One of the many lacunae in the literature on the Garrison case is the transcript of the Shaw trial. It is not available to the public. At the trial, both sides demanded overnight typed transcripts to use on cross-examination. Regular court staff could not comply, so a private stenography firm ~ Dietrich and Pickett ~ was engaged. Writers like John Davis in Mafia Kingfish list the transcript at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. When I called there in January of 1992, I was told it was not there. They had only the preliminary hearing and the trial testimony of Perry Russo. The tran- script, some of which remains in the form of unreadable stenotype notes, remains the property of Helen Dietrich, and she informed me that the only copies she had provided were to the HSCA and to Oliver Stone, the latter for use in his film. In my view, the transcript should be published, and perhaps it soon will. But until then, writers and researchers are left with two alternatives. One can journey to New Orleans and read the daily transcripts in the States-Item and the Times-Picayune, which are not always verbatim. Or one can rely on the summaries presented in books. Until 1988 and the publication of On the Trail of the Assassins, both responsible writers like Henry Hurt and irresponsible ones like Robert Sam Anson had to rely on two volumes: Milton Brener's The Garrison Case (1969) and James Kirkwood's American Grotesque (1970). Brener was a New Orleans attorney who defended both Layton Martens ~ a friend of David Ferrie's whose phone number was found in Clay Shaw's address book ~ and Walter Sheridan. Brener is not above attacking Garrison personally, once referring to him as a "witch hunter" (p. 267). But Kirkwood's book is by far the lengthiest treatment of the Shaw trial that I know of. Unfortunately, it can be read only with great caution. The author begins his work by comparing Garrison to a Klansman (p. 7). A few pages later the preliminary hearing is likened to the Spanish Inquisition (p. 13). Sure enough, towards the end, Garrison's assistant DAs are equated to guards at the Nazi death camps (p. 595). Kirkwood's animus toward Garrison is matched only by his sympathy for Shaw. In the last 616 of the book's 657 pages, the accused is never called Shaw or Mr. Shaw; only "Clay" or "Clay Shaw." This bias seriously colors the depiction of the trial. In a rather voluminous book that centers on a court proceeding that took 39 days, the reader would never know that the following witnesses appeared: Wilma Bond, Mr. and Mrs. Philip Willis, Billy Joe Martin, Carolyn Walther, James Simmons, Mr. and Mrs. William Newman, and Mary Moorman. In a book that supposedly centers on the possibility of a New Orleans-related conspiracy, one searches in vain for the name of Gordon Novel. The list could go on, but perhaps Kirkwood's greatest slighting is to Assistant DA Alvin Oser. With help from Vincent Salandria, Oser conducted the Dealey Plaza portion of the trial. Kirkwood refuses to concede that the prosecution shredded the Warren Report, something the jury agreed had been done. He writes about Oser in otiose, condescending, disparaging terms. He even derides his voice. But Kirkwood fails to note that, in his cross-examination of Dr. Pierre Finck, Oser was making history. This was the first and only time one of the three Bethesda autopsy doctors was exposed to informed, aggressive, relentless questioning. In my view, it is a milestone in the depiction of the autopsy as not only hapless but sinister. This theme has been furthered in the work of Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone (High Treason) and David Lifton (Best Evidence), so much so that, today, the autopsy evidence is one of the most questionable aspects of the official story. In the following excerpts, I have chosen those that show who really controlled the autopsy and those that reveal some of the dubious practices employed. It should also be noted that Oser concentrated on the shifting location of the head wound, which, to Dr. Finck's dismay, Ramsey Clark's panel had raised four inches, and on the location of the back wound, which, Oser felt, made for a rather dubious trajectory in exiting through the throat. The transcript appears as typed, with misspellings of names intact. Berkley should be Burkley, Kinney should be Kenney. My thanks and appreciation to Helen Dietrich, with whose kind permission this material is reprinted. (The ex- cerpts are from pp. 46-49, 51-52, 54-57, 92-95, 98-118, 138-141, and 152-159 of the first day, February 24, 1969; and pp. 2-8, and 30-32 of the second day, February 25, 1969.) BY MR. OSER: Q When did you all contact the doctors at Parkland Hospital? THE WITNESS: A Are you asking me if I contacted a Dr. Parker? Q No, I asked you when did you all contact the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas. A Oh, I did not contact them, Dr. Humes did. Q And did Dr. Humes relate to you what he learned from these doctors at Parkland? A Definitely. Q Do you know when Dr. Humes contacted these doctors at Parkland? A As far as I know, Dr. Humes called them the morning following the autopsy, as far as I know, Dr. Humes called Dallas on Saturday morning, on the 23rd of November, 1963. Q Doctor, can you tell me why the delay in contacting the doctors that worked on President Kennedy in Dallas until the next morning after the body was already removed from the autopsy table? A I can't explain that. I know that Dr. Humes told me he called them. I cannot give an approximate time. I can give you the reason why he called. As I have stated before, having a wound of entry in the back of the neck, having seen no exit in the front of the neck, nothing from the radiologist who looked at the whole body X-ray films, I have requested as there was no whole bullet remaining in the cadaver of the President, that was a very strong reason for inquiring if there were not another wound in the approximate direction corresponding to that wound of entry in the back of the neck, because in the wound of the head with entry in the back of the head and exit on the right side of the head, I never had any doubt, any question that it was a through-and-through wound of the head with disinte- gration of the bullet. The difficulty was to have found an entry in the back of the neck and not to have seen an exit corresponding to that entry. Q This puzzled you at this time, is that right, Doctor? A Sorry, I don't understand you. Q This puzzled you at the time, the wound in the back and you couldn't find an exit wound? You were wondering about where this bullet was or where the path was going, were you not? A Yes. Q Well, at that particular time, Doctor, why didn't you call the doctors at Parkland or attempt to ascertain what the doctors at Parkland may have done or may have seen while the President's body was still exposed to view on the autopsy table? A I will remind you that I was not in charge of this autopsy, that I was called~ Q You were a co-author of the report though, weren't you, Doctor? A Wait. I was called as a consultant to look at these wounds; that doesn't mean I am running the show. Q Was Dr. Humes running the show? A Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that ~ he said, "Who is in charge here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, "I am." You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions. Q But you were one of the three qualified pathologists standing at that autopsy table, were you not, Doctor? A Yes, I was. Q Was this Army General a qualified pathologist? A No. Q Was he a doctor? A No, not to my knowledge. Q Can you give me his name, Colonel? A No, I can't. I don't remember. * * * Q How many other military personnel were present at the autopsy in the autopsy room? A That autopsy room was quite crowded. It is a small autopsy room, and when you are called in circumstances like that to look at the wound of the President of the United States who is dead, you don't look around too much to ask people for their names and take notes on who they are and how many there are. I did not do so. The room was crowded with military and civilian personnel and federal agents, Secret Service agents, FBI agents, for part of the autopsy, but I cannot give you a precise breakdown as regards the attendance of the people in that autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Q Colonel, did you feel that you had to take orders from this Army General that was there directing the autopsy? A No, because there were others, there were Admirals. Q There were Admirals? A Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders, and at the end of the autopsy we were specifically told ~ as I recall it, it was by Admiral Kenney, the Surgeon General of the Navy ~ this is subject to verification ~ we were specifically told not to discuss the case. Q You were told not to discuss the case? A ~ to discuss the case without coordination with the Attorney General. * * * Q Doctor, can you tell me how many photographs were taken of the President's body? A Some of the photographs were taken in my presence in the autopsy room. I can't give you the exact number, but this information is available. Q To who, Doctor? A To you. Q It is? A It is a public document. Q Go ahead. How many? A I can't give you an exact number of photographs taken or X-rays of the body of the President. Q Doctor, prior to your writing your report on the autopsy, did you have an occasion to view these photographs of the President that were taken? A Yes, I did. Q Doctor, I direct your attention to a report allegedly signed by you on 26 January, 1967. MR. DYMOND: What part are you talking about? (Conference between Counsel.) BY MR. OSER: Q (Exhibiting document to witness) Doctor, I direct your attention to a report, which I mark for identification "S-67," and I ask you to take a look at this document. Would you take a look at this particular one that I have marked Doctor, and let me know whether it is the same as the one you have before you. A (Comparing documents) It is. Q Your answer is that it is, Doctor? A Yes. Q And it contains your signature? Am I correct, sir? A Yes. (Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identifi- cation as "Exhibit D-67.") BY MR. OSER: Q Doctor, I direct your attention to the first page, the bottom of the last line of the fifth paragraph, which states, "Dr. Finck first saw the photographs on January 20, 1967," and I ask you if you would explain your answer to me, sir, just made, that you saw the photographs prior to writing your autopsy report in 1963. A I did not say that I had seen the photographs before writing the autopsy report of 1963. MR. OSER: May I have my original question read back to the Doctor, please, and his answer. (Whereupon, the aforegoing passage was read back by the Reporter as follows: "Q Doctor, prior to your writing your report on the autopsy, did you have an occasion to view these photographs of the President that were taken? "A Yes, I did.") THE WITNESS: No, I did not, I did not see those photographs before signing my autopsy report. I may have answered "I didn't" and it was transcribed as "I did." BY MR. OSER: Q Doctor, did you hear what the stenographer just read you back? That is my question that I propounded to you. Now the question is: Did you see the photo- graphs of President Kennedy before signing your autopsy report. A That is correct. Q That is correct? A I was there when the photographs were taken, but I did not see the photographs of the wounds before I signed the autopsy report. I did not see those photographs in 1963. Q So what you said before, that you did see the photographs, that was wrong? Is that correct? A I never said that. It was misunderstood. I said "I did not" or "I didn't." I am very firm on this point that I did not see~ Q Is it, doctor that fact that I showed you the report~ THE COURT: I think you have covered the matter now. * * * Q Can you tell me how the final draft of the autopsy report which you signed along with Commander Humes and Commander Boswell came about? How was that put together? A We signed that autopsy report, as I remember, on Sunday the 24th of November, 1963, in the office of Admiral Galloway, who was one of the Admirals in charge of the Navy hospital. I had reviewed with Dr. Humes his draft of the autopsy report prior to that time, and, as I recall, the three of us, that is Humes, Boswell and myself, were present at that time in the office of Admiral Galloway on that Sunday, to the best of my recollection. Q Doctor, I show you from Volume 17, Page 30 through Page 47, and ask you if you would view the contents of those pages. A Yes, sir. This is Volume 17 of the hearings before the President's Commission on the assassination of President Kennedy. I don't recall seeing Pages 30 through 44. What Dr. Humes and I did, we were discussing the wording of the final autopsy report based on a report he had prepared through the night, I should say through Saturday, in the course of Saturday, the 23rd of November, and he worked on this, and he read over to me what he had prepared. Is Page 45 included in your question? Q Yes, sir, 45 through 47. A On Page 45 I recognize the drawing which I see now in the room, and which is labeled in this volume Commission Exhibit 397. I don't recall the timing of seeing this. I have seen this at some time. I don't recall exactly when. Q The exhibit you are talking about right now, Doctor, Exhibit 397, is this the same exhibit you are talking about reproduced here in State 68, as best you can recall, Doctor? A As best as I can tell, Page 45 of this volume is a reproduction of the exhibit shown in the courtroom as 68, except that at the bottom it doesn't say "Commis- sion Exhibition 397." I remember that these drawings had been made, and you realize now I am referring to Page 45. Q Which is the same thing as Exhibit 68, is that right? A Yes, sir, it is. You will realize the drawings are made ahead of time on work sheets to be used at the time of the autopsy, and that wounds are added to these schematic representations of the front and back of a human body. I know this was involved in the discussions, in the testimony, but I can't give you any timing. As I recall, Dr. Boswell did those and discussed them but I can't recall exactly when I saw them. Q In other words, when an autopsy descriptive list or sheet is used at an autopsy, it is either used at the time of an autopsy or shortly thereafter as a work sheet somewhere in the autopsy room, is that right, Doctor? A If State 68 is an autopsy work sheet ~ well, when it was done by Dr. Boswell I don't know. Q In referring to State Exhibit 69 and 70, Doctor, these two exhibits were not done then until sometime in March of 1964, is that correct, Doctor? A I wouldn't know the exact date. The first time as I recall that I saw these exhibits was in March 1964, to the best of my recollection. Q But you do know, Doctor, you can testify that the photographs and X-rays were not available, to the best of your knowledge, to the illustrator of these exhibits as they were not available to you in March, 1964? A To the best of my knowledge the X-rays and photographs were not available to the illustrator. I know for sure that they were not available to me, the X-rays and the photographs. * * * Q When was the first time you saw the Zapruder film, Doctor? A As I recall, it was in March 1964, when I returned from Panama and was told I had to testify before the Warren Commission. Q So at the time you signed and co-authored the autopsy report, which has been marked as S-71 for identification, you had not, as of that time, seen the Zapruder film, is that correct? A I had not. Q Doctor, are you familiar in this particular report, S-71, which you co-authored with Commanders Humes and Boswell, with all the evidence upon which the report was based? A Please repeat your question. Q Are you familiar with all of the evidence upon which this report was based? A In the general sense, yes. Q Doctor, I call your attention to Page 2, under the heading of "Clinical Sum- mary," and ask you to tell me the basis for your statement as part of your clinical summary that three shots were heard. A Where do you see that, that three shots were heard? Q The first sentence in the second paragraph of Page 2, the first four words. A This is the information we had by the time we signed that autopsy report. Q The information from whom, Doctor? A There were a lot of people who were asked, I wouldn't know their names. I couldn't list all the people by name. Q Who told you that three shots were heard? Who told you that? A As I recall, Admiral Galloway heard from somebody who was present at the scene that three shots had been heard, but I cannot give the details of this. Q I ask you, did you have an occasion to interview any of the witnesses that were present in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, you yourself, before you wrote this? A During the autopsy of President Kennedy there were Secret Service Agent Kellerman in that autopsy room. I asked him his name. Admiral Berkley, the personal physician of President Kennedy was present, and there was a third person whose name I don't recall who said to Admiral Galloway, who was there during the autopsy, that three shots had been fired. At the time we wrote this we had this information obtained from people who had been at the scene to the best of my recollection. Q Did you have any information available, Doctor, from people at the scene who heard four shots? A From the assassination on I heard conflicting reports regarding the number of shots. Q I am talking about at the time you all prepared and signed this report, Doctor, before you affixed your signature to this, did you talk to anyone or have any reports available from people who heard four shots at Dealey Plaza on November 22? A I don't remember any. Q Did you have any statements or reports available to you from people who heard two shots in Dealey Plaza on November 22 at the time you made this report? A At the time I made the report I don't recall having a report of two shots. Q Going further, Doctor, in your autopsy report, it states, "Governor Connally was seriously wounded by this same gunfire." From where did you receive this information? A I knew it at the time of the autopsy because of the news media who reported the President had been shot and the Governor of Texas had been wounded, as I recall. Q What did you mean, that Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire? What did you mean when you said the same gunfire? A This is the information we had at the time of the autopsy ~ correction, at the time we signed the autopsy report, and because the information in the autopsy report may be obtained after the autopsy, and again I can't pinpoint the source of that information. Q Doctor, I now show you State Exhibit 64, and ask you if you recognize what is depicted in this particular photograph, as being similar to something you have seen before during the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy? A This black-and-white reproduction is similar to a bullet that, as best I can remember, I saw for the first time in March 1964. Q Doctor, speaking of your statement in the autopsy report that Governor Con- nally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire, is it not a fact that when testifying before the Warren Commission you stated that in your opinion it was impossible for Commission Exhibit 399 to do the same damage to President Kennedy as was done to Governor Connally because there were too many fragments in Governor Connally's wrist? Did you not so testify, sir? MR. DYMOND: I object to that question. Nobody has stated the same damage was done to Governor Connally as was done to President Kennedy, and that is what this question asks. THE COURT: I think the question was put to the Doctor, did he not make a prior contradictory statement, which is legitimate cross-examination. Let the question be read back. (Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.) THE COURT: I am permitting the question. I overrule your objection. BY MR. OSER: Q Will you answer yes or no, Doctor, then you can explain. A This is a difficult question to answer because there were two bullets striking President Kennedy. I have examined the wounds of President Kennedy and I would say that the bullet seen here is an entire bullet. Q Is what? A Is an entire bullet. By an entire bullet, I mean a bullet that did not disintegrate into many fragments. Q Let me ask you about that in this way~ THE COURT: Let him finish his answer. MR. OSER: I thought he had finished. THE COURT: Had you finished your answer? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. BY MR. OSER: Q Colonel, let me ask you this way: Speaking of State Exhibit 64, the bullet, I ask you whether or not you testified in front of the Warren Commission that that particular bullet could not have done the damage to Governor Connally as there were too many bullet fragments in Governor Connally's wrist. Did you or did you not answer that in front of the Warren Commission in answer to a question by Mr. Specter? It appears on Page 382 of your testimony of the Warren Report about the middle of the page. A It reads as follows: "Could that bullet possibly have gone through President Kennedy in 388," Mr. Specter's question. "Through President Kennedy's head~" what is 388? MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: The one on the right. A (Continuing) "and remain intact in the way you see it now?" "Definitely not." "And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?" "No, for the reason there are too many fragments described in that wrist." MR. OSER: Thank you, Doctor, that is the point I am talking about. BY MR. OSER: Q Now, referring back to that same paragraph in the clinical summary, in the next sentence you said, "According to newspaper reports (Washington Post November 23, 1963) Bob Jackson, a Dallas 'Times Herald' photographer, said he looked around as he heard the shots and saw a rifle barrel disappearing into a window on an upper floor of the nearby Texas School Book Depository Building." Can you tell me who called that particular newspaper article to your attention? A Are you referring to Page 979 of the Hearing? Q No, sir, I am back on your original autopsy report, Page 2. A I have it. Q The sentence right after you said that Governor Connally was wounded by the same gunfire. A What was that sentence? Q Right after "gunfire." A "Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire." This is part of the autopsy report I signed. Q Can you tell me who called that particular newspaper article to your attention, and why? A As I recall, it was Dr. Humes who mentioned this article to me. Q Colonel, do you customarily take notice of newspaper articles in an autopsy report? A At times it is done. Q Therefore, Doctor, am I correct in stating that particular autopsy report signed by you was based partially on hearsay evidence, is that correct? By that I mean evidence received by someone other than you having actual personal knowledge of the thing? A Having not been at the scene I had to get information from somebody else. Q Did you have occasion to read a newspaper article of November 22 or 23, which reported there were four to six shots fired and they came from the grassy knoll, being stated by Miss Jean Hill? Did you read that before you made your report? A I don't recall reading that before I made the report. I may have been aware at that time of conflicting reports as regards the number and the difference in the direction of the shots, but I cannot pinpoint the time. Q Since you are referring to the Washington Post~ A Would you repeat that? THE COURT: Mr. Oser, speak into the microphone, it may help a little bit. BY MR. OSER: Q Since you are dealing with the Washington Post article of November 23, 1963, in your autopsy report, I wondered if you had an occasion to either read the article or have it brought to your attention, that one Charles Brehm, one of the spectators close to the Presidential limousine, saw material which appeared to be a sizable portion of President Kennedy's skull~ MR. DYMOND: Objection, that is not in evidence. THE COURT: This is not a prior contradictory statement, Mr. Oser, is it? MR. OSER: I am asking if he took this into account when he~ THE COURT: Where are you reading from? MR. OSER: An article taken out of the Washington Post on the same day as the article by Bob Jackson. MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, that has no place in this trial at all. THE COURT: Mr. Oser, I think you are enlarging the scope of the prior contradictory statement unless you can allege it was made in the report. MR. OSER: I am trying to ascertain what hearsay they used to arrive at in their report. MR. DYMOND: If you permit that you will have to permit Counsel to go through every conflicting report that was reported by every alleged eyewitness to the assassination and ask this witness whether they were taken into account. It certainly has no place in this trial and is completely irrelevant to the issues and irrelevant to the credibility and qualifications of the Doctor and irrelevant to the material on which he is testifying. THE COURT: I believe that the witness did state a few moments ago that he was not there personally and they did have to accept what Mr. Oser termed as hearsay. I believe the question being put by the District Attorney is to find out what other hearsay evidence they received. MR. OSER: That's right. THE COURT: Can't you ask a specific question instead of reading the article? MR. DYMOND: The thrust of my objection is that we have nothing before The Court to show this was even a bit of hearsay without even asking the Doctor whether he heard it. This is something that is purely out of the files of the District Attorney. MR. OSER: Your Honor, the State is attempting to ascertain from the Colonel whether or not he based his conclusions or his autopsy report on any type of hearsay other than that type of hearsay that backed up what the Warren Commission wanted it to be, or the Federal Government. Strike Warren Commission and make it Federal Government. MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, what I'm trying to impress on The Court is you have nothing before you to even show there is hearsay evidence to the effect of this statement that has been made by the District Attorney. That is completely outside the scope of the evidence in this case. We don't know any such contention was ever made by anybody. THE COURT: If the witness signed part of a three-man report and you referred to the report without using exact words, I would permit it, which you did previously. I think a general question can be asked, did they interview any other person, without saying what those persons said. BY MR. OSER: Q Colonel, besides what you referred to in paragraph 2 of the report, were you furnished with any other alleged statements by any of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza, namely the witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy on Novem- ber 22? MR. DYMOND: Is this question restricted to before he signed the autopsy report? MR. OSER: I am asking about at the time he signed the report. THE COURT: It is restricted to that period. BY MR. OSER: Q Were you furnished statements by anyone else? A We based the statement on the people who had been at the scene. THE COURT: Let me interrupt you a second. You say "we," I presume you mean you and the other two doctors? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Mr. Oser's question is, did you and the other two persons personally interview these people or get it from another source? THE WITNESS: I personally talked to Secret Service Agent Kellerman. I personally talked to Admiral Berkley, the personal physician to President Kennedy. I personally talked to Admiral Galloway, who was referred to a third witness present at the scene. There may have been others leading us to the statement that to the best of our knowledge at that time there were three shots fired. BY MR. OSER: Q Doctor, speaking of the wound to the throat area of the President as you described it, after this bullet passed through the President's throat in the manner in which you described it, would the President have been able to talk? A I don't know. Q Do you have an opinion? A There are many factors influencing the ability to talk or not to talk after a shot. Q Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table? A I did not dissect the track in the neck. Q Why? A This leads us into the disclosure of medical records. MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask The Court so to direct. THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor. THE WITNESS: We didn't remove the organs of the neck. BY MR. OSER: Q Why not, doctor? A For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the~ Q Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track? THE COURT: Let him finish his answer. THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosecutors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection. BY MR. OSER; Q You have said they did not. I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why? A I had the cause of death. Q Why did you not trace the track of the wound? A As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck. Q I didn't hear you. A I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck. Q You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why didn't [you] do this as a pathologist? A From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs. MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. BY MR. OSER: Q I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question. A As I recall I was told not to but I don't remember by whom. Q You were told not to but you don't remember by whom? A Right. Q Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room? A I don't recall. Q Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time? A Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck. Q You are one of the three autopsy specialists and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me? A I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path. Q But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony? A From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom. * * * Q In referring once again, Colonel to S-67 for identification, the five-page report signed by you in January 1967, can you tell me why this report was prepared? A Please repeat your question. Q Can you tell me why this report was prepared, the one you signed in January 1967. A The purpose of this, as I recall, was to correlate our autopsy report of November 1963, and the X-rays and photographs of the wounds, because we has seen the X-rays at the time of the autopsy but we hadn't seen the photographs in November 1963 or in March 1964, so in 1967 we were asked to look at those X-rays and photographs. Q By whom were you asked to do this? THE COURT: Are you waiting for an answer? MR. OSER: Yes. THE COURT: I thought you were referring to your notes, Doctor. MR. OSER: I asked the witness~ THE COURT: I heard your question. I was just wanting to know if you were waiting for an answer. THE WITNESS: I think I went first to the ~ I saw these photographs and X-rays to the best of my recollection at the archives of the United States in January 1967, the photographs, for the first time. THE COURT: He didn't ask you that question. He wanted to know who asked you to do this. Was that your question? MR. OSER: Yes, sir. THE WITNESS: As I recall it was Mr. Eardley. There are many names involved in this. I think it was Mr. Eardley at the Department of Justice and I had the authority to go there from the military. BY MR. OSER: Q Can you tell me whether or not you were asked to do this summary in January 1967 in regard to a panel review that was going to be done by Mr. William H. Carns, Russell S. Fisher, Mr. Russell H. Morgan and Mr. Alan R. Moritz. A In January 1967 when I signed S-67, to the best of my recollection, I was not aware of this panel review which took place in 1968, if you are referring to an independent panel review. Q I am. A It was composed of W. H. Carns, Russell H. [sic] Fisher, Russell H. Morgan and Alan R. Moritz. Q That is correct, Colonel. A I don't remember knowing in 1967 that these four names were reviewing the evidence to the best of my recollection. Q Are you familiar with their work? A I have read this. I was made aware of this panel review, I had received this panel review in February 1969. Q Colonel, can you give me the measurements of the wound in the area of the front of the President's neck that I am pointing to here on State Exhibit 69? A As I recall, it was given by the Dallas surgeons as approximately five millime- ters in diameter. Q Can you convert approximately five millimeters in diameter to a part of an inch for me, please? A Approximately three sixteenths of one inch corresponds to five millimeters. Q Referring, Colonel, to your Summary Report, State-67 for purposes of identi- fication, which you signed on 26 January, 1967, can you tell me why you did not list the size of the wound that you say is the exit wound in the throat of the President? A Because I did not, I did not see that wound in the front. I did not, I don't know why it is not there. Q You say you did not see it? A I did not see the wound of exit in the skin. I saw a hole of exit in the shirt of the President. Q But in speaking of the throat area, or skin area of the President, relative to his throat you said it was approximately five millimeters and you later said that Commander Humes received this information from Dallas. A The wound that was in the front of the neck I obtained that information from Dr. Humes. Q Therefore would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you describe it is larger than the wound in the throat area? MR. DYMOND: We object to this. First of all, the Doctor testified that these are approximate measurements on wounds in the skin. Secondly, the doctor testified that he never saw the front bullet wound and consequently an answer on that would have to be based on measurements made by someone else, told to someone else, and then included in the report. MR. OSER: All the results, if The Court please, from two autopsy reports signed by this witness stating that ~ I believe he said everything in here is true and correct when I asked him, then I asked him if he wished to change anything in here at the beginning of his testimony and he said no. I'm trying to ascertain what he told Defense Counsel on direct examination, he stated this was an exit wound and I am trying to find out whether the hole in the back is larger than the front and whether or not it is compatible with a wound from this type of bullet. MR. DYMOND: If The Court please, the Doctor testified what he based his conclusions on and further testified that he never did see the front wound in the neck and conse- quently the question is impossible of answer. THE COURT: He has testified he is familiar with the information received from Dr. Humes from the surgeons in Dallas, Texas and he knows it was in the report and that the information was communicated to him and he was aware of it. I understand that Mr. Oser's question is whether the entrance wound from the rear was larger than the exit wound, which was the information given by the surgeon in Dallas, Texas. MR. DYMOND: Your Honor has consistently ruled throughout the trial that a witness cannot relate what someone else related to him. THE COURT: Ordinarily I agree but it was advised to him and he was made cognizant of it when he signed the original report, when he signed the report he either knew that as a fact which was received it from Commander Humes who received it from Dallas. I will permit the question. You are asking Dr. Finck if from the information he had whether or not the measurements of the alleged entrance wound as you wish to call it, alleged, is not larger than the information received from Dallas of the entrance wound in the front. I will permit you to ask it. MR. DYMOND: To which Counsel respectfully objects and reserves a Bill of Exception on the grounds this is hearsay evidence making the entire line of questioning, particu- larly this question, the answer to the question, the objection and ruling of the Court and the entire record parts of the bill. MR. OSER: Could I have the witness answer my question. Will you answer the question. THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question. THE REPORTER: Question: "Therefore, would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you described it is larger than the wound in the throat area?" MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, that is not the question you stated you were ruling on. You said you were ruling on the question whether it was larger than the information indicated. MR. OSER: I will ask that question. THE WITNESS: Whether or not it was larger? BY MR. OSER: Q Than the information you received from the doctors in Dallas. MR. DYMOND: Object now on the ground that he didn't receive the information from the Doctor. THE COURT: I just ruled that he signed his name to the report and under that exception I will permit the question. Do you understand the question? MR. OSER: Let me ask you again, Doctor~ THE COURT: No, because then I will have to be ruling on different things if you change the question each time. MR. OSER: Then I'll ask that the Court Reporter read the question I asked. THE REPORTER: Question: "Therefore, would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you described it is larger than the wound in the throat area" ~ then he added the second part of the question, Your Honor, which says, "than the infor- mation you received from the doctors in Dallas?" THE WITNESS: I don't know 'cause I measured the wound of entry whereas I had no way of measuring the wound of exit and the wound could have been slightly smaller, the same size, or slightly larger because all I have is somebody saying it was approximately 5 millimeters in diameter. * * * Q Colonel, I direct your attention to Page 4 of your autopsy report of November 1963, and to the fourth paragraph which states, "The complexity of these frac- tures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared." Now, Colonel, can you tell me and tell the Court how you refer in your autopsy report that the fractures and the fragments are better appreciated in the photographs when you did not see the photographs until January 1967? MR. DYMOND: We object to this unless Counsel says better than what. This report indicates a photograph would show them better than they could be described in words. THE COURT: You are coming to the aid of a witness unsolicited. MR. DYMOND: You cannot compare something to nothing, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you understand the question? THE WITNESS: Yes. When there are so many fractures in so many directions producing so many lines and fragments in the bone, a photograph will be more accurate than descrip- tions. The photographs were taken but turned over undeveloped to the Secret Service at the time we performed the autopsy, and the photographs were taken, we did not know when these photographs would be processed, this was beyond our control because they had been turned over, exposed, taken in our presence, but the Secret Service took charge of them. BY MR. OSER: Q And you didn't see the photographs until January of 1967. Is that correct, Colonel? A That is correct. Q Also in your autopsy report on the same page, Page 4, I direct your attention to the last paragraph, the last paragraph under "2," where you said in your report, "The second wound presumably of entry," and now you state in Court that you are positive it was of entry. A As I recall, it was Admiral Galloway who told us to put that word "presumably." Q Admiral Galloway? A Yes. Q Told you to put that word "presumably"? A Yes, but this does not change my opinion that this is a wound of entry. Q Is Admiral Galloway a Pathologist, to your knowledge? A Admiral Galloway had some training in Pathology. He was the Commanding Officer of the Naval Hospital, as I recall, and at that time, in my mind, this was a wound of entry, it just was suggested to add "presumably" this was. Q Did he suggest you add anything else to your report, Colonel? A Not that I recall. Q Can you give me the name of the General that you said told Dr. Humes not to talk about the autopsy report? A This was not a General, it was an Admiral. Q All right, excuse me, the Admiral, can you give me the name of the Admiral? A Who stated that we were not to discuss the autopsy findings? Q Yes. A This was in the autopsy room on the 22nd and 23rd of November, 1963. Q What was his name? A Well, there were several people in charge, there were several Admirals, and, as I recall, the Adjutant General of the Navy. Q Do you have a name, Colonel? A It was Admiral Kinney, K-i-n-n-e-y, as I recall. Q Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of the autopsy, as you testified about? A Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several people, as I have stated before. I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision. Q Which includes your report. Does it not? A Sir? Q Which includes your report. Does it not? A No. Q It does not? A I would not say so, because the report I signed was signed by two other pathologists and at no time did this Army General say that he would have anything to do with signing this autopsy report. Q Can you give me the Army General's name? A I don't remember it. Q How did you know he was an Army General? A Because Dr. Humes said so. Q Was he in uniform? A I don't remember. Q Were any of the Admirals or Generals or any of the Military in uniform in that autopsy room? A Yes. Q Were there any other Generals in uniform? A I remember a Brigadier General of the Air Force, but I don't remember his name. Q Were there any Admirals in uniform in the autopsy room? A From what I remember, Admiral Galloway was in uniform, Admiral Kinney was in uniform, I don' t remember whether or not Admiral Berkley, the President's physician, was in uniform. * * * Q Do you know whether or not all of the X-ray films came out or not, to your knowledge? A To my knowledge, they came out all right. Q Now, if, Colonel, you viewed the X-ray film of the head or had been viewed by a radiologist, can you tell me why there was no mention in your report of a three-quarter by one-half inch rectangular shaped object in the President's brain? A No. Q Can you tell me why there is nothing in your report making mention of metallic substances in the track? A Before you go to that second question, if I may say something, in that panel review of 1968 there was a rectangular structure and they say it is not identifiable to this panel. Q If it was there, Colonel, in the X-rays, would you say it was there in the brain at the time of the autopsy? MR. DYMOND: What page are you referring to, Doctor, what page are you referring to? MR. OSER: The panel of 1968, the pages are not numbered. THE WITNESS: That is "S-72." MR. OSER: Page 8, Mr. Dymond. THE WITNESS: "There can be seen a gray-brown rectangular structure measuring approximately 13 by 20 millimeters, its identity cannot be established by the panel." I don't know what this refers to. BY MR. OSER: Q Did you see such at the time of your autopsy, did you see such a substance in the brain of the President? A I don't remember.