AFTERNOON SESSION
Whereupon, DR. J THORNTON BOSWELL resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
We have now taken a lunch break, and I would like to go
back to the exhibit, the skull that is marked as Exhibit 74. I'd like to ask
you, Dr. Boswell, if you could give me just your own assessment of how the
dimensions of the skull that we have here compare, again, in just a very general
way, to the skull for President Kennedy.
A. The marks that I've made are really very approximate to
the dimensions that are in our written report. And the skull is probably smaller
than President Kennedy's, and the marks that we've made on the skull are very
approximate.
Q.
Would it be your impression that, first, the markings
that are contained in the face sheet, Exhibit 1, and in the autopsy protocol are
accurate?
A. Yes.
Q.
So those are accurate. And would it be fair to say that
the markings that you have put on the skull are approximate dimensions based
upon what you considered to be the accurate markings that are in the autopsy
protocol and the face sheet?
A. That's true, and these really only indicate sort of the
magnitude of the wound and the approximate position of it.
Q.
And would you say that the drawings that you have made
on the skull are roughly proportional to the size of the skull rather than the
actual centimeter marking?
A. True, true. That's good.
Q.
Dr. Boswell, I'd like to talk to you about the order of
procedures as they took place on the night of the autopsy. We have discussed
already the arrival of the casket and the removal of the body. I'd like you now
to tell me what the first procedure was that was performed in terms of the
examination of President Kennedy.
A. The external examination was done first, and as soon as
the body had been examined, the photographer was brought in and various
photographs, external photographs, were taken, at which point we then backed
away and permitted the radiologist to X-ray the entire body, and then we began
further external examination and dissection while awaiting the development of
the X-ray film. Then the wounds of entry and exit were studied preliminary to an
examination of the abdominal and thoracic cavity. The neck wound was determined—its direction and dimension was determined after we had opened the thorax and
been able to review the right thoracic cavity, which was the midpoint of the
wound.
Q.
When was the wound on the back of the body first
located? Was that right at the beginning of the autopsy, or did that come later
in the autopsy, the wound that you've described as the neck wound?
A. That was recognized fairly early in the autopsy because
that—we began studying that first trying to determine if a bullet was present.
Q.
With respect to the photographs, was anything done to
the skull or to the hair to prepare it for the photographs? For example, was the
hair cleaned at all? Was the hair parted in any way or any skull fragments put
in before the photographs were taken?
A. Well, photographs were taken at various stages. The
scalp was pulled forward in order to demonstrate the wound of entrance. And then
the scalp was reflected to show the magnitude of the wound and more or less the
direction of the bullet, and then to remove the brain.
Q.
Just so I'm clear—and we'll be looking at the
photographs in a few minutes, and you can maybe clarify it there. But at least
with some of the photographs, is it your testimony that the scalp was pulled in
a way different from how it was when you first saw it in order to better
illustrate either wound of entry or exit?
A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual
autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this
case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the
wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid.
Q.
Okay. Was the hair cleaned in any way for purposes of
the photographs?
A. No, I don't think so. There was not a lot of blood, as
I remember, and I think he had been pretty well cleaned up in the operating—in
the emergency room. And I don't think we had to do much in the way of cleansing
before we took photographs.
Q.
Were any skull fragments put back into place before
photographs or before X-rays?
A. I think before we took the—the ones that came from
Dallas were never put back in except to try and approximate them to the ones
that were present. But I think all the others were left intact.
Q.
So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen
out at any point that you then put back into its place before a photograph or
X-ray was taken?
A. Yes.
Q.
What size fragments and where did you place them at the—
A. Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that
10-centimeter piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I think maybe
some of these smaller fragments down at the base of that diagram also were out
at one time or another. But those were all put back.
Q.
Okay. And you're referring to page 2 of Exhibit 1?
A. I'm sorry. Yes.
Q.
Was a Y incision ever made on President Kennedy?
A. Yes.
Q.
Would you look at page 4 of Exhibit 26, which, again,
were the notes taken of your interview with HSCA members?
A. The second paragraph?
Q.
The first full paragraph, down at the last few
sentences. It appears to me that this is reporting you to have said that a Y
incision was not made. Was that recorded correctly, or do you recall now whether
there was a Y incision?
A. Well, there would have to be a Y. This was
misunderstood. We went into the chest first, and then the Y incision was
extended.
Q.
So when you say "this was misunderstood,"
you're referring to the phrase in the document Exhibit 26 that says there was no
Y incision?
A. Said they didn't do a Y, but we examined the chest
first and then we ultimately extended the incision to a Y and went into the
abdomen.
Q.
Could you look at the first sentence of the following
paragraph that begins, "Dr. Boswell indicated that we had gotten ourselves
in Dutch with the neck and throat wounds with regard to the Secret
Service"'? Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q.
Does that seem accurate to you in terms of recounting
what you said?
A. Yes.
Q.
What did you mean by gotten yourself in Dutch with
the Secret Service?
A. Well, that they were reporting things and some of the
things that they told people became public and they just hadn't gotten the
entire information.
Q.
So how was it misreported or—
A. There was some question you asked me earlier that they
had—oh, it was about the probing of the wound, and they said that we probed and
couldn't find it and thought that the bullet must have been knocked out while—during the resuscitation. That was the sort of thing that was happening
while they were on the phone.
Q.
Did the Secret Service ever come and talk to you about
that during the course of the autopsy or subsequently about that issue?
A. No.
Q.
Did you understand that the Secret Service was
displeased in some way with anything to do with neck or throat wounds in the
autopsy?
A. No. Those people were in such an emotional state that
they were running around like chickens with their heads off, and we understood
their problem. But we never talked with them directly. They misquoted an awful
lot of things that we said or did.
Q.
Let me ask you a question from the autopsy manual. This
goes to the Y incision. I'd like to have you look at the diagram on page 5 which
shows the incisions. Could you describe whether the Y incision on President
Kennedy followed that marked on Exhibit 5 or whether it differed in some way?
A. Well, initially, we did this because we were only going
to do a thorax.
Q.
You mean the incision that would go right below the
nipples?
A. Right.
Q.
From the armpits underneath—
A. Actually down just above the diaphragm. Beneath the
nipples and just above the diaphragm. But then when we were permitted—see, I
was trying to find the adrenal glands through the diaphragm from above.
Q.
So it's just the top part, the semicircular part,
without opening anything down to the—
A. Right.
Q.
—middle of—
A. With it open like this, you can get down—you can get
the lungs and the heart, get the neck organs and so forth out. But you can't get
down into the liver and stomach and so forth. So I was trying to palpate through
the diaphragm the adrenals, and I couldn't find them because he didn't have any.
And so we talked to Burkley at some point, and we were able to go in and get the
kidneys out where the adrenals sit on top of.
Q.
So you made a vertical incision that would come down
from the sternum—
A. Right.
Q.
—down—
A. Exactly.
Q.
At what point during the autopsy was the brain removed?
A. I can't be sure, but I think that we did the brain
first before we did the dissection of the thorax and abdomen. But I can't be
sure about that. I mean, normally, it would be the last thing to be done. But
since it was the prime thing in the autopsy, I sort of have a feeling that we
did that first. But I won't say for sure.
Q.
Was it necessary to make any incisions in the scalp in
order to remove the brain?
A. No.
Q.
Was it necessary to saw any of the bones in the
cranium?
A. No.
Q.
Who was it who removed the brain?
A. I think Jim Humes did, but I can't be sure of that.
Q.
Do you recall whether there were any difficulties in
conjunction with removal of the brain?
A. No.
Q.
Do you recall whether it was particularly easy to
remove the brain?
A. I think it was a routine procedure. In Dallas, they had
said that the cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding.
But they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of
compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut the dura
around, and then you—that's the only hard part about getting the brain out. And
the manner in which we were doing it, both the cerebral hemispheres were already
exposed without dura, and it was really very simple to take out.
Q.
During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?
A. Yes.
Q.
And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?
A. No.
Q.
So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?
A. Yes.
Q.
Was the tentorium damaged at all?
A. No.
Q.
Do you recall whether Colonel Finck arrived before or
after the brain was removed?
A. Oh, before.
Q.
Do you remember in terms of the general chronology of
events when the skull fragment or fragments arrived? Was that very late in the
autopsy? Do you recall?
A. I think like midway. The one. I think the others came
after we had finished.
Q. Okay.
A. Or maybe toward the end.
Q.
Drs. Finck and Humes have both referred to the arrival.
Dr. Finck said close to midnight, and Dr. Humes said, "I wouldn't wish to
guess, but I would have guessed it was midnight or 1 o'clock in the
morning." Does that seem to you to be approximately correct? Or would your
memory be that it was earlier?
A. Oh, I think it was midnight.
Q.
Dr. Boswell, were you present during the time President
Kennedy was embalmed?
A. Yes.
Q.
Did you participate in that at all, or did you Just
observe?
A. We just observed.
Q.
Did the skull fragment arrive prior to or after the
beginning of the embalming?
A. Prior to.
Q.
Was the fragment placed into the cranium in the course
of the embalming?
A. No.
Q.
Was it kept separate from the body?
A. Yes.
Q.
Who took possession of that fragment, if you recall?
A. I think it was retained with the brain in Smoky
Stover's office. It was put in his closet, in the closet of his office, and
locked up that night. And then I would assume—but I don't know— that the bone
fragments went with all the rest of the material down to the White House,
although it may have been kept by the Secret—or by the Warren Commission. I'm
not sure.
Q.
Is there a standard procedure, the best you know, for
keeping fragments of bones or skull with the body or not with the body when
there is a—when it is a forensic case?
A. Usually that's part of the forensic material that's
retained for courts and trials and so forth.
Q.
So it would be your understanding it would be a normal
autopsy procedure, normal forensic autopsy procedure, to keep certain parts of
the body as evidence for potential trial?
A. True.
Q.
I'd like to shift the direction a little bit now and
talk to you about records. The first question would be: Who during the course of
the autopsy took any records or notes that you recall?
A. I think Jim Humes and Bob Karnei, who was our senior
resident working with us that night, and myself did all the note-taking. And
then Jim took all our collected notes with him to write up the autopsy.
Q.
Did he take them on the—I guess very early on the
morning of the 23rd, or did he take them later?
A. He took them with him home at midnight. Smoky called us—Jim took the bucket with the brain and whatever
else—we had the tissue
samples for microscopy. We took all that up to our offices and into Smoky's
office, and at that time, it was thought that there was some sort of a cabal and
that some—you know, anybody was likely to be killed, Johnson or anybody else.
And Smoky says, J, you take Jim home. So I got in my car behind Jim Humes, and I
followed him home. And then I went home, and he stayed up the rest of the night
writing up the autopsy.
Q.
When did you first see a draft of the autopsy?
A. The next morning.
Q.
Approximately what time?
A. Ten o'clock.
Q.
What were the circumstances when you saw it? Did you go
to his home, or was it at the hospital?
A. I went to the hospital.
Q.
Was the first draft, do you recall, handwritten or
typed?
A. Well, he had written—he had handwritten one, and then
he rewrote it. And I don't know whether I saw that or—I think maybe it was
typed before I saw it. I don't think I ever saw a handwritten copy.
Q.
Now, is it—well, did you see a version of the autopsy
at about 10 o'clock at the hospital—
A. Yes.
Q.
—on Saturday? And that one was handwritten?
A. No. That—
Q.
That was typed?
A. I'm almost sure that was already typed.
Q.
Now, was it your understanding that Dr. Humes wrote a
handwritten version immediately after the autopsy and that he then wrote a
subsequent draft, handwritten again, and that one was subsequently typed?
A. Yes.
Q.
That's the chronology that you understand?
A. Right.
Q.
Did you ever talk to him, that is, Dr. Humes, about the
contents of the first draft of the autopsy?
A. No.
Q.
Do you know whether he spoke to anyone about the
contents of the first draft of the autopsy, such as Captain Stover?
A. He's talked to an awful lot of people about that.
Q.
I don't mean after the fact, but I mean—
A. I mean investigating committees and all sorts of
people, because he burned—I don't know why that wasn't burned, but he—
Q.
You're referring to Exhibit 1?
A. Yeah. He—anything with blood on it—and that obviously
had blood on it. It's watermarked. He was working on a card table in front of
his fireplace, and he was throwing drafts and redrafts and so forth into the
fireplace. And he's described that to many people.
Q.
Do you know whether he talked—my question does not go
to subsequent investigations, but contemporaneously at the time he was writing
it, do I you know whether he spoke to anyone about the contents of the first
draft prior to the second draft?
A. I'm not aware of anybody.
Q.
Did you ever see the notes that Dr. Humes took during
the course of the autopsy?
A. No. I'm trying to think what notes he might have taken.
I don't see his handwriting on that.
Q.
You mean Exhibit 1?
A. Right. I don't think I saw any of his notes.
Q.
Do you have any recollection of seeing Dr. Karnei's
notes you previously mentioned?
A. I think that maybe Karnei may be the one who wrote
those measurements on Exhibit 1. What else he may have written on it, I don't
remember.
Q.
Did Dr. Humes ever return to you personally Exhibit 1
or any other notes that you took?
A. No.
Q.
Did you take any notes yourself other than what is
contained in Exhibit 1?
A. No.
Q.
Did you see anyone else at Bethesda taking notes other
than yourself, Dr. Karnei, and Dr. Humes?
A. No.
Q.
For example, FBI agents or Secret Service?
A. I didn't see anybody writing.
Q.
I'd like to ask you about the kinds of records that
would typically be generated in the course of an autopsy at Bethesda in the
1960s. So in addition to notes that may have been taken by doctors or prosectors
during an autopsy, were there, for example, audiotape recordings of autopsies?
A. No.
Q.
Have you ever heard of any audiotapes ever being made
of autopsies?
A. Oh, yes.
Q.
Do you know when those started in relationship to 1963?
A. Oh, at least when I started my residency in the '50s—'52, '53. We were using audiotapes in those days.
Q.
But you don't know of audiotapes having been used at
Bethesda?
A. We did occasionally. We were training residents there,
and we usually would take the long road. But recording with audio was done.
Q.
Was there any reason that there was not an audio
recording of President Kennedy's autopsy that you know of?
A. Well, probably a number of reasons. Certainly with the
number of people and the noise in there, it probably wouldn't have been a good
idea. But when you have three prosectors plus so many other people working, it
would not have worked.
Q.
Did you ever hear any discussion about whether there
should or shouldn't be an audiotape made of the autopsy?
A. That's one thing I've never heard anybody complain
about.
Q.
Was it ever the custom or practice to have somebody
take minutes or notes of proceedings of an autopsy?
A. Always.
Q.
Was there somebody who did that?
A. Well, basically I was taking the notes, for the most
part.
Q.
And by those notes, you're referring to Exhibit 1?
A. Right.
Q.
Was it ever the practice, as far as you're aware, to
have someone like, we'll say, a full-time stenographer or something of that sort
taking more comprehensive notes than Exhibit 1?
A. We didn't do that at Bethesda. There are pathology
departments that have done that for years.
Q.
And as far as you recall, there was no person who did
that for President Kennedy's autopsy?
A. True. That's right.
Q.
Were there any kind of records that were created to,
for example, log the receipt of the body or the departure of the body?
A. Yes.
Q.
How would those be recorded?
A. There was a morgue log book that I'm sure would have
recorded the receipt and disposition of the body.
Q.
Does that have any other name other than morgue log
book that you're aware of?
A. That's all.
Q.
That would be the correct term for it. Were there any
similar logs for receipt of organs or tissues or sections? How would those be
recorded or tracked?
A. If they're brought into the morgue at a time other than
when the autopsy was going on, they would be put in the log book.
Q.
Would that be the same as the morgue log book?
A. Yes.
Q.
So let's suppose that several sections were made from
the brain and they were taken out for examination.
A. Oh, in that—no. We had regular sessions with people
either coming to the morgue for organ reviews or brain examinations and stuff
like that. And they occasionally would take parts back with them to the AFIP or
wherever they came from. But I don't think usually those are logged in or out.
Now, those people taking those away probably would render a report. So a report
would have been sent back to us that that sample had been removed a certain day,
certain examinations were done, and the results are reported herewith, that sort
of thing.
Q.
Did you ever see any documents like that for President
Kennedy?
A. No.
Q.
Do you know whether there were ever any such documents
created?
A. No, because all the materials that we took out of the
body were processed and returned to the White House, and our supplementary
report reflected all the work that was done.
Q.
Did anyone other than Dr. Humes have any responsibility
for conducting microscopic examination of the tissues?
A. I think I did that.
Q.
Okay. I'd like to show you a document, Exhibit 4, and
see if that helps with your recollection. I'll state for the record that's the
supplementary report of autopsy of President Kennedy.
A. These are Jim's description. Now, what was your
question?
Q.
Just who performed the microscopic examination or any
other of the examinations on the tissues?
A. Well, Jim Humes and I did the brain. I see he has
described the microscopic. I also went over those slides. But these are his
description.
Q.
You're referring now to Exhibit 4?
A. Yes.
Q. I'd like you to look at Exhibit No. 26 on page 8. This, once again, are staff notes from the interview of HSCA. I'd like you to read the paragraph beginning with "Dr. Boswell said the tissue people." If you could read that through the end of the paragraph, please?
[Pause.]
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Is that paragraph a reasonably accurate—
A. Yes.
Q.
—recording of your recollection?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q.
So when you say tissue people were given the tissue,
whom were you referring to?
A. The people that prepare the slides. At autopsy, you cut
out small samples of all the organs, and the margins of things like the bullet
wounds of entry and that sort of thing, and then after that's fixed for a while
in formalin, you take smaller pieces of those, and then that is processed for
dehydration and infiltration with paraffin. Those are put in paraffin blocks,
and then sections are made to be examined under the microscope, stained and
examined under the microscope. So, actually, I gave those to the people at midnight,
or earlier, probably 10:30, 11 o'clock at night, and they processed those that
night. And when I came in the next day, they were ready for me to examine.
Q.
Was there any record created of the transfer of the
tissue from you to the testing personnel and then back? Or was that done without
records?
A. Well, that's done without records. An autopsy is given
a number, and then this—I don't see the number here, but, anyway, they—here it
is. And then all the tissue is processed with that number, and there are so many
tiny pieces, and they require a little tag that's put through with them. And
that's in an autopsy log in the laboratory separate from the morgue log, and
that number and the patient is logged in. And then there are logs probably in
the secretary's part of the laboratory where they type this up and that's—this
number and name is put in their records.
Q.
So that you would expect there to be some kind of log
book that would show the receipt of the sections, the testing, the results of
the test, and then sending the—
A. Yes.
Q.
—sections back? Now, in the paragraph that I showed
you a moment ago from page 8 of Exhibit No. 26, it refers to this, the sections
being available from around noon on the 23rd; is that correct?
A. Right.
Q.
So that would have been Saturday at approximately noon?
A. Yes.
Q.
Now, previously you mentioned that it was your
understanding that Dr. Humes had a draft of the autopsy protocol that was
available about 10 o'clock that morning; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q.
And do you remember that the draft was available prior
to the time that the sections had been returned from tests?
A. Yes. But the microscopic wasn't part of the draft.
Q.
Exactly. Sure. Were you present when the results of the
testing were dictated?
A. No.
Q.
Do you know when the dictating took place on the
microscopic sections?
A. No.
Q.
Do you know, for example, whether that was on the 23rd
at approximately the time they were received, or later?
A. We looked at the slides together Saturday around noon.
But he had not dictated the autopsy at that time.
Q.
I mean the supplementary report for—
A. Well, I'm not sure he had dictated any of it at that
time. He had handwritten out the gross autopsy. And maybe I—I might have
reviewed with him his handwritten draft at that time. I can't remember that. But
at some time we went over it together, because I'm sure we discussed points and
made changes and so forth. But that was done Saturday early afternoon.
Q.
Okay. Was anyone else present when you examined the
sections around noon on the 23rd? For example, was Dr. Finck there?
A. He was not there.
Q.
Was Dr. Karnei there?
A. He was probably there, and probably others of our
staff.
Q.
Did you conduct any examination of the brain at that
time?
A. No.
Q.
Was a section made of the wound of entrance on the neck
or back?
A. Both.
Q.
Do you recall what the results of that—was there a
subsequent testing of the back/neck wound?
A. Other than the microscopic?
Q.
Yes.
A. No.
Q.
Do you recall whether the results of that test were
recorded anywhere?
A. Yes. I think they're here.
Q.
Could you show me where that is located, the
microscopic examination of the—
A. On page 2 of Exhibit 4, at the bottom of the page, skin
wounds. It describes the sections taken through the margins of both the skin
wounds.
Q.
And do you see the reference there to the coagulation
necrosis?
A. Yes.
Q.
Can you tell me what that signifies?
A. Like burning.
Q.
And did that have any bearing on determination of
whether that was an entrance wound?
A. No. The size and configuration of the entrance wound
are the two most important things.
Q.
Did you see any written results of tests on any of the
tissues of President Kennedy, other than the document that's in your hand now,
Exhibit 4?
A. I'm sorry?
Q.
Did you see any written reports of any tests performed
on any of the tissues from President Kennedy's body, other than Exhibit 4, which
is in your hand now?
A. No.
Q.
Prior to the time that you signed the autopsy protocol,
which is Exhibit 3, did you discuss the substance of the autopsy with anyone
other than Drs. Humes and Finck?
A. Well, I'm sure my wife. She had been staying up all
night waiting for me to get home. There was a—the neuropathologist at the AFIP
was home when I got there, and I think I probably discussed some of it with him,
some of the evening's events and so forth.
Q.
Do you remember the circumstances when you signed the
autopsy protocol, Exhibit 3? Do you remember what day of the week it was or time
of day?
A. This was done on Sunday, wasn't it?
Q.
It's not dated. You're referring to Exhibit 3?
A. Yes. I'm almost sure that this was executed on
Saturday or Sunday, because Jim took it down to Admiral Burkley. I can't be
positive at this moment.
Q.
At the time that you signed this, was anyone else in
the room with you? Do you recall? "This" being Exhibit 3.
A. Yes. I think that Pierre Finck, Jim Humes, and Smoky
Stover and I were in the room. Yeah, I think we were the only ones there at the
time we signed it.
Q.
Was there any discussion that you recall about anyone
wanting the autopsy protocol to read one way rather than another or any changes
that were being asked to be made to it by anyone?
A. No one from outside, and Jim and Pierre and I went over
it quite carefully item by item and discussed everything in it, as to contents
and accuracy and so forth. I do remember that we spent quite a bit of time just
preliminary to signing it.
Q.
Was there any discussion at all about someone from
outside of that group wishing to make any changes or alterations to the autopsy
protocol?
A. None.
Q.
Did you ever sign more than one version of the autopsy
protocol? For example, was there one draft that was written that you signed and
then subsequently made a decision to make changes?
A. No. There was just one version.
Q.
Previously in the
deposition, you've made reference to there being a probe to help track the
direction of the neck wound. Do you recall that?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q.
Could you tell me about how long the probe was or
describe the dimensions of the probe?
A. It's a little soft metal instrument that looks like a
needle with a blunt end on one end and a flattened end on the other, like a
needle that you would knit with or something. And it's, I would say, eight
inches long, blunt on one end and sort of has a sharp point on the other end.
Q.
Were there any X-rays taken with the probe inside the
body that you recall?
A. No.
Q.
How far in did the probe go?
A. Very short distance. Three inches, about.
Q.
Were there any photographs taken with the probe
inserted?
A. I doubt it.
Q.
I believe from your earlier testimony you said that you
were present for the subsequent supplementary examination of the brain. Is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q.
Who else was present for that examination?
A. I can't be sure about this. I am sure that Jim and I
were there. I think probably Pierre was not, but I think the neuropathologist
from AFIP, Richard Davis, was there. And then I'm sure much of our medical staff
from the laboratory, I think they probably all would have been there.
Q.
So there were quite a number of people there?
A. Yes.
Q.
Just in a rough way, is this between 6 and 12 or
approximately how many?
A. I would say probably 15, maybe. It was President
Kennedy's brain.
Q.
Do you remember whether anyone named Stringer was
present?
A. Yes. He was the photographer.
Q.
Did he take photographs at that time, as best you
recall?
A. Throughout the autopsy and the subsequent brain
examination. I was thinking about that last night, and he had an assistant or
two. They train people in medical photography. And I'm not sure if he was
present throughout all this or one of his assistants. I'm almost positive he was
there throughout the autopsy. The same is true of the radiologist. He had
residents and assistants also, and I know there were at least a couple of
radiology technicians moving film about and so forth.
Q.
Were any of the radiologists present during the
supplementary examination of the brain?
A. I doubt it.
Q.
Do you recall Dr. Humes ever having made reference to
Admiral Burkley's desire that the brain be interred with the body?
A. No.
Q.
Do you recall ever having heard anyone discuss the
issue of whether the brain should be interred with the body?
A. I'm sure that in years past that discussion has come
up, but I can't remember who and where.
Q.
In addition to the supplementary examination of the
brain that we've been discussing and the examination of the tissues from around
noon on the 23rd, did you participate in any other supplementary examinations of
tissues related to President Kennedy?
A. Not at that time.
Q.
When did you at some other time?
A. When the material was returned to the Archives.
Q.
Okay. When you say "when the material was returned
to the Archives," you're meaning two or three years—
A. Slides—yes.
Q.
During the time that the material was returned to the
Archives, what do you remember there being in the way of, I will call it,
biological material, anything related to President Kennedy's body or tissues?
A. Slides, microscopic slides. And I can't remember if
there were paraffin blocks. I believe there were paraffin blocks, but I'm not
sure. Then, of course, photographs and X-rays. And I can't remember whether—those bone fragments may have been within
the—are they still in the
archival material? They're not? At some point they were. I think I saw them at
the Archives at some point.
Q.
Okay. Other than the subsequent examination at the
Archives, is it your testimony that you only participated in examinations of the
tissues at two times after the initial autopsy? Is that fair?
A. We went down and—when the material first came back, we
went down—Jim Humes, Stringer, and the radiologist, Dick somebody or other, and
I—and we went through all the material and numbered it and signed it and logged
it back in. And then that group of physicians, we asked for pathologists and
radiologists, and I guess there were all kinds of people in that group. We went
through it again with them that time. Then I think that was the end.
Q.
Okay. So just in terms of the time around the autopsy,
there were no other opportunities that you had to examine tissues other than the
two we've discussed?
A. All the material went to the White House right after
the autopsy, within a week.
Q.
Do you remember during your supplementary—or during
your subsequent review at the National Archives ever seeing something like a
stainless steel container?
A. I don't remember that. Can you tell me what was in it?
Q.
That's sort of the question that we are interested in.
There are some records about there having been a stainless steel container at
the Archives. I don't know whether
you would have seen that or not. I just want to see if—
A. I'm trying to think how the paraffin blocks—it seems
to me the slides and paraffin blocks were in a wooden microscopic slide box. I
don't think that was in a metal container. And that's all there was.
Q.
Previously, you have mentioned that you were aware that—or you had heard that Dr. Humes had destroyed or burned some of the notes
or records related to the autopsy. Have you ever discussed that issue in any
depth with Dr. Humes?
A. Yes, we've—I've been present when he's told the story.
Q.
He has told the story related to the assassination of
President Lincoln—
A. No. No, the story of writing up the report and putting
the paper in the fireplace.
Q.
What is your understanding of the reason that he burned
the papers from President Kennedy's autopsy?
A. Same reason he washed the sheets. He didn't want this
material in a museum barn out on—
Q.
Did you yourself ever destroy any records created at or
about the time of the autopsy as they related to the autopsy of President
Kennedy?
A. No. Actually, the only records that I was involved in
were the ones on the table here.
MR. GUNN: I'd like to take a-short break while I have some of the photos and X-rays brought in.
[Recess.]
MR. GUNN: We now have in the room with us the autopsy photos in the possession of the National Archives as well as the X-rays, and I'd like to ask Dr. Boswell some questions about them. I have just handed to Dr. Boswell a document marked Exhibit 13, which on its face is the report of inspection by naval medical staff on November 1, 1966, at National Archives of X-rays and photographs of the autopsy of President John F. Kennedy.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Dr. Boswell, have you previously seen the document
that's marked Exhibit 13?
A. Yes, I have.
Q.
Is that your signature on the last page, the second
signature down?
A. Yes.
Q.
And could you tell me just in very brief form how you
came to sign the document that's now marked Exhibit 13?
A. We were notified that the material had been returned to
the Archives, and those of us who signed went down to the Archives and met Mr.
Rhoads, or Dr. Rhoads, and all the material was brought out to us, and we
reviewed it all, reidentified it and labeled it and authenticated it.
Q.
Okay. So it was your understanding that this procedure
that you were involved in was, at least in part, to assist the Archives in
properly cataloguing and labeling the autopsy photographs
and X-rays—
A. Yes.
Q.
—would that be fair? Now, you notice, for example, on
page 4 where it is referring to 4-by-5 black and white negatives, you can see
right next to No. 1 where there is the statement that the negative depicts the
"left side of head and shoulders." Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm going to be making reference to the language in this 1966 report as we discuss the photographs today, so I'll be referring to the language there, and you should feel free at any time to refer back to Exhibit 13. 1 will also be making reference to the photograph numbers that were attached to those photographs at the time of the 1966 inventory. And if you have any questions during the course of or subsequent discussion, don't hesitate to ask.
MR. GUNN: I now have in the room Steve Tilley from the National Archives and Ramona Branch, who will be assisting us with this process. Could you please first show to Dr. Boswell the left side of head and shoulders, which corresponds to black and white photo Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and color Nos. 29, 30, and 31?
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
My first question to you, Dr. Boswell, is whether you
have previously seen the photographs that are in this first view of the left
side of head and shoulders.
A. Yes, I have.
Q.
Do those appear to you to be true and authentic
photographs taken at the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A. Yes.
Q.
Do you notice any differences between the photographs
as they appear now and your recollection of the appearance of President Kennedy
from the left profile?
A. No.
Q.
Could you tell me whether you can see on the pictures
of the left profile of President Kennedy any lacerations in the scalp?
A. No.
Q.
Did you or Dr. Humes at any time make any lacerations
on the left profile of President Kennedy?
A. No.
Q.
Approximately when during the course of the autopsy
were these photographs taken? And by that I mean beginning, middle, end.
A. This is the beginning, very beginning. These were
initial photographs.
Q.
I asked you a variation of this question before, but as
you look at these photographs now, can you tell whether there were any changes
made to the appearance of President Kennedy such as the washing of the hair or
combing of the hair?
A. These are exactly as the body arrived to us. There's
blood clotted in here, around the neck wound, some in the hair, not much. We
didn't do anything to this.
MR. GUNN: Okay. Could Dr. Boswell now be shown the second view, which from the 1966 inventory is described as the "right side of head and right shoulder," corresponding to black and white Nos. 5 and 6, and color Nos. 26, 27, and 28?
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Dr. Boswell, do you recognize photographs that I have
just described as the "right side of head and right shoulder"?
A Yes.
Q.
To the best of your recollection, are those true and
accurate representations of photographs taken at the autopsy of President
Kennedy?
A Yes.
Q.
Could you please describe in general terms what you
observe in terms of wounds in the scalp first of President Kennedy?
A. Well, the scalp is actually avulsed, and this is a huge
laceration. The one that I was talking about in earlier questions.
Q.
If I could just state for the record, it appears that
you're talking about a laceration that is roughly slightly above the ear, that
is, towards the vertex, and that the laceration appears to go slightly into the
forehead above the right eye? Would that be fair?
A Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. This actually shows almost the magnitude of my drawing
on the skull the defect here.
Q.
You're pointing to the uppermost portion of President
Kennedy's head; is that correct?
A. Yes. Now, what you see at the very top left of the
photograph is scalp. This can be folded back down and actually—well, almost
completely hide the defect.
Q.
Would it be fair to say that the portion of the head
that we're seeing that looks disrupted in the portion of the photograph is
largely the inside of the scalp—
A. Exactly.
Q.
—all pulled back—
A. Yes.
Q.
—and if that were pulled forward, that it would cover
the defect?
A Yes.
Q.
And are you able to view in that photograph any brain
tissue?
A. Probably a little bit right here on the right side,
just above the fragmented bone, between that and the scalp. There's probably a
little bit of brain there.
Q.
But you would say just a very small amount within the
photograph, that principally we are looking at the inside of the scalp?
A. Right. And this is a bone fragment that's adhered to
the underside of the scalp but belongs up here.
Q.
When you say the bone fragment, you're referring to the
triangular-shaped object right immediately above the ear?
A. Yes.
Q.
Above the right ear. And did I understand you correctly
that that is a fragment that has come from another portion of the head?
A. Right.
Q.
And so how would it be that that skull fragment is in
that location?
A. Well, I think it's probably attached to the scalp
that's reflected.
Q.
So almost as if the scalp is hinged and a piece of the
skull is attached to the scalp?
A. Yes. I think the color photograph shows it better.
I don't think the black and white shows anything that the color
photograph doesn't show.
Q.
This is going to be a little bit difficult to describe,
but you have identified a laceration that goes onto the forehead. I'd like you
to go back from there about an inch-and-a-half and notice a portion of it where
the top three parts of it seem to be almost rectangular in shape. Do you see
that?
A. Yes.
Q.
Can you tell me what that object is there?
A. Okay. This is skull, the white area is skull, and then
the skull is fractured, and the bone beyond and above that, behind the hair
here, is missing.
Q.
Okay. And right to the right of the portion that I have
described as being rectangular—and when I say to the right, we should say that
the head from the direction that we're looking at is at the top of the document—there is something like a V-shaped indentation there. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q.
That is coming closer towards the frontal bone. What do
you perceive that V-shaped mark to be?
A. Well, the bone is fractured in a straight line here,
and then this is another fracture margin. And this may come all the way across
here, probably does.
Q.
All the way across almost the coronal suture?
A. Yes. This is probably frontal bone, and then this is
parietal bone extending up to here.
Q.
Can you identify any difference between this photograph
and how President Kennedy's body appeared from the right profile when you first
saw him at Bethesda?
A. No. It looks the same.
Q.
Was this photograph or were these photographs, which
we're describing as View 2 or I the second view, taken reasonably near the
beginning of the autopsy?
A. Yes.
Q.
Could we turn to the third view, please, which is
described in the 1966 inventory as the "superior view of the head"?
They correspond to black and white photo Nos. 7, 8, 9,
and 10, and color photos Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37. Dr. Boswell, do you recognize those as being
photographs that you previously designated as "superior view of the
head"?
A. Yes.
Q.
I'd like to ask you first whether they appear to you to
be true and accurate photographs of the autopsy of President Kennedy.
A. Yes.
Q.
Do you see any material difference between the
photographs as they appear now and President Kennedy as he was photographed on
November 22nd?
A. No.
Q.
I'm going to ask you to look at approximately the
midline of the brain. There appears to be a straight line or a straight-ish line
that goes—it appears to me to be slightly left of the midline of the brain that
goes through the scalp. Do you see that line that I'm referring to?
A. Yes.
Q.
Could you tell me what that line is, as best you
understand?
A. Well, that's a laceration margin of—you can see hair,
skin, and subcutaneous tissue, and then a little soft membranous tissue attached
with some blood coagulation on the under surface of the scalp.
Q.
In the photograph, as I mentioned, it appears as if
that laceration is somewhat to the left of the midline. If the scalp were put
back in place, where would you estimate that that scalp would come on the head?
A. I think it would fall over here.
Q.
You're pointing
over to the right side?
A. To the right side of the body.
Q.
So that the laceration that we see there would not
have, in fact, been near the midline but would have come much farther over onto
the right hemisphere?
A. Yes.
Q.
In that photograph that you're looking at now—again,
we're talking about the third view—do you see any material that is readily
identifiable as brain tissue?
A. I don't think so.
Q.
Would it be fair to say that what we are seeing there
in terms of the open wound is principally the interior of the scalp?
A. Yes.
Q.
Previously in the deposition, I asked you whether you
recalled having seen any brain tissue extruding from the wound at the time that
President Kennedy first arrived. Does this photograph help you answer the
question about whether there was any brain tissue extruding from the wound?
A. Yes. I see none. I can't be sure that some of this
material isn't cerebral cortex fragmented, but I think most of it is just blood
within the fascia of the scalp.
Q.
I'd like to point out another straight line. Maybe if
we can put the nose going up, there is the line that I mentioned before that
appears to be left of the midline, the laceration in the scalp. There appears to
be another line of some sort right in the center of the midline. It's not as
clear as the other line. Can you see the portion I'm referring to?
A. I see it, yes.
Q.
Can you tell me what that is, as best you understand?
A. I think that's just the way the tissue is torn. The way
that the bullet came in through here and exploded against the top of the skull
just shattered everything, and I think these are stretched tear marks, like this
was, and this was strong enough to completely separate the tissue. This is a
similar one that just didn't completely separate it. There are others over here,
too.
Q.
Could that be the superior parasagittal sinus?
A. No. That is attached to the under surface of the skull.
Q.
So it couldn't be that? Could that be any sort of line
or space between the right and left cerebral hemispheres?
A. I don't think so, because from all the other
documentation, I know that that fracture line was like this, and this is going
to fold over also toward the right side of the body. And I don't think that
these are really midline objects. I think that they're going in this direction,
toward the right.
Q.
Could we turn next to the fourth view, which is
described in the 1966 inventory as the "posterior view of wound of entrance
of missile high in shoulder"") That corresponds to black and white
Nos. 11 and 12, and color Nos. 38 and 39. Dr. Boswell, do those photographs
appear to you to be original and authentic photographs taken at the autopsy of
President Kennedy?
A. Yes.
Q.
Do you notice in those photographs any variation that
differs in any material way from what you observed on the night of the autopsy?
A. No.
Q.
Can you tell me approximately when during the course of
the autopsy that those photographs were taken?
A. Very early.
Q.
I'd like to ask you a question first about the scalp,
although that's not the center of the photograph, and ask you whether the scalp
had been pulled up in any way in order to keep any flaps from hanging down over
the back. I don't know if that question was—is—
A. Yes, I understand.
Q.
Maybe if we could look at that photograph in
conjunction with one from the third view.
A. Where the flap is coming down?
Q.
Yes.
A. I know this—the flap is stretched forward here,
because if this fell back down—with him in this sort of recumbent position,
yes, this scalp would fold down and cover this wound.
Q.
So you're saying that on the fourth view, which are the
photographs that are in your hand right now, the scalp has been pulled back and
folded back over the top of the head in a way different from the way that they
appeared in the third view, the superior view of the head?
A. Yes.
Q.
Is that fair?
A. In the previous one, it was permitted just to drop. In
this one, it's pulled forward up over the forehead, toward the forehead.
Q.
Who, if you recall, pulled up the scalp for the
photograph to be taken?
A. There are about three of us involved here, because
there are two right hands on that centimeter scale. I think that I probably was
pulling the scalp up.
Q.
I'd like you to notice in that photograph—and, again,
we're still talking about the fourth view—that there is a little white marking—I don't know what it
is—that is very near the hairline.
A. Here?
Q.
Yes. Do you see that either matter of tissue or
something—
A. I have seen that and worried and wondered about it for
all these many years. Some people- many people have alleged that to be the
wound. I don't think it is.
Q.
In relationship to that white marking, whatever it is,
could you say or describe approximately where the entrance wound was, where the
entrance wound would be in relationship to that?
A. Well, I think that the entrance wound is up in here
someplace. I'm talking like a couple of centimeters above the hairline and 4
centimeters to the left of the ear. But I can't argue with that. 1 don't know
what that is. I've seen this in other photographs. In some areas, it's a little
translucent bubble. I think that the wound of entrance is up in here.
Q.
Okay. What I'd like to ask you to do is measure with
the centimeter measure here. Maybe if we can—
A. You can't—well, okay. Let's see. This is—
Q.
You don't need to try and get it to correspond to the
ruler in the photograph.
A. Well, this is about two to one, so—
Q.
Just if you can do it on the actual measurement.
A. You want me to measure this?
Q.
Measure it from—approximately the distance from that
white spot that is on the—
A. Where I think the wound of entrance is?
Q.
Yes, that's right, what the distance is.
A. Okay. I think this is ... about 3.5 centimeters with
this scale.
Q.
Okay. So if President Kennedy were standing erect, then—and we're talking about the measurements corresponding to the photograph
and not to real life. But from what I was understanding, you were saying that
the measurement would be approximately 3.5 centimeters at approximately a
45-degree angle from that white spot, that is, if President Kennedy were
standing erect? Is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q.
And it's in the direction towards the right ear?
A. Toward the ear. That's maybe like 30 degrees.
Q.
And the point that you are estimating that the entrance
wound was located, is that the location that was previously recorded as
approximately 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external
occipital—
A. Right.
Q.
Okay. Now, if we could go to the other wounds there,
could you identify where the entrance wound was in the body of President
Kennedy, outside of the scalp now? Does that wound that you're pointing to
correspond to the larger wound that is to the right of the ruler in the
photograph? Again, assuming President Kennedy were standing erect.
A. Yes.
Q.
So it's the wound that comes closer to being towards
the tip of the ruler towards the neck?
A. No, this is blood clot down here. This is not wound.
Q.
You're referring to a second marking that is somewhat
below—
A. Right.
Q.
—the larger marking. Was the ruler covering, the ruler
in the photograph covering any other wound on the back—
A. No.
Q.
—that you're aware of?
A. It's just about over the vertebral bodies, the midline.
There's nothing underneath it.
Q.
I'd like to go back to one of the Rydberg drawings that
we had looked at earlier—and this is from Exhibit MI 13—and ask you whether in
looking at the photograph you think that the wound, that is, the entry wound in
the body of President Kennedy, corresponds more closely to the Rydberg
photograph or to the drawing that appears in Exhibit 1, the drawing that you
made at the time of the autopsy.
A. It's sort of in between. There's a lot of skin here
above the wound of entry on the back up to where you can see the folds of the
base of his neck. But his acromial process is out here and I—
Q.
Out under the hand in the photograph?
A. Yes. And here's his clavicle. This is sort of in
between these two.
Q.
So it's in between the one marked Exhibit 1 and Exhibit
MI 13?
A. And the Rydberg drawing.
Q.
If you had to match the entrance wound that you can see
on the photograph in View 4 to one of the vertebra, would you be able to give an
approximate location, either C7 or C4 or T3, whatever?
A. Well, it's certainly not as low as T4. I would say at
the lowest it might be T2. I would say around T2.
Q.
Can you identify an abrasion collar on the wound
depicted in the fourth view?
A. I'm sorry. Now repeat that?
Q.
Can you identify an abrasion collar on the wound in the
photographs you're looking at now, View 4?
A. Are you talking about the one in the posterior?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, this looks like it's coagulated around here, and
that, I guess, is what you would call an abrasion collar.
Q.
Did you notice an abrasion collar on that posterior
wound during the course of the autopsy?
A. Oh, yes.
Q.
So is the question now whether it can be identified by
the photograph?
A. This is a good wound of entrance. It's indented, almost
round. I think that the photograph is very good for identifying that as a wound
of entrance.
Q.
Okay. But in terms of identifying an abrasion collar,
does it—
A. Oh, I think that's very good. I can't imagine a true
forensic pathologist disagreeing with that.
Q.
I'd like to go to the fifth view, if we could, which is
described in the 1966 inventory as the "right anterior view of head and
upper torso, including tracheotomy wound." That corresponds to black and
white Nos. 13 and 14 and color Nos. 40 and 41. The first question for you, Dr.
Boswell, will be whether these photographs appear to be accurate photos of the
autopsy of President Kennedy.
A. Yes.
Q.
Let me ask you first whether the wound in the neck that
you see from the front is as the neck wound appeared when you first saw it at
the autopsy.
A. Yes.
Q.
In your experience, is that wound a typical tracheotomy
incision?
A. It's pretty big. I'm not sure what "typical"
would be, but it's a big tracheos—but I've seen many tracheostomy wounds that
big. So it's not too unusual, especially when you're doing it in a terminal,
why, you don't worry about the size of the wound.
Q.
I'm sorry. When you're doing—
A. When you're doing it in a terminal patient, why, the
last thing you're going to worry about is the size of the tracheostomy wound.
Q.
I notice that this photo is different from the first
view that we took a look at. The eye, at least on the right side, appears to be
open. Actually, both eyes appear to be open. Do you recall whether the eyes were
open during the course of the autopsy?
A. I don't recall that that was a point of interest. I
think we just moved back and let the photographer take the picture, and I think
maybe positioning the body may have had something to do with stretching the
eyelids. But I don't think we made any attempt to take the pictures with the
eyes open or closed.
Q.
So the difference on whether the eyes were open or
closed would not be of any material significance in terms of the timing of the
photographs?
A. No.
Q.
I'd like you to note the semi-triangular shaped marking
that goes into the forehead. Does that correspond to the laceration that we
previously noted in the second view?
A. Yes.
Q.
I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 74, the plastic skull,
and the line that is marked 2, that comes towards the front. Is it your
understanding that the laceration that is there corresponds roughly to the line
that is marked No. 2 on the skull?
A. Yes, and I seem to remember this extending down into
the rim of the eye more, which it obviously doesn't from these photographs. And
that's why I had drawn this down here.
Q.
Okay. So the marking that's on the skull on Line 2
probably extends further down towards the eye than would be reflected in the
photographs; is that correct?
A. Well, I don't know whether later in the autopsy we
stretched this so that this laceration extended down there. At some point, it
seemed to me that it did. But this obviously is the way that it was when he came
in.
Q.
Okay. Could we turn to the sixth view, which is
described as "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region"'?
That corresponds to black and white photos Nos. 15 and 16, and color photos Nos.
42 and 43. Do these photographs appear to you, Dr. Boswell, to be accurate
representations of photographs taken during the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A. Yes.
Q.
In that photograph, is the scalp of President Kennedy
being pulled forward?
A. Yes.
Q.
For what purpose was it being pulled forward?
A. In order to take the photograph, because if it wasn't
pulled forward, this would just—the scalp would come down and cover the wound
of entrance here. And this was necessary to demonstrate the wound here.
Q.
Okay. Now, as you're looking at the photograph of
President Kennedy, if you're looking at it as if President Kennedy were standing
erect— of course, he's lying on his side, but we'll look at it from the
perspective of the ruler being vertical, pointing upwards, and the head pointing
upwards. Could you identify where on the photograph the wound of entrance was
located, please—the wound of entrance in the skull?
A. This is the one that I have—photograph that I have had
a dilemma about for so many years. This is the white spot that you showed me in
the other photograph.
Q.
Yes, down near the hairline.
A. Yeah. And that is not where I thought that the wound of
entrance was. This must be the wound of entrance.
Q.
You're pointing down to the white marking near the
hairline?
A. Yeah. I'm trying to find anything up in here, and
obviously the photographer was taking this in such a manner to show that. I
can't find anything else. This is in disagreement with this, obviously.
Q.
When you say it's in disagreement, you're referring to
Exhibit MI 13—
A. Yes.
Q.
—the Rydberg drawing?
A. Right. Because this is more in the midline and lower.
Q.
I'd like to draw your attention to in the color
photograph the round, reddish marking just to the right of the ruler, very near
the top of the ruler.
A. Yes.
Q.
Could that round or ovular-shaped marking be the
entrance wound?
A. No.
Q.
What is that, if anything, that round or ovular-shaped
marking?
A. I think it's the—this is awfully near the front of the
scalp fragment here, and here is a laceration up here with complete separation.
And when—
Q.
You're referring there to the very top of the scalp—
A. Just under the fingers that's holding the scalp up. And
if you let—when you let this fall down, in one of the previous photographs—
Q.
I'm sorry. Just for the record, you're letting the
scalp fall down towards the back and cover where the ruler would be?
A. Yes. If you let that fall down, then this would be
right in the midline and that line that you asked me about where the tissue was
separated but not completely separated. And I think this is probably the other
side of that traumatic disfigurement of the scalp.
Q.
If I understood you correctly, were you saying that
that marking that we've been pointing to that is near the top of the ruler and
somewhat to the right might be the beginning or at least part of the laceration
in the scalp?
A. Yes. That's occurring from beneath with the explosion
of the bullet.
Q.
I'd like you to note the parting of the hair that goes
at approximately a 45-degree angle irregularly out to the right. Is that hair
that is being pulled to the left covering part of the laceration?
A. Probably. I can see it; probably up in here, at least.
Q.
Is there any question in your mind about whether that
photograph may have been changed or altered in any way?
A. Oh, I don't know how they would—how anybody could have
done that. I mean, all the other things I see here, my hairy arm, everything
else looks normal.
Q.
Holding aside the question of how someone might have
done that, is there anything in that photograph that appears to be different
from how you remember seeing it on the night of the autopsy?
A. No, and I've seen it many times since. I've seen this
photograph many times since then, and it's—I think this was the photograph that
was taken there. It's just that my memory of this apparent lesion—
Q.
Down at the bottom towards the hairline?
A. —was in a different location. But everything else
fits.
Q.
In looking at that photograph, do you have any reason
to re-evaluate the location of the wound of entrance in the skull from being 2.5
centimeters to the right and slightly above the right occipital protuberance?
A. Well, these figures are more important to me than this,
because I—this I'm not sure of. These I am sure of.
Q.
When you say "these figures," you're
referring to the autopsy face sheet, Exhibit 1?
A. The measurements on the face sheet. Is there another
photograph showing the head wound of entry?
Q.
The next photograph, we'll look at it in just a minute.
Now I'd like to ask you a question about what is underneath the scalp of what we
are looking at now. Let's take the marking that appears towards the hairline
right at the base of the neck, or where the hairline meets the neck. if we take
the point above that, where would you say that the scalp is or that the skull
will be missing underneath the scalp that we can view there?
A. Probably right about here.
Q.
So you're—
A. Just about the base of the ear.
Q.
So you're pointing to approximately halfway up the
ruler that we can observe and to the right of that small fragment, so the skull
is missing—
A. Right.
Q.
—underneath there.
A. Yes. The reason I asked about another picture, because
it seems to me I remember one picture that shows the tunneling very well. And
I'm not sure whether that one shows the position of the entry wound any better,
but it does show the one-and-a-half centimeter tunnel.
Q.
Just to try a different description, because we're
trying to put this into words where we're looking at photographs, would it be
fair to say—again, we are imagining President Kennedy is standing erect,
although he's lying down in this photograph. So with the ruler pointing up,
would the portion as it would appear on this photograph to the left of his right
ear all be the portion of the skull that was missing?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Could we look at View No. 7, please, which was described in the 1966 inventory as a "missile wound of entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of scalp," corresponding to black and white photos Nos. 17 and 18, and color photographs 44 and 45? I'd just say, too, Dr. Boswell, this concludes the end of the views that we have of the skull.
[Pause.]
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I cannot orient this at all.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Everyone who looks at these photographs has a hard time
orienting it. Can you tell whether that is the posterior portion of the cranium
or frontal or parietal? Any idea at all?
A. I'm afraid I can't. May I see the last one that we did?
Q.
That would be the sixth view, corresponding to photos
black and white 15 and 16, and color Nos.—
A. Just the color.
Q.
—42 and 43.
A. No. The one before this.
Q. Photographs 13 and 14 black and white, and color 40 and 41. Oh. the next one? 11 and 12, 38 and 39.
[Pause.]
MR. GUNN: Okay. Dr. Boswell is now looking at the third view in conjunction with the seventh view, the third view being the superior view of head.
[Pause.]
THE WITNESS: I think it would be foolish to do anything with this. I think that this is anterior, because this is not the under surface of the scalp that we saw before. I think the scalp is probably back down here. But what we were attempting to show in here, I don't know.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Would it be fair to say that what you are suggesting
now is that the hole that appears in the cranium is towards the frontal part of
the cranium?
A. I can't be sure.
Q.
Let me show you two different descriptions that have
been made in two documents. The first one that we've been referring to is
Exhibit 13, which is the 1966 inventory. That refers to the photograph as being
"missile wound of entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of
scalp.,, So that is how that is described in November of 1966. But then in another document dated in handwriting—and I
don't know whether that date is accurate—January 26, 1967, but also signed
apparently on January 26, 1967, by yourself and Dr. Humes, that photograph is
described not as a posterior wound but as the exit—not as the posterior
entrance wound but as an exit wound. Photograph Nos. 17, 18, 44, and 45 show the
other half of the margin of the exit wound and also show the beveling of the
bone characteristic of a wound of exit.
A. Well, I see that, but I ... I can't identify anything
else in here to tell where we are. This is a different appearance of scalp, but
there are other things in here that I can't identify. This looks like part of
the chest flap that's down here. The hair and the bone—this is skull, I'm sure
of that.
Q.
You're pointing to the jagged piece very near the
center of the photograph.
A. Right here.
Q.
I'll ask that you draw an X to the side, so the corners
of the photograph will be in the center. That is skull, you say; is that
correct?
A. Yes. And this looks like a beveled round area here of
skull bone.
Q.
That's the notch right near the center of the
photograph.
A. Right in the center. And the hair helps identify it,
but, otherwise, I cannot tell. There's too many bone fragments around, and I see
no brain at all.
Q.
Dr. Boswell, could you tell me who drafted the language
that was used in Exhibit No. 13, the 1966 inventory?
A. I think we all worked on this, and obviously a long
time. Let's see. Who was there? Well, it must have been Jim and I. John Stringer
wouldn't have anything to do with this, and I doubt if John Ebersole would. So
we had to be responsible for this.
Q.
was there anyone from the Justice Department who
participated in this inventory in 1966 ?
A. Well, the only person I can think of would be Carl Eardley.
Q.
Now, there was a subsequent inventory which the
Justice Department likely participated in, which I'll show you. But do
you remember whether there was anyone involved in the earlier—
A. Yeah. Carl Eardley, I think he went with us on almost
all the occasions.
Q.
Do you know why Mr. Eardley went with you, what his
role was?
A. No. I don't have any idea. But everything we did, he
was with us. He was an awfully nice man. But he would not have had anything to do with the
descriptions, obviously, nor Dr. Rhoads. He spent a lot of time with us when we
were doing this also, but he—I think Jim and I probably were responsible. And
even then, we had trouble with this, and the one with the little teardrop on it
we had trouble with.
Q.
That's view—
A. And everybody else who saw those did.
Q.
When you refer to the teardrop, you're referring to the
fifth view described as the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital
region."
A. Right, yes.
Q.
View 6, yes. On page 5 of Exhibit No. 13 for photograph No. 17, which
is what we are looking at here, it says that there is a missile—or that it's
depicting a missile wound of entrance. Do you see where that wound of entrance
would be or what you were referring to, at least—
A. It couldn't be.
Q.
—as of 1966?
A. Couldn't be.
Q.
Couldn't be?
A. No.
Q.
In View 7.
A. No. The only—well, I know the dilemma we were in. This
is what appears to be calvarium, a piece of bone plate, skull plate.
Q.
And you're referring to the bone that's in the center
of the photograph in View 7?
A. Right. A fairly sizable white piece of bone. And if you
look at this beveling of the bone here, this would be a wound of exit, because
the skull bevels outward on the outer surface.
Q.
So that the dimensions of the wound on the interior of
the cranium are less than the dimensions would be on the exterior of the
cranium?
A. Yeah, and it—the bullet would have to be coming from
over here through.
Q.
From the inside out?
A. Yeah.
Q.
Which would mean—
A. And that would make this a wound of exit, which is
described there. But there's no way this could be called a wound of entrance,
and there's no other—now, the only other thing is that if—on the reflected
scalp here, there is a wound or something. I can't see that. I see a paper clip
pulling that back that way. It's such a dilemma, and I think anybody that tries
to conjecture that film—
Q.
Would it be your best estimate right now that the
description of that photograph from 1966 under entry No. 17 on page 5 would be
inaccurate?
A. Inaccurate, and I'm not sure about that one either.
Q.
Okay.
A. In 1967.
Q.
When you say the other one, you're referring to Exhibit
14?
A. Right.
Q.
Could you tell me who drafted the document that is
Exhibit 14?
A. This is Jim's language, I think.
Q.
To me as a lay person, it appears as if in November of
1966, View 7 is being described as an entrance wound, and in January of 1967,
two months later, it's being described as an exit wound. First, do you have any
reason for thinking that my understanding is inaccurate? Is there a switch in
how those two photographs are described?
A. Yes, I agree, and I have no explanation for that. I
think they were both wrong, and I think the reason is that it's just such a
terrible photograph.
Q.
Do you recall engaging in any discussions with anybody
about how that photograph should be described that would have led to a change
between November of 1966 and January of 1967?
A. No. I don't remember that Pierre came over for that,
but I see he and Jim and I were the ones who—on the second occasion. Well, now,
that might be the answer right there. See, Pierre was a forensic pathologist. He
was trained as a forensic pathologist, and he was extremely able relative to
ballistics. And he may have talked us into this. That's the only thing I can
think of. Whether he'll remember that or not, I don't know.
Q.
Do you remember Mr.Eardley participating in any discussions over this issue?
A. He did nothing more than greet and say hello to us on
occasions like that. He didn't even stick around.
Q.
We're about to look at some photographs that show just
the brain. Putting those photographs aside, are there any other photographs that
you remember having been taken during the time of the autopsy that you don't see
here?
A. The only one that I have a faint memory of was the
anterior of the right thorax. I don't see it, and haven't when we tried to find
it on previous occasions, because that was very important because it did show
the extra-pleural blood clot and was very important to our positioning that
wound.
Q.
There are additional descriptions of photographs
showing—described as showing the entrance wound in the skull from both the
exterior and the interior with the scalp reflected. Do you remember any
photographs with the scalp reflected showing the wound of entrance in the skull?
A. Well, I seem to remember a couple of photographs. That
might be one, and particularly one showing the beveling of that same wound—or
not beveling, but the tunneling. But I can't imagine that there are any
photographs missing. Numerical wise, are they all here?
Q.
Not that I'm aware of any photos that are missing since
the 1966 inventory. The question would be whether there were other photographs
taken that were not in the 1966—
A. Yeah, well, we've always looked for the one of the
chest cavity, and then I seem to remember photographs, color photographs of the
tunneling.
Q.
Do you remember seeing the photographs themselves or do
you remember taking the photographs?
A. I've never seen the one of inside of the chest. The one
of the skull wound, I thought I remembered seeing it, but I—now, I've seen an
awful lot of pictures like in Livingstone's books. where those came from, I
don't know. And whether they're fabricated, some of them, or not—and I may be
confusing pictures I've seen that are alleged to be autopsy photographs.
Q.
Let me show you Exhibit No. 14. The paragraph at the
bottom on page ...
A. Yes, now where is that?
Q.
The photographs that are referred—for the record, the
portion of the document that we're looking at says, "The scalp wound shown
in the photographs appears to be a laceration and tunnel, with the actual
penetration of the skin obscured by the top of the tunnel." That's
referring to view No. 6, photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43, if we could see
one of those.
A. That's the same one.
MR. GUNN: Dr. Boswell is now looking at the sixth view.
THE WITNESS: I guess maybe that's the one I remember. It looks different to me today as I see this. I don't appreciate the tunnel as much as I have in past examinations, and the position is different. You see, the problem is, though, that this scalp is all loose, and this might not be the—as we're viewing this, this might not be the position of this wound.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Again, you're referring to the mark down near the
hairline—
A. Right, on—
Q.
—on View 6?
A. Photograph 42. This scalp may fit differently,
and this might easily be closer to the underlying bony wound of entrance.
When I look at this again, it sounds very much like we've described it here.
Q.
Okay. In other words, this photograph of View 6
corresponds with the language used in Exhibit No. 14 on the bottom of page 3?
A. Exactly.
Q.
Could we turn to View 8, which is "basilar view of
brain"? View 8 corresponds with black and white photo Nos. 19, 21, 22, and
color photo Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49. Dr. Boswell, were you present when the
photographs in View 8 were taken?
A Yes.
Q.
And approximately when, to the best of your
recollection, were the photographs taken? Let me try it a different way. Were
the photographs taken at the supplementary examination of the President's brain?
A. Yes, within less than a week following the autopsy,
after formalin fixation.
Q.
Do the photographs correspond to your recollection of
damage to the brain as depicted from the basilar view?
A. Yes.
Q.
Could you tell me whether any portion of the right or
left hemisphere of the cerebellum is disrupted from the photographs?
A. Quite a bit. You said cerebellum?
Q. Yes.
A. Oh, I'm sorry. I was thinking of cerebrum. The
cerebellum is a little bit disturbed here, but I'm not sure that that is due to
this trauma. Most of the trauma I see is to the right lobe, and most of that is
to the superior portion, which this doesn't show because this is upside down.
Q.
By upside down, you mean it's just a view from the
bottom?
A. Right.
Q.
From that photograph, the way that it appears in the
photograph, is the left hemisphere of the cerebellum disrupted?
A. A little bit. Certainly the midline is torn. See, the
falx comes down between these two and then is connected to the skull above, and
that's been torn away, and all this has been disrupted, the connections between
the two lobes. And there's hemorrhage, fragmentation, a lot of fragmentation of
the right lobe. The only part of the right lobe that's intact are these two
areas right here, like this.
Q.
Now, did the bullet wound—if we're thinking of
President Kennedy standing erect or sitting erect, did the bullet wound go from
a lower part of the brain—again, we're talking back 2.5 centimeters to the
right of the EOP and then go in an upward direction out of the right temporal
parietal area?
A. Yeah, the bullet entered probably behind the cerebellar
pons here, back in there, and then it was coming back up this way and I guess it
probably would have come through the brain at some point, through the brain, but
it's going to hit the calvarium up right at the top. And then that explosion is
the thing that's going to sort of disperse all the tissue here and bone and the
scalp overlying. So it's coming from down here, up through.
Q.
From a lay perspective, it would seem to me, based upon
what you've said, that the disruption in the cerebrum would be more towards the
point of entrance and lower.
A. I think it's probably going to be at the point of exit.
I think when the bullet hits the calvarium above, that's when the explosion took
place, because all the bone was just crushed at that point. And a lot of force
is extended all the way throughout the calvarium—or throughout the cranial
vault, and that's when a lot of this damage took place.
Q.
Was there any disruption to the mid-brain?
A. Oh, it's totally demolished. This is mid brain right
here, and everything there is gone—well, not gone, but it's stretched—but I
don't know what caused that, whether that was the bullet hitting something or
whether it was the tugging on the falx. You see, the falx is intimately
associated with all the structures in the mid- brain, and between the two.
Q.
What I'm not understanding—and this, I'm sure, comes
from my lack of medical training—is that it seems as if there is a laceration
that goes through the mid-brain, which I would characterize as the lower part of
the brain.
A. Yes.
Q.
But there's also a laceration that goes near the vertex
of the brain, which would strike me as being the upper. Also, it seems as if
there is some suggestion that the portion between that upper and lower
laceration is relatively more intact than the upper and lower portions. Is that
correct or incorrect?
A. I think you're right, but the forces causing this are
multiple: the explosive force of the bullet hitting the calvarium, the upper
surface; the explosion of the falx, because that all stretched at the same time,
and it is pulling brain against bone, and then separating from both eventually.
And so all that trauma is taking place at the same time or in a very brief
interval. But not much of this
could be caused by bullet entering. of course, fractures took place at two
stages. A lot of fractures took place when the bullet entered the cranial vault,
and then they really took place when the bullet went out.
Q.
Could any of the left cerebellum have been disrupted by
either the entrance or the exit?
A. Well, see, the dura encapsulates all the lobes of the
brain, and they're all intimately attached. And when you start tugging on the
dura in any one place, or especially in multiple places, is when the—that
explosion really expanded the whole cranial vault. And those membranes are
really being pulled and pushed in all directions, and they're going to do all
kinds of—this kind of trauma.
Q.
So, in other words, even though the bullet would have
entered near the right cerebellum, the right cerebellum could emerge intact,
whereas the left cerebellum could be disrupted? Is that fair?
A. Yeah.
Q.
And looking at the photograph, is that what you would
understand to have happened?
A. Yes. I think that the major traumatic event was the
explosion of the bullet against the top, but the entry of the bullet into the
posterior cranial vault, from that point on, varying degrees of trauma are
taking place. And then it was all just catastrophe.
Q.
Would it be your understanding that the bullet entering
in the back of the skull entered at a point above the cerebellum?
A. No. Yes, I guess you're right. Above the right lobe of the
cerebellum, right. Do you have an anatomical diagram there?
Q.
I'll show you a document marked Exhibit MD 71, if that
helps.
A. And let's see. If you have a skull—see, it's awful
close to the cerebellum. But, see, these membranes that are coming down between
the two cerebral cortexes, they fold around and envelop the cerebellum as well.
And they're all attached to each other and to the bone. And when fractures start
occurring in linear fashion all over the place, they're going to be pulling
that. And so that alone is going to cause a lot of distortion or destruction of
the cerebellum.
Q.
But if the entrance wound was near the right cerebellar
hemisphere, wouldn't the disruption have been on the right cerebellum?
A. Well, initially at impact. But by the time it impacts
up here and stretches all the membranes, then it's going to be all over. And,
actually, if there's injury, it's more to the left lobe, although I can't be
sure of that. These are sort of leaves, and they—there may not be a lot of
trauma here. This may just be distortion through the fixation and removal.
Q.
When you say "not a lot of trauma here,"
you're referring to the right—to the left cerebellar hemisphere?
A. Yes. But there certainly is a lot to the mid-brain,
right above that where it connects to the mid-brain and to the cerebral cortex.
Q.
Do you see in this basilar view of the brain any
incisions, surgical incisions?
A. No.
Q.
Should a surgical incision be evident for the removal
of the brain?
A. No. The removal of the brain takes place by separating
the spinal cord right here. That's the only thing that attaches the brain, other
than the meninges. And we section that and just lift it out. Now, this is the way we examine the brain, and had we
sectioned it, we would lay it just like this and then start slicing it here. And
I think from the microscopic description of the brain—we have microscopic
sections of the transected cord.
Q.
Exhibit 4.
A. Oh, and also we did take some sections of the right
parietal lobe, corpus callosum, that was right in here someplace. Anterior
portion, frontal lobe, frontal parietal cortex. So there are a lot of sections
of brain.
Q.
Could you look at F, from the right cerebellar cortex?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q.
Why would this section have been taken from the right
cerebellar cortex?
A. I suppose just to have normal tissue to compare with
the other side.
Q.
Shouldn't there have been a section— shouldn't a
section have been taken from the left cerebellar cortex as well, given the
apparent disruption?
A. Well, I'm not sure that this is real. This might not be
real traumatic—in the fresh or fixed brain, we may have seen lesions over here
rather than here, and there may not have been any lesions at all. We may have
just taken a section for reference.
Q.
Previously, we noted that there was no fresh brain
weight recorded on the face sheet in Exhibit 1. In the supplementary autopsy
report, there is a weight for the brain. Do you see the weight that that gives
there?
A. Yes.
Q.
Do you remember the brain being weighed in the
supplementary?
A. I don't remember that, but I can't imagine that we
would not weigh it.
Q.
I'd like to turn back to Exhibit No. 7, which is the
autopsy manual, where it has the standard weights for organs of the body. If you
remember, we looked at Appendix 3 on page 72 where standard weights were given
for several of the organs. Could you look and see what the standard weight is
for the male brain?
A. Average is 1,400.
Q.
And approximately what percentage of President
Kennedy's brain had been destroyed or removed?
A. I don't think a third. Less than a third.
Q.
A third of the right hemisphere or a third of the
total?
A. A third of the total.
Q.
That would mean that the brain—correct me if I'm
wrong—the brain would have weighed, fully intact, approximately 2,000 grams.
Would that be correct?
A. No, because this is fixed now.
Q.
Approximately how much weight does fixing add to the
weight of the brain?
A. Theoretically, it shouldn't add any. After a certain
period of fixation, it should revert to its normal weight because the water that
is taken into it would be equalized. So—
Q.
Had the brain been fully fixed at the time the
photographs were taken?
A. I doubt it. I don't know when these were taken. Fully
fixed usually requires over a week, depending upon how you do it. Normally, in a
normal autopsy, what we do is inject the brain. We tie the vessels off, circle
of Willis, and then we inject formalin into it by drip. And we'd let that go on
for a week. And a lot of fluid is absorbed into it, so it would gain quite a bit
at that point. But then leaving it in the fluid, it would balance out. I can't
tell you about the ...
Q.
Again, from a lay perspective, it seems as if the brain
of President Kennedy, even after a large portion of it had been blown away, is
much or is significantly larger than the average brain. Does anything seem
incorrect or unusual to you in those figures or that analysis?
A. I don't think so. I would not put too much emphasis on
that, I don't think.
Q.
So even when a good portion of it is blasted away,
after having been set in formalin, the 1,500 grams is not an unusual—
A. I don't think so.
Q.
Could we look at the ninth view, please? This
corresponds to black and white photographs Nos. 20, 23, 24, 25, and color
photographs Nos. 50, 51, and 52. It's described in the 1966 inventory as the
"superior view of the brain." The first question is: Do the photographs appear to you
to be accurate representations of the brain as you observed it at the time of
the supplementary examination?
A. Yes.
Q.
Dr. Boswell, I'd like to show you a document that is
marked as Exhibit No. MI 12, which is one of the Rydberg drawings from the
Warren Commission report. Notice that in Exhibit MI 12, the bullet appears to be
going in a straight line through the brain. Are you able to tell by examining
the superior view of the brain in the ninth view whether the bullet, in fact,
proceeded in a straight line?
A. No. I don't think there's any way of making that
determination.
Q.
Was it possible to determine the course of the bullet
through the skull by an examination of the brain?
A. Not of the brain. It was a little bit easier by
examination of the skull, but the right hemisphere of the brain is just so torn
up, and there's no way of determining a track. But we did find—we have a good
wound of entrance, and then we have metallic fragments, I believe in the—around
the right orbit. So that gives some sense of direction as far as the shooter.
Q.
By examining the brain by itself, are you able to
determine to a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether there was one or
more than one bullet wound to the head? Again, just by examination of the brain.
A. The only clue, I think, is the fact that the scalp is
reasonably well intact, and we only have one wound of entrance on the scalp. And
by the same token, we only have one wound of exit. It's huge, but—now, if he
was shot with this one from behind first and then shot secondly in the same
place with a second one, that would be impossible to tell. But then you would
have to have another wound of exit someplace, which you don't have.
Q.
Would you be able to make any of those determinations
solely by examining the brain without reference to the scalp or skull?
A. I don't think so. Well, another factor in favor of only one weapon or one
shot entering the brain is the reasonably limited destruction of the brain. I
mean, even though it's catastrophic, still, look at the intact left lobe and the
intact cerebellum. So, really, it's the right cerebellar hemisphere— or
cerebral hemisphere that's damaged.
Q.
In your answer to a previous question, you made
reference to the exit wound in the skull. Did you ever see any evidence of any
beveling in the skull at the point where you determined there was an exit wound?
A. At the time of autopsy we didn't. But then when we
reviewed the photographs, some of that beveling in the skull is equivocal, and
obviously we weren't able to tell.
Q.
So would it be fair, then, to say that you determined
during the course of the autopsy where the beveling was at the entrance wound,
but you could not determine any beveling at the exit wound?
A. That's true.
MR. GUNN: Okay. We can go to the X-rays. Well, let's take a break first.
[Recess.]
MR. GUNN: We're back on the record.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
We're now going to be looking at X-ray No. 1,
anterior-posterior view of the skull. I think that is inverted left to right, if
we can switch. Dr. Boswell, are you able to determine with any degree of
certainty whether the X-ray that you're looking at now is an X-ray of President
Kennedy?
A. I have not seen this in an awful long time, but it
certainly looks like what I remember.
Q.
Let me draw your attention to a white semicircular
marking in what appears to be in the right orbit, and I'll say that's on the
left side of the X-ray as we're looking at it now. Do you see that white
apparently radio-opaque object?
A. Yes.
Q.
Do you know what that object is?
A. No.
Q.
Do you know whether that is an artifact that is just
there as part of either the developing process or whether that is a missile
fragment?
A. No, I can't tell you that. I don't remember the
interpretations. I see a lot of metallic-looking debris, X-ray-opaque material,
at the site of the injury. And I remember that there were a lot of fragments
around the right eye, and the rest of these could be from bullet fragments as
well. I'm not sure—we found a couple of very minute metal fragments, but I do
not relate them to the X-ray.
Q.
Can you relate that, again, apparently large object to
any of the fragments that you removed?
A. No. We did not find one that large. I'm sure of that.
Q.
Okay. Could we look at X-ray—
A. I had forgotten about the tremendous fractures that
were there.
Q.
Do you see anything about that X-ray— again, View No.
1—that would seem to be inconsistent with what you recall from the night of the
autopsy?
A. No. It's very consistent with the trauma to the head.
Q.
Could we look at X-ray No. 2, a right lateral view of
the skull, with two angle lines I overdrawn on the film? Dr. Boswell, can you
identify X-ray No. 2 as being an X-ray taken of President Kennedy on the night
of the autopsy?
A. Yes.
Q.
First, where on the X-ray that you're examining would
you identify the bullet entrance wound?
A. I don't think I can identify the entrance wound. I just
need to move that. I cannot identify the entrance wound here.
Q.
Do you recall if on the night of the autopsy you were
able to identify the entrance wound in any of the X-rays?
A. No—well, the entrance wound, no. I thought that there
was a little bit of metallic material along one transverse process down here
near the entrance wound in the back, but I don't see that in this X-ray. But
this is all scattered around the exit wound in the head. Mr. Gunn, I think we
dug this piece out right here, but I'm not sure.
Q.
You're pointing to what looks like a sliver near the—
A. Right eye.
Q.
—front right above the eye?
A. Right. Right supraorbital area. Because I think that's
about the size, but I'm not sure.
Q.
If you could point to where on the X-ray you understand
the entrance to have been even though you don't see it appearing on the X-ray.
A. It must be around here someplace.
Q.
That would be—
A. Has to be in this general area right here. The left,
left side of the X-ray at the base of the skull, just a inch or so behind the
vertebra.
Q.
I'd like to draw your attention to what appears to
be, in my term, sort of a shelf-like disruption of the skull. Do you recall
seeing that on the night of the autopsy? I will say, in a very inexpert way,
it's near the cowlick area, although that's not a medical term, I understand.
But do you understand? Did you observe anything in that area on the night of the
autopsy?
A. No.
Q.
Do you have any understanding as to what that shelf or
plate is there?
A. You're talking about—I don't know what any of this is.
But you're talking about this fractured line right here?
Q.
In the first instance, just right on the periphery.
A. Right here?
Q.
Yes.
A. Okay. Well, I recognize what that is. That's a
depressed fracture.
Q.
Does that depressed fracture correlate in any way to
the entrance wound that you observed on the night of the autopsy?
A. I think it's a long way from it. I think that's quite a
ways from the entrance wound.
Q.
Do you see what appear to be radio-opaque trail, metal
dust?
A. Yes.
Q.
Going across the very top, I'd say the sixth, the top
eighth of the skull, left to right, without indicating anything. Do you know
what that is, what those are?
A. Those are metallic fragments that have really
dispersed. At some point, maybe when it entered, those perforated and went up,
or maybe when it exited, those fragmented and fell there.
Q.
Do the fragments tell you anything about the direction
or the course of the bullet through President Kennedy's brain or skull?
A. Well, at first glance, that looks like a straight line.
But then you've got fragments elsewhere in there, and I—that wouldn't be
inconsistent with a track, but I think that those have fragmented off at some
point where the bullet has hit something really hard and scattered. I don't
think traveling through the soft tissue of the brain that tiny fragments are
going to just spill off like that.
Q.
Okay.
A. I don't think that's a track even though the fact that
it's a straight line might suggest that.
Q.
To an untrained eye such as my own, there appears to be
a large, dark space, almost as if it's a figure eight, in the frontal area,
somewhat behind the eye and down into the cheek. Do you see that area that I'm
referring to?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q.
Can you tell me what that represents?
A. Well, it looks almost like a pneumo-encephalogram where
you got air in and displaced tissue, but—I suspect that that's what that is. I
think that's a space with a lot of air in it.
Q.
So though it is darker, that does not signify that it
is missing skull?
A. Oh, I don't think—well, the missing skull is all over.
Of course, the drawing we have there is sort of similar to that, isn't it?
Do we have an AP, one straight on?
Q.
Yes.
A. What was the one I just—
Q.
The first one.
A. The first one? May I look at that one again? Yes, you're right. Here it is. See, this is what's
missing here.
Q.
So you're pointing at what I would describe as the
temporal and parietal bone on the right hemisphere? Is that—
A. I guess that would—actually, that looks like frontal
there, doesn't it? Frontal, temporal, and some parietal. But that's where this
space is here. Now, you see, this is not in a straight line that it is
here. It's not a straight line here. These are all scattered around.
Q.
You're referring to the radio-opaque fragments.
A. Right, and I think probably the bullet hit up here.
That might very well be that piece right there.
Q.
You're referring to the large semicircular piece in the
AP view—
A. Yes.
Q.
—being the same as the one that appears to be in the
frontal bone in the lateral; is that correct?
A. Right, and it's in a different perspective. Here it's
narrow, but around—about the same size.
Q.
Okay. If we could see the lateral one more time. I'd
like to show you a portion from the autopsy protocol. Particularly make
reference to the multiple minute metallic fragments along the line corresponding
with the line joining the above- described small occipital wound and the right
supraorbital ridge.
A. Okay. What's your question?
Q.
Now, the question would be: Are the minute metallic
fragments referenced in the autopsy protocol those fragments that go along the
top of the AP?
A. Right.
Q.
And I would just note that it says that "They're
aligned corresponding with the line joining the above-described small occipital
wound"—the entrance wound—and the right"—that doesn't say—when I
said "entrance wound," that was my gloss to this.
A. Uh-huh.
Q.
—"and the right supraorbital ridge." To me,
it appears as if the line does not correspond with an entrance wound, but would
be elsewhere.
A. Is that from the autopsy?
Q.
This is the autopsy protocol.
A. And this is—
Q.
Now, I don't know that what is being referred to in the
autopsy protocol is what is being referred to on this X-ray, but the question
for you is: Is what you are seeing on the X-ray itself what is being referred to
in the portion of the autopsy protocol that I just quoted?
A. Right. Although I interpret it differently now than
whoever did that. I see the line here, but it doesn't connect with the wound of
entry, although they say it does there. And apparently we gave this to the cops,
O'Neill and Sibert.
Q.
This is the autopsy protocol.
A. Yes. This is, too.
Q.
Yes, right. But when you say you gave it to the cops,
I'm not sure. Sibert—
A. To the FBI guys.
Q.
You mean you gave the X-rays?
A. No. That fragment.
Q.
Oh, the fragment, okay. That's what wasn't clear. Okay.
Was there any other X-ray that you now recall having seen
that showed a line of metallic fragments connecting to the small wound of entry?
A. Not of the head.
Q.
Is the fragment trail that you see on the AP—excuse
me, on the lateral X-ray, No. 2 that's in your hand, does that correspond to
what you saw on the night of the autopsy, as best you recall?
A. Yes.
Q.
Okay. I think that's it for the X-rays. Dr. Boswell, if
we could now shift from the time of the autopsy and the preparation of the
supplementary autopsy report to the Warren Commission, I'd like to ask you
whether you ever met with anyone on the Warren Commission staff?
A. Yes.
Q.
Do you remember with whom you met?
A. The Senator from Philadelphia, Hatch—or—
Q.
Arlen Specter.
A. Arlen Specter. Sorry.
Q.
Hatch is from Pittsburgh. He was not a Senator at the
time, though.
A. No.
Q.
Did you meet with anyone else on the Warren Commission
staff in addition to Mr. Specter?
A. He was the only one I worked with. We appeared before
the full Commission and met all of them, and they asked us questions.
Q.
Approximately how many times did you meet with Mr.
Specter?
A. It seemed like an awful lot, but probably it was no
more than three or four times.
Q.
What kinds of things did you discuss with Mr. Specter?
A. Well, we—I think he told us more than we told him. He
would bring us information and then ask us how it fit the autopsy. And he showed
us the clothes. He showed us the Zapruder film a couple of times. That's all I
can remember, although it seemed like an awful lot of times we met with him.
Q.
Did he ever suggest to you that you change any of your
testimony or to report something different from how you understood it?
A. No.
Q.
Were you aware of any other person making a contact
with you in relationship to the Warren Commission who suggested that you change
your testimony in any way to correspond with any other ideas they might have?
A. No.
Q.
Very early on in your deposition today, you made
reference to Mr. Eardley from the Justice Department asking you to go to New
Orleans; is that correct?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q.
What did he say to you about the reason he wanted you
to go to New Orleans?
A. He was really upset. He says, "J, we got to get
somebody in New Orleans quick. Pierre is testifying, and he's really lousing
everything up." And I called Jim to see if he didn't want to go, and he was
having—his mother-in-law was ill, and he couldn't go. So they put me on a plane
that day and took me to New Orleans, and that was one of the most interesting
adventures of my life. I met—do you want to hear all of this?
Q.
Yes, please.
A. Carl Eardley sent me to a hotel, and I went into the
hotel and registered. I was already registered. I got up to my room, and there
was a note on my bedside table telling me to meet somebody at a certain place at
a certain time. And this was a scary place. This was down around the wharfs, and
the federal attorney's office was in a big warehouse down there. And that's—I
met somebody on the street. He took me in there, and then they told me what was
going on. They showed me the transcript of Pierre's testimony for the past
couple of days, and I spent all night reviewing that testimony. And it was this
bit about the general. Jim said, "Who's in charge here?"
And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran the autopsy,
he says, "Some Army general." And so that is why—and I never
appeared. I spent two days down there and then came home, never appeared in
court. And the government won their case.
Q.
Actually, the government was the district attorney. So
my next question for you actually was: What was the United States Department of
Justice doing in relationship to a case between the district attorney of New
Orleans and a resident of New Orleans?
A. Well, they—I went over and met somebody, some lawyer
in another firm that night, and I don't know who he was representing. But,
obviously, the federal attorney was on the side of Clay Shaw against the
district attorney.
Q.
Do you remember the name of that federal
attorney?
A. No. I have no idea.
Q.
Was it Harry Connick?
A. It could very well have been. That name sounds—of
course, Connick is not an uncommon name. It could have been.
Q.
Do you recall meeting with an attorney named Wegman?
A. No.
Q.
Or Dymond?
A. Thirty years ago, no, I can't remember that.
Q.
What did the government attorney say to you? Did he
help prepare potential testimony for you?
A. They were getting ready to. I guess it all depended on
what Pierre did that next day or something. I don't know. All I know is that
they—he was answering in very strange ways their questions, and, yes, they sent
me down and talked to me and tried to get me to agree that he was very strange
and that I could do a better job or something.
Q.
Did you ever talk to Dr. Finck about his
testimony?
A. No.
Q.
Did you ever talk to him at all after that point?
A. Oh, yes, many times. Pierre's wife was there with him,
and he was staying in the same hotel I was. And so we met just by chance at
breakfast the day after I arrived. And we didn't discuss why I was there. I'm
sure he asked me, and I don't know what I told him. But, anyway, we have met on
a number of occasions since then. His daughter is in this country, and she was
going to school in Missouri for several years. And I used to—they'd stop by
here and visit with us as they were on their way. We were very good friends.
Q.
Do you have any idea why he was answering the questions
the way he was in the Clay Shaw trial?
A. Well, you'll know when you meet him, if and when you
meet him. He is a very strange—but a sharp guy. He was a good pathologist, a
hard worker. He was devoted to the United States and to the Army despite the
fact that he was going back home. But he's a strange guy.
I knew that long before we invited him over to help us on
this autopsy. He's just a strange fellow.
Q.
Do you recall who paid for your trip to go to New
Orleans?
A. I would assume that the Justice Department provided my
plane tickets and my hotel bill.
Q.
Other than for this experience in New Orleans, were you
contacted at any other point by any representative of the U.S. Government to
provide assistance for the government in regard to the Kennedy autopsy?
A. No. But aside from that, Carl Eardley called me when
King was assassinated and said, "J, we got a problem down in Memphis.
They're alleging that we're letting the Reverend die." And then he called
me back and said, "He died. Would you go down there and supervise the
autopsy?" And I said I'm the last—by this time, it had been several years,
and we'd had an awful lot of stuff about the autopsy. And so I said, "I'm
the last one you want to go down." And I gave him the name of the guy who
was at that time the neuropathologist—I knew what they were going to find
because he had been shot in the neck and the spinal cord was severed. And I gave
him the name of the neuropathologist at the AFIP, and he called him and got him
to go. That's the only other incident relative to that.
Q.
Earlier in the deposition, you made reference to a
letter that you sent, I believe to Mr. Eardley, suggesting that a panel be
created to review some of the autopsy material. Could you describe for me what
circumstances led to your writing that letter?
A. This was—had to be 1968, maybe. I'm not sure when it
was. And he just called me out of the blue and said he thought it was a good
idea—said they thought it was a good idea to have an independent panel. I
believe that's what it was. Now, I had been talking about this with perhaps him
and other people, Jim particularly, that now that all the material was back,
that it should be reviewed, if they're not going to. And whether Carl suggested
it or whether I convinced him, I'm not sure. But, anyway, he was willing to
accept the letter, which he essentially described to me what they wanted, and I
wrote it. You have a copy of that, do you not?
Q.
Not your letter to him. We have the report from the
Clark Panel, but I haven't seen your letter to Mr. Eardley.
A. I can provide you a copy of that if you would like.
Q.
Yes. Yes, I would. Was your letter to Mr. Eardley?
A. Yes. I'm almost positive—I'm sorry. I wrote that to
the Justice Department. I rather think it was—because as I sit here, I sort of
think I wrote to Mr. Eardley relative to our recent conversations and so forth.
So I think I
Q.
I'd like to show you the document that ended up coming
from—it's called the Clark Panel Report. I'm showing you a copy of Exhibit 59,
which is the Clark report. Have you previously seen the document that's now
marked Exhibit 59?
A. Yes.
Q.
Other than writing the letter that helped prompt the
creation of the Clark Panel, did you have any further role in conjunction with
the panel?
A. I was there at the time they met and went over the
material. I guess we had lunch together and discussed the case and so forth.
Q.
Was anyone else from the autopsy present with the Clark
Panel, such as Dr. Humes or—
A. Jim was there. Finck may very well have been. I'm not
sure. And I sort of think Eberhart was there, but I'm not sure.
Q. Ebersole?
A. Ebersole. This was the good panel. We met with a couple
of panels. This one were all people that, for some reason, Jim and I knew. Not
that we had anything to do with selecting them, but these guys—well, we did
know Oscar Hunter and Russ Fisher.
Q.
I'd like you to turn to page 14 of Exhibit 59, the
bottom paragraph, the first sentence of which reads, "One bullet struck the
back of the decedent's head well above the external occipital
protuberance." Did you have any discussions with members of the Clark
Panel about the entrance wound location for the skull wound?
A. We had a lot of discussion with them.
Q.
Did you understand or did you ever come to believe that
the Clark Panel located the entrance wound at a point superior to where you had
identified the entrance wound in the autopsy protocol?
A. I never believed this. I think Jim at one point came to
believe this, because he testified before the House commission to that effect, I
think. But if you can believe that photograph that we were just looking at, this
is not true, because that is way below the point they're indicating.
Q.
So, in other words, when you say that this is not true,
you're referring to the portion that I just read to you?
A. Right, from the Clark commission.
Q.
About how much time did you spend with the Clark Panel
members?
A. At least a half a day, maybe all day.
Q.
What was the principal purpose that you understood they
were trying to perform?
A. Just review the material that was available and see if
their conclusions were different or the same or similar to ours.
Q.
Did you ever meet with anyone from the Edgewood Arsenal
in regard to the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A. No. I know that they did a lot of ballistic work down
there, and Pierre had worked there or had been stationed there. But I did not
have anything to do with them.
Q.
Do you recall, for example, meeting anyone connected
with Edgewood Arsenal in conjunction with your testimony before the Warren
Commission?
A. No.
Q.
Do you ever recall showing any of the autopsy
photographs or X-rays to anyone other than may have happened in conjunction with
the Clark Panel or the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
A. Would you repeat that?
Q.
Sure. Other than with the Clark Panel and the House
Select Committee on Assassinations, have you ever met with any other people and
shown them photographs of the autopsy?
A. No. I've never had available X-rays or photographs.
Q.
Did you yourself ever communicate directly or
indirectly with any of the following people about the autopsy: First, Robert
McNamara?
A. No.
Q.
Robert Kennedy?
A. No.
Q.
Jacqueline Kennedy?
A. No.
Q.
Admiral Burkley?
A. No.
Q.
President Johnson?
A. No.
Q.
I'd like to give you an opportunity now to provide any
kind of statement, if you wish to make one, about the autopsy or anything that
you think could help clarify things. But I'd like to take care of two short
pieces of business first. First, Doug Horne has drawn black lines over the markings
that you made on the skull, and I'd like to ask you if that appears to you that
those are reasonably accurate overdrawings on yours, understanding still that
these are just approximate dimensions of the wound.
A. And not meant to be precise, but just show magnitude
and relative position.
Q.
Sure. I wonder if I could ask you just to initial the
skull.
A. I hate to do this. It doesn't matter where, I guess.
Q.
It doesn't matter where.
A. Date?
Q. And the date, February 26th. Thank you very much.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Dr. Boswell, is there anything that you would like to
say that you think might help clarify or explain anything that you had to do
with the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A. I can't think of anything.
MR. GUNN: Okay. I'd like to thank you very much for your
time and patience. We appreciate your coming today. Thank you.
THE WITNESS: It's been relatively painless. Thank you
very much for my lunch.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]
CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT
I have read the foregoing 221 pages which contain the correct transcript of the answers made by me to the questions therein recorded.
(signed)
Subscribed and sworn before me this 15th day of March, 1996
Notary Public in and for Melanie Mitchell
Montgomery County MD
My commission expires 1-1-98
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I, ROBERT HAINES, the officer before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby testify that the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me stenographically and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken; and further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
ROBERT HAINES
Notary Public in and for the State of Maryland
My commission expires: March 18, 1998
Assassination Records Review Board 600
E Street NW - 2nd Floor - Washington, DC 20530
(202) 724-0088 - Fax: (202) 724-0457
March 11, 1996
Dr. "J" Thornton Boswell
11134 Stephalee Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Dear Dr. Boswell:
Thank you very much for your deposition appearance on
February 26,1996 and your helpful cooperation.
I am enclosing a copy of the transcript of your February
26,1996 deposition. As I mentioned to you, I would like you to review the
transcript and correct any errors that you notice. Once you have made the
corrections, please sign the certificate at the end of the transcript in the
presence of a notary and return the original certificate to me, along with the
corrected copy of the deposition transcript. Once the changes have been made, we
will send a final version to you.
Please note that in every instance where you mentioned
the first name "Pierre" (referring to Dr. Pierre A. Finck), it was
recorded in the transcript as "Peter." We have already noted the 18
locations where this occurred, and will ask the reporter to make this
correction, and also to correct one or two other minor misspellings of names
that we have noted.
There was an ambiguity in one of my questions that I
would like to clarify, if possible. While we were discussing autopsy photograph
View No. 2 ("right side of head and right shoulder"), on page 140,
line 19, I mistakenly said "scalp," when in fact I meant to say
"defect." From your answer, it appears that you understood my question
as it was intended. I would like to propose that the word "scalp" be
deleted and that in its place, the word "defect" be substituted. (This
proposed change is marked in red ink on the enclosed transcript.) Although I
believe that the purport of your answer presumed the sense of the clarified
question I now propose, I do not want to make this revision if the change would
alter the accuracy of your answer. Please let me know whether this substitution
is unacceptable to you.
Dr. "J" Thornton Boswell
March 11, 1996
Page 2
I am enclosing a self-addressed, pre-paid Federal Express envelope for your convenience. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
T. Jeremy Gunn
General Counsel
Enclosures
*********
J THORNTON BOSWELL, M.D.
11134 STEPHALEE LANE
ROCKVILLE, MD. 20852
March 19, 1996
Dear Mr. Gunn,
I have received the transcript and found only one correction on pg 216.
We did know Oscar Hunter & Russ Fisher.
I agree to the corrections you suggest in your letter re Pierre Finck
& the pg 140 item.
Best Regards,
JTB