remember being shown to Mr. Riebe in the videotape,
where he identified where he believed there was missing skull?
A:
Yes.
Q:
But to the best of your recollection, there was no missing skull in that
location?
A:
It doesn't show there. It could have been something that cracked out from under
there, once they peeled it back.
Q:
Could you describe for me what your understanding is of what appears, to me, to
be something like a flap? On the way that we are looking at the photograph now,
with the head on the side, it is to the left of the ear. If the body were
vertical, it would be to the—
A:
This flap came down like that. The flap came down like that. It was attached
here.
Q:
You're showing, roughly, your right temple?
A:
Yeah. And it came down. And under there, there wasn't any bone and part of the
brain was gone. Right about in this area here.
Q:
You're showing the parietal area above your right ear?
A:
Right.
Q:
Do you have any recollection now as to what portion of the scalp, viewing the
head from behind, was lacerated at the time the autopsy began?
A:
The scalp being lacerated?
Q:
Lacerated. Were there any tears, cuts in the scalp on the back?
A:
What you have here? No, there wasn't any in back.
Q:
No tears at all?
A:
No tears at all.
Q:
Are you able to determine from these photographs whether the brain has been
removed?
A:
No, the brain hasn't been removed.
Q:
So, these photographs also would have been taken right at the beginning of the
autopsy?
A:
Yes.
Q:
And do you have any recollection as to whether the hair was cleaned, cut, or
wiped off in any way—
A:
I don't think it was ever cleaned, or cut, or wiped off.
Q:
Okay.
A:
Now, incidentally, in the black and white, there is no ruler. It could be down
there. But seeing as some of the hair has been pulled down—Of course, it was
shot at a different time, it looks like. I mean—
MR.
GUNN: Steve, could we see one of the positive prints from either 15 or 16, black
and white.
THE
WITNESS: And I can't see the thing on it—the wording.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
So, in other words, you think that there is a ruler in the black and white
negatives?
A:
Yes. But you can see where the hair has been pulled out. It's a little—see
there, where the hair is out over the ruler?
Q:
Mm-hmm.
A:
So, it can't be a duplicate.
Q:
When you say "duplicate", it could not be a duplicate from the color—
A:
A copy, yes.
Q:—transparencies?
A:
Yes.
Q:
If we could go back to the location of the entrance wound, where would you place
it in relationship to that spot down near the hairline?
A:
It was about right in that spot there. Right in there.
Q:
So, are you able to determine whether—with any greater precision, where it was
in relationship to that spot? That is, above, below, to the right, to the left?
A:
I'd say maybe a little to the left.
Q:
A little to the left. And that is if President Kennedy were standing erect? So,
it would be to his left, closer to the midline?
A:
Right.
Q:
Okay. Now you're looking at a positive eight-by-ten blowup of either—
A:
Black and white.
Q:—17
or 18, black and white. And with this blowup, do you note—or can you ascertain
any difference in hair color or fluid on the hair between the lower portion of
the scalp and the upper portion of the scalp?
A:
That's where they're trying to say it's been retouched.
Q:
Do you notice any difference yourself in the texture of the hair in the upper
portion of the scalp versus the lower portion of the scalp?
A:
Yeah, there is a little difference.
Q:
How do you account for that difference?
A:
It's a photograph. It's—Now, this looks matted, and this looks like it's dried
out.
MR. GUNN: First, let me make a correction. I think I said 17 or 18. And I should have said 15 and 16 a moment ago.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Now, the portion that you're referring to, the part that's lower—lower towards
the scalp appears to be dried out, where the portion a little bit higher appears
to be wet.
A:
To be matted.
Q:
Appears to be matted.
A:
Yeah.
Q:
Does it seem though the hair that is farther away from the hairline is longer
than the hair that's closer to the hairline?
A:
No. Just look at it this way. The hair is going down.
Q:
Is there any thing about the hair that is closer towards the hairline—that is,
from the hairline to what looks to be an inch, maybe two inches above the
hairline—to be any different kind of texture, other than what you've said
before with the hair that's above the—
A:
No. Now, you see here. This in here looks like a hole to me.
Q:
You're referring to that little piece of matter that was near the hairline?
A:
It actually looks like a little piece of bone.
MR.
GUNN: Steve, could we see the other one? This is number 14. Excuse me, this is
number 15. Could we see number 16, please?
THE
WITNESS: Now, this is what they're calling a matt. That it's been retouched;
right?
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
You're talking about the inch or inch and a half above the hairline towards the
top of the skull?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Does that make sense to you in anyway, or does that seem to be inaccurate?
A:
I think if it were—if it's a retouching, it's an awful job. But I don't think
it has been retouched.
Q:
When you say—
A:
Let me hold it this way.
Q:
When you say "an awful job", do you mean an awfully good job or—
A:
Awfully bad job.
Q:
Awfully bad job, if it's a retouching.
A:
But it looks to me like this is his hair coming down in there. And the light is
flashing off of here. It's not flashing off of here. It's coming right back to
the camera from here, because this is at an angle.
Q:
So, the reason that it appears that the hair farther from the hairline is wet or
moist is because of the angle of the view—
A:
Yeah.
Q:—is
that correct?
A:
Yeah, because your lights are flashing right back here. And this is like in the
shadows. You can see the hair on his arm up there. It's the same sort of a
pattern.
Q:
Is the quality of the focus in any portion of either the President's head or the
hands of the doctor that are encased in rubber or some kind of plastic
glove—does the quality of focus appear to be different anywhere?
A:
Well, back in here. But from here to here, it seems to be sharp.
Q:
When you say "back here", you're referring to the President's neck,
not the—
A:
Well, the ear.
Q:
The ear and the neck, but not the hair?
A:
No. Well, along here on the neck. This one. No, I—
Q:
Having examined the positive eight-by-ten, could you now go back and look at the
black and white negatives, and see whether that helps you at all identify any
possibility of retouching or matting in the photographs?
A:
No. No. They are two different exposures, and everything looks to be in place.
MR. GUNN: All right. Could we try the next view? This next one will be view number 7, which is described as the "Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection of Scalp", views number—or photos number 17 and 18 for the black and white, and numbers 44 and 45 for the color.
[Discussion off the record.]
THE WITNESS: Your brain is out.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
When you say the brain is out, I assume you're referring to President Kennedy's—
A:
Yes.
Q:—brain
being removed from the cranium?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Are you able to orient these photographs with relationship to the notches and
whether these are in portrait or landscape?
A:
Well, not by the notches, but by—tell it more by anatomical. I think this is
the back of the head, and this is the side. And this is his cheek, yeah. See?
Q:
Okay. So, you're referring to—
A:
This is his shoulder.
Q:
Just so we can figure this out, there's a lock of hair that's curled. And that
is now in the position at the bottom right-hand corner—
A:
Yes.
Q:—from
the way that you're looking at it, with what appear to be fingers—two fingers,
probably a thumb and an index finger, in the bottom left-hand corner.
A:
With the ruler.
Q:
Okay. Now, with that as the orientation, when you refer to the cheek, where is
the cheek located?
A:
Right up here. This is the cheek here.
Q:
Okay. So, the cheek is in the top right-hand corner.
A:
And here's your shoulder here, I think.
Q:
Okay. And can you identify what that—if that's the shoulder, what that is on
the shoulder?
A:
It looks like a glob of blood.
Q:
Okay.
A:
See, here. This is down over the eye here.
Q:
So, you're saying a flap—
A:
A flap.
Q:—a
flap of scalp that looks as though it would be down over the face or over the
eyes.
A:
Now, this is—the bone is out of there. And this flap is down on this side. And
they've pulled it, also, down in the—over the back—side in the back—and
the front.
Q:
So, from the way that you're describing this that we're talking about
parietal—the parietal area above the right ear? Would that be correct?
A:
Correct.
Q:
So, we're looking at the front of—or the top right—
A:
Top of the head.
Q:
Top of the head. We're not looking at the skull from behind?
A:
No, you're right in on it—straight in on it. In fact, I think this is where it
was cut—the brain. It comes up through the neck.
Q:
Do you see the things that look like something like ridges that appear towards
the center of the photograph? Can you identify what those are?
A:
I think they're pieces of bone.
Q:
In the 1966 inventory, this is referred to as the "Posterior
Skull"—this photograph showing the posterior skull. Based upon your own
examination right now, is that a correct description?
A:
I'd say it is the top and the posterior. In other words, this is the top of the
skull here. This is the top here. And this is the posterior. It's looking down
into it, I'd say.
Q:
Now, this is being described as the "Missile Wound of Entrance". Would
it be accurate to say that the missile wound of entrance is in the top of the
skull?
A:
Well, if they said it. But it wasn't true.
MR. GUNN: Okay. Could we get the 1966 inventory?
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
I'd like to show you a document that is marked Exhibit No. 13, and ask you
whether you have previously seen that document?
A:
I've never seen it, as far as I recall.
Q:
Turn to the last page.
A:
I signed it; didn't I?
Q:
As best you can tell, is that your signature on page 11?
A:
That's my signature, yeah. And John Ebersole.
Q:
Could you turn to page eight of Exhibit 13, and look at numbers 44 and
45—which, as far as I can understand, are the two transparencies that we're
looking at now—where they are described as color prints of the "Missile
Wound in Posterior Skull With Scalp Reflected"?
A:
That would be here. And then the exit would be over here.
Q:
We can go back—also looking at number 17 and number 18, which refer to the
"Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull".
A:
Mm-hmm.
Q:
Now, as you're standing here today in 1996, is there anything that you can
determine as being inaccurate in description number 17 as a "Missile Wound
of Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection of Scalp"?
A:
Well, it's in the posterior, but—But, anatomically, I would say this is the
top of his head here. And this is the back of his head.
Q:
When you say the back of the head, you're referring to the portion below the
photograph as we have oriented it previously—
A:
Yes.
Q:—and
not visible on the photograph?
A:
Yes.
Q:
So, it really is the top of the head, rather than the posterior that is shown?
A:
Well, I would think it was. I mean, they were the doctors. I mean, they
identified it.
Q:
Well, that is your signature on there.
A:
Yeah, but I did not identify it.
Q:
Who is the one who identified it?
A:
I was there to identify the photographs had been taken. They sat down and went
over the photographs, Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. And Ebersole did the X-rays.
Q:
Was it your understanding at the time that they identified this that it was
their understanding that this photograph depicted the entrance wound?
A:
I don't remember. I don't remember. But if it did, I don't think it's right.
Q:
So, in other words, your understanding right now would be this photograph—this
view that we're looking at, numbers 17, 18, 44, and 45, do not depict the
entrance wound in President Kennedy's skull; is that correct?
A:
No, it's—There's a wound there. But now whether they're saying this was it
down here, where his finger is—But I don't know why the ruler is up there.
Q:
So, if the ruler—if that is the entrance wound, the ruler is obstructing the
entrance wound; is that correct?
A:
I would say.
Q:
Now, the photographs that you've looked at so far are all of the photographs
that we have at the Archives that are purported camera originals taken during
the night of the autopsy. Could you now think back—and we have been over this
to some extent before—of any images that you remember having taken that are
not present here?
A:
In the body cavity
Q:
The body cavity. Do you remember any photographs, other than the ones that
you're looking at, that should have depicted the entrance wound in the skull,
either from inside the cranium, outside the cranium, with scalp reflected, or
scalp not reflected?
A:
Are there some color prints of this?
Q:
Yes. You're pointing to numbers 44 and 45.
A:
Was this done when we went down to Archives? I signed it, but I never got a copy
of it. I've never seen it before—only when I signed it, I guess.
Q:
At the time that you signed it, did you have an opportunity to read through the
entire document?
A:
I guess, I did.
Q:
Do you remember whether you had an opportunity to question the accuracy of
anything in the document?
A:
We talked there being missing photographs. I don't know whether this says
anything about that in here, or not.
Q:
Could you look at the last sentence of the document, just before the signatures?
A:
That, to me, is wrong.
Q:
So, the statement that says that where it says that, "We have no reason to
believe that any other photographs or X-rays were made during the
autopsy"—is that the portion that you think is incorrect?
A:
Photographs.
Q:
Photographs. That there were other photographs taken?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Another one that you had mentioned previously in your deposition was a full-view
of the body from above.
A:
Yes.
Q:
And you don't see that photograph—
A:
No, I haven't seen that at all.
Q:
Would it be fair to say, then, that in the first inventory that we have record
of, that was signed by you, a document dated November 22nd—that that inventory
was incorrect? There were more photographs than were recorded on that inventory?
A:
We went over what they had there, yes.
Q:
And then in the inventory that was made in 1966, that that was inaccurate, as
well; is that correct?
A:
Yes. Well, that was from the `66 one?
Q:
Yeah.
A:
Yes. I think Dr. Humes, also, says there were some taken up by the top of the
lung area, according to what I've been reading.
Q:
Can you explain to me any reason why Drs. Humes, Boswell, and yourself would
have signed this statement in 1966, saying that it's a complete inventory, if
you had reason to believe it was not a complete inventory?
A:
No.
Q:
Did anyone tell you to sign it?
A:
I don't know. I know we did talk about all of the pictures that were exposed
were not there, because I brought up a thing about Captain Stover and his
receipt of that.
MR.
GUNN: Okay. Could we go to the eighth view, which is the basilar view of the
brain? It's going back to the 1966 inventory; black and white negatives numbers
19, 21, and 22, and color numbers 46, 47, 48, and 49.
THE
WITNESS: You did have one. There's another ruler, but that gives it to Fisher
instruments.
MR. GUNN: Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Mr. Stringer, if I remember correctly from earlier in your testimony, you said
that you had not recalled that there were any basilar photographs of the brain
of President Kennedy. Can you identify whether the photographs that are in front
of you now are basilar or superior views of a brain?
A:
They're basilar.
Q:
If I recall correctly, earlier in your testimony, you said that there were
identification cards that were used for identification of the brain when
photographs were taken. Was that correct?
A:
Well, there's a ruler there, but there's no identification on there.
Q:
Based upon these being basilar views of a brain and based upon there being no
identification cards, are you able to identify with certainty whether these
photographs before you now are photographs of the brain of President Kennedy?
A:
No, I couldn't say that they were President Kennedy's. I mean, there's no
identification. All I know is, I gave everything to Jim Humes, and he gave them
to Admiral Burkley.
Q:
Do you have any recollection in 1996 about what the appearance of the brain of
President Kennedy looked like at the supplementary examination?
A:
No.
Q:
Are you able to determine whether the photographs in front of you now are
consistent with or not consistent with the brain, as you remember it from 1963?
A:
Well, it has to be, if that's Mr. Kennedy.
Q:
Well, that's the question.
A:
Yeah.
Q:
Does the brain in the photograph that you're looking at seem to be more hardened
or drier than you recall at the time that you conducted this supplementary
autopsy?
A:
No.
Q:
The consistency looks to you, roughly, consistent with—
A:
A brain that has been fixed, yes.
Q:
Can you tell anything from the color of the brain in the photographs of how long
it has been fixed?
A:
No, I couldn't.
Q:
Can you tell anything from the consistency as it appears in the photograph about
how long the brain has been fixed from the—
A:
No, I would have no idea.
Q:
Okay. When you took the black and white photographs of the brain of President
Kennedy, did you use a press pack?
A:
No.
Q:
Can you identify from the negatives in front of you whether those photographs
are from a press pack? And I'm referring to numbers 19, 21, and 22.
A:
I think they are. Yes.
Q:
Would it be fair to say, then, that by your recollection, that the black and
white negatives in front of you now were not taken by you during the
supplementary autopsy of President Kennedy?
A:
Correct. This is Ansco.
Q:
When you say "This is Ansco", what do you mean?
A:
This is Ansco film.
Q:
What is Ansco film?
A:
Well, it's a super high pan. And I think it's from a film pack.
THE WITNESS: Have you got one of those other negatives I can see, from the—
MR. GUNN: Seventeen or 18. Black and white negatives.
THE WITNESS: See, the difference in them—
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Just so I can identify this for the record, you now have in your hands a
negative.
A:
A negative.
Q:
Number 18.
A:
It is identified with the film code on it.
Q:
With the notches up on the corner?
A:
With the notches. On this, it has no notches.
Q:
When you say "this", you're now referring to the black and white
negative—
A:
Yes. Yes, to the black and white negative, which is from a film pack.
Q:
Mr. Stringer, if I recall correctly, during the course of the deposition you
identified three different factors relating to photography of the brain that
would suggest that you would have had an identification number in it; you would
not have used a film pack; and you did not take a basilar view of the brain. Is
that correct?
A:
I think so, yeah. That's what—Whether I took that, I don't know. But, see,
this is from a film pack, because they are numbered. This is film number two,
film number one, and three. And that's from a film pack.
Q:
Okay.
A:
Because when it comes out of a holder, it is identified by the notch, because
you have to load it in the holder with a notch.
Q:
Okay. So, the first three black and white negatives would, presumably, have been
taken sequentially by a black and white film pack; is that correct?
A:
Right. That's the way it was done.
Q: Okay.
MR. GUNN: Could we now go to the second view of the brain? So, this will be the ninth view—the superior of view of the brain; black and white negative numbers 20, 23, 24, 25, and color numbers 50, 51, and 52.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Mr. Stringer, what did you notice about the color positive transparencies when
they were just brought out from their folders?
A:
Well, there's some spots on them. There's some white spots in the black portion.
Q:
That's in the margin?
A:
In the margin. And some white spots, but that's in the actual photograph—the
white spots.
Q:
In the image itself?
A:
In the image itself.
Q:
Do you know what those dots are—or perforations, whatever they—not
perforations in the film, but what appear to be perforations—
A:
I don't know what it is. It's—but the same pattern in everything. It could
be—But they're not on the black and white.
Q:
Have you ever noticed that before in any photographs that you have taken
personally?
A:
I've never looked so closely before.
Q:
On the color photograph showing the superior view of the brain, do you recognize
any identification tags or markings?
A:
Now, this film is also different than the other. You see the code in here? On
all the other photographs, it's Ektachrome.
Q:
Okay. And these are not Ektachrome notches, or you're not certain? It's just
that they're different.
A:
I'm not certain, but they're different. It's—I think it's a different type of
film. It could be Ansco film, like this.
Q:
Did you ever use Ansco film yourself in conducting medical photography?
A:
Not very often.
Q:
Did you use Ansco film in the—taking the autopsy—
A:
Not as far as I know.
Q:—photographs
of President Kennedy?
A:
Not as far as I know.
Q:
Is there any question in your mind whether you were the photographer of these
images that are before you right now?
A:
Yes, if it's Ansco film, and if it's a film pack. I have no—I have no
recollection of using a film pack.
Q:
Do you see any identification markers or identification numbers on the
photographs?
A:
No. The only thing is, there's a Fisher instrument ruler, I think. Fisher
Scientific. I don't know whether there was one in one of the medical photographs
or not. There was a ruler, but I don't know whether it was a Fisher or not.
Q:
You've now been shown all of the images of—from the supplementary autopsy. Did
you see any images that would show a brain that had been sectioned in any way?
A:
No. No, I don't.
Q:
Are there any other photographs that you remember taking yourself during the
supplementary autopsy that you haven't seen today?
A:
I had thought we had done some sections, cutting through the brain. But I don't
see them. I could be mistaken. But this could be identified by a photo, the
place where they have all of the notches.
Q:
Without looking at the photographs since, do you have a recollection in your
mind of whether the cerebellum on President Kennedy was disrupted? I see you're
looking at the photographs.
A:
You mean the—What do you mean? Damaged?
Q:
Whether it was damaged, lacerated, cut?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Was it?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Do you see any damaged cerebellum in these photographs?
A:
No. Well, now, this was the damage over here. It didn't come through here. It
came through, and then out this way.
Q:
Okay. Now, when you say "the damage here", you're pointing to the
right cerebral hemisphere?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Okay. But not to the cerebellum?
A:
No.
Q:
That is, pointing at the photograph?
A:
Yes.
Q:
But your recollection is that the cerebellum of President Kennedy was disrupted.
How seriously disrupted?
A:
No, it was not disrupted to—I don't think it actually was disrupted. It was up
and out this way.
Q:
When you say "up and out this way", you're pointing at your head. So
from, roughly, the external occipital protuberance—
A:
Right here.
Q:—out?
A:
Out here.
Q:
Out the side?
A:
Yeah.
Q:
On the parietal bone above the ear?
A:
Yeah, and then out here.
Q:
And is it your understanding that the trajectory of the bullet going from down
below—near the external occipital protuberance out the side of the head in the
parietal bone is consistent with a shot from above and behind?
A:
Yes.
Q:
In what way would that be consistent with a shot from above and behind?
A:
Well, he was bent over sort of. It went right through here, and then out.
Q:
Assuming, hypothetically, that he is not bent over, but was reasonably erect,
would the trajectory that you have just described be consistent with a shot from
above and behind?
A:
I don't think so.
Q:
One last question, and this is probably repetitive from earlier questions we
have. Was there anyone taking any motion picture photographs—
A:
Negative.
Q:—during
the night of the autopsy?
A:
Negative.
MR. GUNN: Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: And how about Mr. Pitzer?
BY MR. GUNN:
Q:
Was Mr. Pitzer present at the autopsy?
A:
He was not present. In fact, I shot his autopsy.
Q:
Photographed his autopsy?
A:
Yeah, excuse me.
MR. GUNN: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Stringer.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the taking of the deposition concluded.]
[Signature waived.]
END OF JOHN T. STRINGER DEPOSITION