TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
In re:
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT
Deposition of DR. J. THORNTON BOSWELL
Pages 1 thru 223 College Park, Maryland
February 26, 1996

MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 546-6666

BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In Re:

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
College Park, Maryland
Monday, February 26,1996

The deposition of DR. J THORNTON BOSWELL, called for examination by counsel for the Board in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to notice, at 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland, convened at 10:02 a.m., before Robert H. Haines, a notary public in and for the State of Maryland, when were present on behalf of the parties:

APPEARANCES:

JEREMY GUNN, ESQ., General Counsel
Assassination Records Review Board
600 E Street, N.W.
2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530

DAVID G. MARWELL, Executive Director
DOUGLAS P. HORNE, Senior Analyst
TIMOTHY A. WRAY, Chief Analyst for Military Records
LAURA DENK

C 0 N T E N T S

EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR:

WITNESS ARRB

Dr. Boswell

 P R 0 C E E D I N G S

MR. GUNN: We are assembled in the National Archives Annex at College Park, Maryland, to take the deposition of Dr. J Thornton Boswell. Dr. Boswell was one of the doctors who performed the autopsy on President Kennedy.

My name is Jeremy Gunn. I'm the general counsel of the Assassination Records Review Board. Sitting next to me is Doug Horne, a member of the Review Board staff. Also in the room is David Marwell, the Executive Director of the Review Board. We are expecting at some point today we will be joined by some other people, and I will introduce them when they come in.

Whereupon, DR. J THORNTON BOSWELL was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD BY MR. GUNN:

Q. I would like to show you a couple of I documents, Dr. Boswell, and ask you whether you have seen them previously. The first one on its face appears to be a letter dated December 7, 1995 to Dr. Boswell from David Marwell.
A. Yes.

Q. Attached to that letter is a subpoena.
A. Yes.

Q. You have seen the document before?
A. I have.

Q. I'd like to show you a letter.

MR. GUNN: I will state for the record that the document I have just shown to Dr. Boswell is Exhibit No. MD 102. The second document that I am handing to Dr. Boswell is Exhibit MD 103, and that is a letter dated January 2, 1996, from myself to Dr. Boswell.

BY MR. GUNN:

Q. Have you seen that letter before?
A. Yes, I have.

Q. And is it your understanding that you are appearing at this deposition pursuant to the subpoena that was issued and the letter clarifying and straightening out the date?
A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Boswell, you were invited to bring an attorney with you today if you chose. Did you understand that you had that option if you so desired?
A. Yes.

Q. And did you just decide not to bring an attorney?
A. Correct.

Q. Dr. Boswell, at the completion of the deposition, you will have an opportunity to read the transcript of the deposition and make any corrections in it that you believe straighten or clarify what you said in the deposition today. The deposition is being tape-recorded and is being taken by stenographic notes, and those records will be kept.
    Dr. Boswell, I am going to try to ask you clear questions today. If there is any time that you don't understand or you'd like me to rephrase the question, don't hesitate to ask me, and I will I try to rephrase it.
    We are going to be working in the deposition today with a pre-numbered exhibit list, so the order of the documents that I will give to you will not necessarily reflect a sequential order. So, for example, the first two documents you were shown were Exhibits 102 and 103. The exhibit numbers will be kept consistent throughout our work in the medical evidence in this matter.
    Dr. Boswell, I'd like to ask you for your indulgence to not discuss the issues that we are talking about today until the Assassination Records Review Board completes its work on the medical evidence. You should, of course, feel free to discuss matters pertaining to the autopsy to any extent that you wish, but in terms of the questions that you are being asked here and your responses to those questions, we would appreciate your not discussing those issues. We expect that our work in this area will probably be completed by the end of this calendar year.
    Is that acceptable to you?
A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. I appreciate that. We are hoping that this deposition provides you with an opportunity to freely state and explain your understanding of the events that transpired at the time of the autopsy and some events that happened immediately thereafter. If at any time you wish to elaborate on a question, please don't hesitate to do so.
    Dr. Boswell, did you bring any records with you today pursuant to the subpoena marked Exhibit 102?
A. I did not. I have no records. I have a large file, but they're all crank material that I've gotten through the mail and so forth.

Q. With the letters that you're referring to, have you written back to people in response to those letters?
A. No.

Q. Did you take any notes or prepare any diagrams during the course of the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A.  Yes.

Q. Do you have any of those notes still in your possession?
A. No.

Q. Dr. Boswell, did you discuss any substantive matters relating to the deposition today with anyone? And by that, I mean did you discuss with someone answers that you might give to questions or how you would formulate answers to questions?
A. No.

Q. You are aware that Dr. Humes had his deposition taken here approximately two weeks ago?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you discuss the deposition with him after he completed that testimony?
A. No.

Q. Have you discussed the fact that you are being deposed with Dr. Pierre Finck?
A. No.

Q. Do you know where Dr. Finck is now?
A. He's in Europe, as far as I know.

Q. Other than with anyone connected with the Assassination Records Review Board, did you discuss the fact that you would be having your deposition taken with any other official or representative of the United States Government?
A. No.

MR. GUNN: I'd like to state that we have been joined by two other people since the deposition began: first by Colonel Tim Wray, and second by Laura Denk. Both of them are members of the Review Board staff.

BY MR. GUNN:

Q. Dr. Boswell, I'd like to take you back to the time of the autopsy in 1963 and ask you whether you received at any point, directly or indirectly, any orders or instructions telling you what you could or could not say about the autopsy?
A. No.

Q. Did you ever come to believe that there was anyone who had a preference that you talk or not talk about the autopsy?
A. Well, it was just standard military procedure that it be a limited—I'd be limited to what I would do and to whom I would talk and so forth. I was involved in an awful lot of investigations, the Warren Commission and people like that, and they, I'm sure, at some point told us not to discuss some things that they were working on. I at one point requested—at some point I was sent down by the Justice Department to New Orleans in the Clay Shaw trial, and I had instructions from the attorneys down there. At some point later on, I was asked by— names, I have to think hard now to remember names. One of the attorneys for the Justice Department asked that I write them a letter and request a civilian group be appointed by the Justice Department, I believe, or the President or somebody. And I did write a letter to him, Carl Eardley. You have a copy of that, I think, probably. And I'm trying to think. I did call the bureau at some point and request permission to discuss the autopsy. I guess it was the House Review Committee subpoenaed us or called us in or something, and I think I called the bureau and asked—I was out of the Navy by that time—and asked about, you know, what I could say and so forth.
    The problem was I don't think Jim or Pierre or I had any question about being able to say anything we wanted to at any time, except that Jim had promised George Burkley, the President's physician, that we would not discuss the adrenals. And we had to always be very cautious about talking about that and with whom we spoke about it. I think he had promised George Burkley that we would not discuss the adrenals until all the then living members of the Kennedy family were dead, or something like that. I don't remember. He made that promise. I didn't, because I never talked to George Burkley. And at a point about a year-and-a-half ago, we got together with the AMA, and at that time Jim agreed that I could—because other people had been talking about the adrenals, he agreed that since I had not made a promise to George Burkley, I could talk about it. And so since then we've been pretty straightforward with the few people we've talked with about that.

Q. In your last answer, you referred to the House Committee. Were you referring to the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
A. Yes.

Q. Why did you call the bureau—and I assume by that—let me ask the question first. By the bureau, what were you referring to?
A. The Bureau of Medicine and Surgery.

Q. And why did you contact the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery to determine whether you could speak to the House Select Committee?
A. You know, that was, what, 25 years ago, 20-plus years ago, and I don't have a firm memory of why. I suspect it was because of the adrenal situation.

Q. But other than with respect to the adrenals, you're aware of no orders or instructions or preferences that were ever stated by anyone in the U.S. Government on discussion of the autopsy; is that correct?
A. I was an employee of the medical school there at Bethesda. That's a euphemism. The medical school at that time was not a true medical school. It was a training place for technologists, mainly. And we had a commanding officer by the name of Stover, and I'm sure that he instructed us immediately after the autopsy, just cautioned us about publicity and so forth. But we were never given any instructions about not being able to talk to anybody or anything.

Q. Are you aware of any person connected with the autopsy who received any orders not to discuss any matters relating to the autopsy?
A. No, because they blabbed from day one. Some of those corpsmen did. And they made some terrible mistakes and statements.

Q. Are there any mistakes in the statements of the corpsmen that come to mind now that you think should be corrected?
A. Well, one was about the way the body arrived. There have been many stories about the casket that it came in, the wrappings around the body, and all those were distorted. The true fact was that the casket was a bronze casket that had a—when it arrived, it had a broken handle, and that had to be taken out of—he was brought in the morgue in that. And the casket was removed by the—by Gawlers, and then another one was brought in. And all kinds of stories were written about how first there was no body and no casket, and different kinds of caskets were described. Then the wrappings, the President arrived wrapped in sheets and a pillowcase around his head, and different stories were published about that. Jim Humes, immediately when we removed the wrappings, stuck those—we had a washing machine in the morgue, and he stuck those in the washing machine, said he didn't want those appearing in a barn out in Kansas sometime, and they were all laundered.
    Just offhand, I'm sorry, I can't think of other stories, but there were a lot. Bob Karnei, he was later—when he retired, he was the commanding officer at the AFIP. He spoke with Livingstone, who has written those three books, and he told several different stories about the adrenals, none of which were true. Memories, you know, change, have changed over the years, and I'm sure a lot of the stuff that I've heard is incorporated in my memory now. But some of those guys, their memories changed f a s t .

Q. Is there anything that you can think of that would keep you in any way from being able to tell the full truth, to the best of your recollection, today?
A. No. Just my memory loss is the only thing.

Q. What was your role in the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A. Well, I got a call from Bruce Smith at the AFIP. I think—I'm not sure at all about the time, but I think it was around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and he said that the President was being brought to Bethesda for an autopsy. And I told him that I thought that was foolish. I said, Why isn't he brought there at the AFIP where you have more facilities? And he says George Burkley or somebody—I think it was George Burkley that had requested it come to Bethesda. And we discussed this over the phone for a little while, and then after it was clear that we were going to do the autopsy, I decided that—well, first I tried to call Jim. Jim was on leave at the time. He was on a short vacation. And I knew that they were having a party that night, so I was reluctant. But I called him. I think I didn't get him.
    I don't know how familiar you are with the Naval Medical Center, but there are a number of commands there, all under the central command. And 1 think the first place I went immediately was to the commanding officer of the hospital and told him what the situation was. And by this time, everybody knew that Kennedy had been killed and that they were on their way back. And the commanding officer of the hospital and I then began to arrange for various people to come in and security around the hospital and that sort of thing.
    Then we went to the commanding officer of the center, I think the commanding officer of the hospital and I. First he called in a lot of other heads of departments, medical photography and X-ray. I think that was it. And then he and I went up to the commanding officer of the center, and we discussed it, and he also discussed about security and our ability to do this and so forth. And at some point later that afternoon, I was able to get in touch with Jim Humes, and we discussed how we'd do it. And then I was moonlighting at the time, and so I went over to Suburban Hospital about 6 o'clock and did my work over there for a couple of hours, and I think I arrived back at the Navy 7:30 or so, at which point Jim arrived. And then I think the body arrived around 8:00.
    And we had agreed that Jim would be the senior prosector. I was Chief of Pathology, but he was my superior because he was the Chief of Laboratory. And I just thought it was appropriate that such an important case as this, that he should be the senior prosector. And he did not agree early but then did agree to that. And we discussed having a forensic pathologist with us, and we decided it was wise to do that. We considered whether it should be a civilian or military, and we decided in view of everything that had happened to that point that it would be military. And I knew Pierre Finck because I had worked with him at the AFIP. And so I called him.
    I don't think he arrived at the time we started the autopsy. He arrived a little bit later than that, but before we had made any incisions. And then it was pretty much a team effort. Jim and I actually did the autopsy, and Pierre was just more or less observing and recommending and advising and so forth. We did—I think we each did some of the dissection, and I did most of the recording, unfortunately. I drew the pictures. Jim made much of the decisions about the X-ray, X-rays, photographs, although we discussed back and forth what we should do and so forth.
    That was about my role. If you have questions as far as what Jim described, maybe you could ask me, and I could elaborate or something.

Q. One question I had on your answer where you said, if I recall correctly, that unfortunately you were in charge of recording things. Why did you say "unfortunately"?
A. Because of all the people who've described my drawing there, most of our problems have resulted from that.

Q. When you say drawing, are you referring to a document I'm now about to show you as being Exhibit 1?
A. Yes.

Q. While you're looking at Exhibit No. 1, were you the person who filled in the measurements that are provided on the first page?
A. Most of this writing is mine.

Q. You're referring to the bottom half of the page?
A. The diagrams and the labeling of that. Some of these measurements are, but I see some writing here that's not mine. So I presume that one of the autopsy assistants must have written some of the numbers.

Q. Now you're referring to the top half of the first page of Exhibit 1?
A. Correct.

Q. So where there are measurements for the heart, for example, and for the spleen; is that correct?
A. Yes. I think that Jim was probably measuring and reading these numbers off, and somebody else was writing these down. Jim was making these measurements from the—where the gunshot wounds are from various bony prominences. He was reading those off, and I was writing all these in.

Q. In your last answer, first you were speaking of the measurements or the weights of the organs as being measured by Dr. Humes and somebody else writing them down, and then for the measurements on the bottom half of the page near the diagrams, that Dr. Humes is the one who made the measurements and that you recorded them.
A. Right.

Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes. In this second diagram, this whole thing is mine.

Q. You're referring to the second page of Exhibit 1?
A. Right, the skull injuries and the bone fragments.

Q. Okay. We'll come back to those a little bit later. I'd like to show you a document that is Exhibit 26, which I will state appears on its face to be a memorandum from Andy Purdy to Jim Kelly and Kenneth Klein, with the title "Notes of Interview with Dr. J Thornton Boswell, August 17, 1977, National Orthopedic Hospital, Arlington, Virginia." Dr. Boswell, have you seen the document previously that is now marked Exhibit 26?
A. Many years ago. It must have been in that year, 1977.

Q. Were you at one point interviewed by staff members from the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
A. Yes.

Q. And would it be fair to say that, to the best of your recollection, Exhibit 26 would appear to be notes taken from that interview with those staff members?
A. True.

Q. I'd like to draw your attention to page 2 of Exhibit 26, and I'd like just to ask you to read for a moment the full paragraph that's in the center of the page, beginning with the words "Dr. Boswell had been concerned" and going through the end of that paragraph. is [Pause.]

BY MR. GUNN:

Q. You've had a chance to read that now, Dr. Boswell?
A. I have.

Q. Now, we all know that when people record what other people say, things are sometimes exactly correct and sometimes the nuance is off. I'd just like to ask you whether in reading that paragraph any portion of it seems to you to be inaccurate, to the best of your recollection?
A. I'm not sure about Robert McNamara. I see this now, and whether I said that or whether that was true or not, I don't know. I know that Dr. Burkley and other people were running around up in the tower with Mrs. Kennedy, but whether it was McNamara or not, at this point I don't know.

Q. "At this point," you mean in 1996?
A. Right.

Q. Was it your impression in 1963 that Dr. Burkley was supervising what was going on in the autopsy room?
A. Well, he wasn't supervising very closely. We were acting on certain of his instructions. Initially, Jim—at this time, I can't remember how Jim got his instructions from Burkley. I don't know whether Jim actually went upstairs to see Burkley or whether he came down. I never saw Admiral Burkley in the morgue. But at some point, Jim understood that we were to do a limited autopsy to find—I think the initial thing that they told us was that we were to find the bullets, that they had captured the assailant, and that that's all they needed. And Jim argued and said that that was—you know, we couldn't do that kind of an autopsy. But we started out just with the idea that we were going to do an external examination and then we were going to do a limited internal examination. But at a point shortly after we started, it was agreed that we would do a complete autopsy. But I don't know how Jim got those instructions, whether he left the morgue and went up to see Burkley or whether Burkley came down or whether he sent a messenger. There was just too many things going on, I guess, that I wasn't aware of how that all happened.

Q. Was it your understanding that the instructions about the scope of the autopsy were, however, coming from Dr. Burkley?
A. Oh, yes.

Q. If I understood you correctly, you said that you have no recollection of Dr. Burkley being in the morgue. Is that correct?
A. I don't remember him being in the morgue at all. Now, he could very well have been in there very briefly early in the autopsy, but I'm sure that he was upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy most of the evening.

Q. Ultimately, did it seem to you as if a complete autopsy had been performed on President Kennedy?
A. Well, a generally complete autopsy was done. We did not do some of the more radical things that you do in forensic autopsies, like remove limbs or large portions of spine and that sort of thing. But, otherwise, a complete autopsy was done.

Q. Did you ever understand that there were any orders or instructions to limit the scope of the autopsy of the brain?
A. No.

Q. Did you ever understand that there were any orders or instructions to limit the autopsy of the organs of the neck?
A. No.

Q. Were the organs of the neck dissected?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear anyone at any point during the autopsy request to examine the clothing that President Kennedy was wearing at the time he was shot?
A. We all discussed the clothing. It was made—I guess we asked where the clothing was. I certainly remember Pierre asking about the clothing. But we didn't know where the—we knew that he had been in the hospital. He had arrived in our hospital in sheets, so we assumed that either the clothing was down there or was in transit, and we were not concerned about it at that point. But the clothing became available to us; it may have been several days or weeks later.

Q. Wouldn't it be standard practice in a forensic autopsy to have the clothing available for inspection during the autopsy?
A. Well, under normal circumstances, but these were not normal circumstances. I mean, the body was transferred from Dallas and everything, and we certainly understood that that was not feasible. But then Jim made the decision early in the evening that we had to talk with the doctors who had done the examination in Dallas and did subsequently in the morning talk with them and discuss the wounds and clothing and so forth.

Q. When was the first conversation with doctors in Dallas, as best you recall?
A. Saturday morning.

Q. Do you know of any reason that they were not contacted on Friday night during the autopsy?
A. I guess just the fact that we were pretty well tied up all night. It would have been—it was midnight after—when we finished, and Jim wrote up the autopsy. I followed him home, and then he took all of our notes to his house, and then he wrote up the autopsy before he went to bed. The three of us separated, and I don't think we discussed calling Dallas at that hour of the night.

Q. Do you recall Dr. Finck asking to examine the clothing during the autopsy?
A. Not specifically.

Q. So as best you recall, there was a discussion of the clothing, but not a request to see the clothing. Would that be fair?
A. Right.

Q. Do you recall there being any requests being made by you or anyone else to other people who were there regarding shell fragments, bullets, anything else that would have been useful to see during the course of the autopsy?
A. I know there was discussion because there were some security people in the morgue and on the telephone—the telephone was on the wall right at the head of the morgue table where we were working. And I remember them telling us that a bullet had been found, that bone fragments had been found, and 1 believe that they were being transported to Washington separately. And the bone fragments eventually came into the morgue that night. The bullet may. I'm not sure about that.

Q. Do you remember seeing any bullets during the course of the autopsy?
A. Fragments. In the autopsy we found very minute fragments, mostly on the X-rays.

Q. So this would be something more like particles or slivers, not—
A. Very small.

Q. Okay.
A. I'm not sure when I saw the bullet that was sent from Dallas. I remember seeing it at some point, but whether it was during the autopsy or during the Warren Commission investigation, I'm not sure.

Q. Did you understand at any point during the course of the autopsy that anyone wanted the autopsy to be expedited?
A. No.

Q. So you didn't understand that you were in any rush or under any compulsion to hurry?
A. Not at all.

Q. Did you ever hear any instructions or communications regarding or restricting the scope of the autopsy other than what you've already said?
A. No. It was always an extension of the autopsy rather than further restrictions.

Q. Prior to the time you first saw President Kennedy's body, had you heard any communications about the nature of the wounds that he had suffered?
A. I don't think specifically. I think just the fact that he had a head wound.

Q. The doctors in Dallas who had treated President Kennedy had a news conference on the afternoon of November 22nd that would have been at approximately 4:15 to 4:30 Washington time. Had you heard any communications about what those doctors had said during the press conference?
A. No.

Q. Do you know whether Dr. Humes had received any information prior to the beginning of the autopsy about the nature of the wounds on President Kennedy?
A. I'm almost sure that he didn't.

Q. Have you ever heard him say that he had any information prior to the beginning of the autopsy?
A. No.

Q. Are you familiar with the name of Dr. Robert Livingston?
A. Yes. Livingstone, I believe it is.

Q. I'm referring to a person formerly affiliated with the National Institute of Mental Health, not Harry Livingstone.
A. Oh. No.

Q. You don't know the name of Dr. Robert Livingston?
A. I don't believe so.

Q. Did you or Dr. Humes ever use the telephone in the autopsy room during the course of the autopsy?
A. I didn't, and I—well, now, wait a minute. 1 may have called Pierre or called the AFIP before or in the early part of the autopsy. That's the only time I might have used it. I'm not sure about that. And Jim, I don't think he used it either.

Q. Do you remember Dr. Finck using the telephone?
A. I don't believe so. It was pretty busy all evening.

Q. The telephone?
A. Yes.

Q. Who was using the telephone?
A. Security people mostly.

Q. And could you overhear their conversations?
A. A lot of it, yes.

Q. And do you know with whom they were speaking?
A. No idea.

Q. Did they ever tell you anything at all during the course of the autopsy about what the doctors in Dallas had reported to the media?
A. No.

Q. In the ordinary course of an autopsy procedure, would a prosector want to know information in the possession of the treating physician of the deceased?
A. Well, you'd try and get that beforehand, but if you didn't have it and you ran into something unusual or of a bit of a problem, then you might try and do that.

Q. Do you have any impression as to whether the prosector should have been informed during the course of the autopsy or before, what the treating physicians in Dallas had learned during the time of the treatment of President Kennedy?
A. Well, it would have been nice, and we discussed that, actually, because when we first started doing the autopsy, there were marks on the body that we had difficulty—they had started to do cutdowns, and they made little incisions around the nipples, and there was no tubes or anything there. And we didn't know whether they were actually trying to get into vessels or going to get into the chest, whether he had had a hemothorax or something. And then we had difficulty in interpreting the wound in his anterior neck. And at the point when we came to those, we discussed whether or not we might call the Dallas hospital. But we elected not to, and I don't know why at this time.

Q. When you referred to the wound in the anterior neck, what was your first impression as to what that wound was?
A. I'm not sure what our first impression—oh, we thought that they had done a tracheostomy, and whether or not that was a bullet wound, we weren't sure, initially. It was after we found an entrance wound and then the blood external to the pleura that we had a track, and that proved to be the exit wound; but it was so distorted by the incision, initially we just assumed it to be a tracheostomy.

Q. Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself?
A. Oh, yes.

Q. Did you receive any kinds of written reports at all from Dallas about the nature of the wounds on President Kennedy's body prior to the completion of the autopsy?
A. No.

Q. Were you ever told that such written reports had been prepared?
A. No. And, in fact, we never saw any reports. We may have seen such a report during the Warren Commission's investigation, but we certainly didn't in the early days after the autopsy.

Q. Dr. Burkley was present in the emergency room in Parkland Hospital during the time President Kennedy was treated. Did Dr. Burkley tell you anything about what he observed at Parkland Hospital?
A. He didn't tell me anything, and I don't think that he told Jim.

Q. Some of the other people present in the autopsy room also had been present with President Kennedy in Parkland Hospital during the treatment. Did any of them tell you what they had observed during the treatment of President Kennedy?
A. No one did, and I'm trying to think who might have been. Just Secret Service men would have been the only ones there. They were the only ones that could have been in both places, because no members of the—oh, I'm sorry. His military aides were in the morgue, and they were probably also present in Dallas. But they didn't say anything.

Q. You've referred to Secret Service agents as well as the President's military aides being present in the autopsy room. Who else do you recall was present in the autopsy room?
A. Aside from those helping?

Q. Yes.
A. There were some staff people, on-duty staff people.

Q. Staff of Bethesda Hospital?
A. Of the Naval Hospital. I remember—I can't tell you now who they were, but I remember the chief of surgery and the chief of medicine, and then there was duty staff who were in and out. There were probably 30 or so people in the morgue. It's like an amphitheater. There were two rows of benches up elevated above the morgue table, and it was a rather spacious morgue, so it was not inconvenient or anything. And people always did that when we did autopsies.

Q. Was Captain Stover present at any point during the autopsy?
A. I think he was in the morgue; very limited. I'm not—I don't think he stayed, but I think he was there just to see that everything was—that people were helping as necessary and so forth.

Q. Was Admiral Galloway present at all during the autopsy, do you recall?
A. I rather think he was, but I would not swear to that.

Q. Do you recall whether the Surgeon General of the Navy was present—Admiral Kenny?
A. I can't say. I really was tied up in the autopsy, and I was paying no attention. The only attention I got of people moving around was the—I think it was the Navy military aide. One of his military aides was really fidgety and moving back—walking up and down the hallway and so forth, and he's about the only one that I remember very well.

Q. Were any of the people present at the autopsy making suggestions or giving any kinds of instructions during the autopsy?
A. No.

Q. Were there any members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff present during the autopsy?
A. I don't think so.

Q. Could you describe in a general way what the scene at the autopsy was like? By that, I mean was it noisy? Was it hushed silence? Were people talking? How would you describe it?
A. Well, for all the people in there, it was very quiet, really. We were all—Jim and Peter and 1 were talking. We did most of the talking. I could hear occasional telephone conversations or occasional conversations around the room, but for the most part, it was very quiet and subdued. There was an awful lot of activity because we had the radiologist and his assistant, we had the photographers, and they were—the photographers were quite busy, because every time we turned around we had him take a picture.

Q. I'd like to show you a document that's been marked as Exhibit 22, which appears to be from the May 27, 1992, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Have you had an opportunity to see the document previously that I am now showing you that's been marked as Exhibit 22?
A. Yes.

Q. Could you turn to page 2798 of that article? I'd like to draw your attention to the center column, the first complete sentence of that column. I'll read for the record what it says. it appears that these are the words of Dr. Humes, and it says, "Still," he says, "the scene in the autopsy room was somewhat like trying to do delicate neurosurgery in a three-ring circus." Do you recall Dr. Humes saying something like that to the Journal of the American Medical Association?
A. Vaguely.

Q. First, does that sort of description seem to you to be accurate, to the best of your own recollection, about the events at the autopsy?
A. Well, I didn't think it was as confusing as Jim apparently did. It may have been because my attention was on the work, but the whole evening was like a three-ring circus. But I didn't think the crowd was a problem.

Q. In what respect would you say that the whole evening was like a three-ring circus?
A. Well, so many very interesting things happened. we had a pretty good size crowd in the morgue. We were waiting for the body, and Jim—somebody asked Jim to step outside, and he did. And they were unloading the body from an ambulance, a Navy ambulance, and I think Jim—he's rather boisterous, you know, and he said, "Who's in charge here?" And some Army general said, "I am." And Jim directed them to bring the body into the morgue then.
    Well, a lot of people heard that, "I am," and that was in the papers almost immediately. And in the trial in New Orleans, that was in the paper. But that just—little things like that kept happening. The body was brought in, and we opened the casket on a gurney and removed the body to the autopsy table, and Jim had the sheets laundered. Then we had to take external photographs, and we had to take X-rays, and that was—we couldn't do anything at that point except make decisions and wait for the X-rays to come back and see where the bullets were, which we were primarily interested in at that point. But at that point, we then got pretty involved in the dissection, and everything sort of dissolved around me and I think Jim at that point, because we were devoting all of our attention to the remains. But I guess subsequently so many things have happened about the general's comments and so forth that it just seems like it was chaotic at that point. And I think it may have built up over 33 years to Jim also that it was like a three-ring circus. I don't think it really was.
    There was a lot of activity and a lot of people, but everything was running very smooth.

Q. Did you see yourself the casket with President Kennedy in it being opened?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you help open the casket yourself?
A. I doubt it. I mean, I would not normally, because we had people that did things like that. I don't think I actually helped or was too near it.

Q. When the casket was opened, did you help at all in lifting the body out of the casket?
A. I don't think so.

Q. Do you recall who did?
A. I think a couple of our morgue attendants did that, probably.

Q. Were you personally with the body of President Kennedy from the time he was unloaded from the casket until the body left Bethesda later that morning?
A. Yes.

Q. When the body was first unwrapped, particularly the head, was the brain still present in the cranium?
A. Most of it.

Q. When you say most of it, approximately how much was there—
A. Well, probably half of one hemisphere was absent. The bullet came in here, went through and exploded, and bone was eviscerated, and the upper surface of that side of the brain was missing.

Q. During your answer you were pointing to parts of your head, which, of course, wouldn't be reflected on the record. Could you just describe in a general way—and we'll be more specific with this later, but when you say that it entered here, you were pointing to—
A. The back right side of his skull.

Q. Near the hairline, would that be fair, or—
A. No. It's up above that.

Q. Well, whose hairline?
A. President Kennedy's. He had hair cut about like mine, and it was right up here: above his ear and toward the midline. And then the top of his head was blown off. A. 14-centimeter segment of it was blown off. And it was on the right side of his brain that the brain was missing.

Q. While the body was being unwrapped, did you see any bullet fragments or pieces of skull fall out with the wrapping?
A. No.

Q. Dr. Boswell, I'd like to show you a document that appears as Exhibit 26. I'm drawing your attention to page 3. Could you look at the paragraph on page 3 of Exhibit 26 that begins with "The radiologist began his work very early on"?
A. Just that paragraph?

Q. Yes, just that one paragraph. You can read as much of the document as you want, but I just have a question for you on that paragraph. The document quotes you as saying, quote, that you "thought it was a wound," referring to the tracheostomy. The statement that's here in this paragraph isn't entirely clear. My question to you would be: Do you recall at any point thinking before the time that you learned that the wound on the anterior neck was the tracheostomy incision that it may have been a wound of some sort?
A. I think it was pretty obvious from the beginning that it was a tracheostomy wound. Then as the evening progressed, the question became whether it was both an exit wound and a tracheostomy wound, because right in the middle there was what appeared to be the exit wound through which they had cut. I don't understand this.

Q. When you say "this," you're pointing to the paragraph in document 26?
A. Yeah, in the deposition here. "Dr. Boswell indicated that regarding the tracheostomy the doctors thought it was a wound." Well, I don't know what I might have said to make them say that, because a tracheostomy wound is a wound, and our conclusions had been that night and then reinforced the next day that it was a tracheostomy through a bullet wound.

Q. At the time that you first saw the body of President Kennedy, did you see any other wounds or incisions on the body that you thought or came to believe were surgical wounds?
A. Well, on his chest there were—there was an attempt or the beginning of a surgery wound. I don't know to this day what—I think we did learn that they had been preparing to intubate him, and at some point they—I don't know whether it's marked on there or not. Oh, yeah, here we are.

Q. When you're referring to the wounds on the chest, I'm now showing to you Exhibit No. 1. Are the wounds that you're referring to those that are marked on the diagram with the body facing forward on the chest?
A. Yes.

Q. In addition to those wounds and any other cutdowns that you might see on the document and the tracheostomy wound, was there any other surgical incision that you saw at the time that you first saw the body of President Kennedy?
A. No.

Q. More specifically, did you see any incisions that appeared to be any form of surgery in the head area prior to the time that you conducted any procedures at Bethesda?
A. No.

Q. Dr. Boswell, I'd like to show you a document that's been marked as Exhibit 7 and ask you whether you have ever seen that document previously. I'll state for the record that it is designated Autopsy Manual by the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, dated July 1960.
A. I'm sure I have, but it's been a long time.

Q. Dr. Boswell, could you turn to page 72 of the Autopsy Manual? Could you look at the portion that is marked Appendix 3—this is on page 72—and tell me what you understand that page to be, if you do have an understanding of it?
A. Where? I'm sorry. What was your question?

Q. Could you tell me what you understand Appendix 3 to be in Exhibit No. 7?
A. Well, it's the weight of most of the organs and average—lists the average weight, variation, measurements.

Q. I'd like you to look at the average weights of bodies as listed in Exhibit No. 7 as compared with the face sheet of President Kennedy and ask you whether you notice any particular differences. And maybe we can start out with the right lung.
A. The right lung goes from 360 to 570, average 450. The right lung of President Kennedy was slightly under that weight. The left lung is 325 to 480, average 375. His was 290. And it's considerably less than that.

Q. Okay. For the spleen?
A. The spleen, President Kennedy's weight, 90 grams. In a 20- to 65-year-old person, average is 155.

Q. So President Kennedy's was—
A. Small.

Q. Small?
A. Mm-hmm. Kidney, his is slightly under, his right kidney is slightly under average. The left kidney is just about average.

Q. How do you—
A. I'm sorry. Average is a hundred—I'm sorry, 313. So his was considerably under average. Liver—I don't know how that got down to 650. Average is 1,650, and his was 650. Heart, 350; his is just about average, the heart.

Q. So several of the organs would be under or substantially under what the average weight would be?
A. That's right.

Q. Did you notice that at the time of the autopsy? Did anyone remark upon that?
A. I don't know. As I say, I don't know whether I ever appreciated that or not, because I did not write those and I didn't measure them—well, I probably did measure some of these because 1 think I took the lungs out and maybe the heart.

Q. I note that there's no weight there for the brain. Do you remember whether the fresh brain was weighed?
A. I doubt that it was weighed.

Q. Why not—is—
A. Well, I shouldn't say that. It was formalin-fixed. We floated them in formalin and a piece of cloth, and it was taken out, and it probably was weighed. Why the weight is not down here, I don't know.

Q. Wouldn't that be a fairly important thing to weigh if there were a gunshot wound to the head?
A. Especially with some of it missing, that's true. I don't know why the weight's not down here. I remember taking it out. We had a neuropathologist from the AFIP that came over, and we took it out of the formalin after it was fixed a couple of days—in fact, on Monday. And I suspect that that weight would be on a separate piece of paper, because I know it was weighed at that time. But we elected not to cut the brain because the trauma was evidenced on the surface without having to cut it, and we thought that it may be important to preserve. And then we never saw it again. And we put it back in the formalin, and it was delivered to Admiral Burkley in a bucket, in the formalin, and then we never saw it again.

Q. When was it delivered to Admiral Burkley?
A. I believe it was on Monday, but I'm not sure, because we wrote up an addendum to the autopsy, I think on Monday, after we had examined the brain. And I had read the slides on Sunday, so that part of the report—there was an addendum, though, that Jim took with the brain, and I think he took the paraffin blocks and the tissue slides with the brain and the addendum down to Admiral Burkley on Monday. But that I'm not absolutely sure. I'll rely on Jim's memory for that.

Q. There are a few questions I wanted to ask you about some of your last statements. First, you made the statement, as I have it down, that you know that it was weighed at that time. It wasn't clear to me at what time you were saying that it was weighed. At the time of the autopsy or—
A. No.

Q. —the supplemental examination?
A. The supplementary examination. I'm sure it must have been weighed at the autopsy. I know of no reason why it wouldn't—the scale is right there at the head of the table, and every organ, as it's removed, is weighed. I'm sure it was weighed. Do we not have the weight of the brain in the final autopsy report?

Q. There is no weight—in the supplementary I report, when it was weighed at that time, there is a weight. But I am aware of no weight prior to the supplementary report.
A. Okay.

Q. Are you aware of any time it was recorded prior to that?
A. No, not—unless it was put on a separate sheet of paper. Obviously it isn't on this one.

Q. When you say "this one," you're referring to Exhibit 1—
A. Now, as far as the difference in the weights from average and these, I don't know why these are so far—these are really far off, the liver, for instance. The rest of these I wouldn't be too concerned about. They could be very accurate or they could be inaccurate.

Q. Do you see any of the organs of the neck being weighed on Exhibit I on the first page?
A. No, and the only organ in the neck would be the thyroid.

Q. Do you know whether the thyroid was removed from President Kennedy?
A. I don't remember that it was. It need not have been necessarily removed. I mean, it could have been examined in situ and not removed. But I do not remember.

Q. With there being a bullet wound transiting the neck, would it not be standard autopsy procedure to remove all of the organs of the neck?
A. Normally it would. The trachea, larynx, and everything.

Q. Do you know whether the trachea, larynx, and thyroid were removed?
A. I'm almost sure that we did not remove the trachea and larynx. I believe the lungs were removed separately. Normally you would take all the neck organs out with the thoracic organs.

Q. Did anyone request that the organs of the neck not be removed?
A. No.

Q. You had said in response to an earlier question, if I understood you correctly, that it was important to preserve the brain in its state without sectioning. Did I understand that correctly?
A. Well, we decided that that's what we would do. We would—that it wasn't necessary in order to describe and determine the injuries to the brain to do a regular sectioning of it at that time, and we thought it might be more important to save for later investigation.

Q. You stated previously that it was your understanding that the brain had been delivered to Admiral Burkley on Monday. The assassination was on Friday, the 22nd, and that would make Monday the 25th. Is that correct?
A. Yes. It probably was not delivered that early because ordinarily we kept a brain and fixed it for five days. Now, regular brain cutting was on Wednesday, and—but on the other hand, Jim was anxious to get all the material down to the Admiral, and I'm not sure about those times.

Q. What was it that made you think that it was on Monday? Or how—
A. Because we were expediting things so rapidly and getting everything down there, and I just had thought that Jim took the supplementary report, the slides—I know I had the slides on Sunday, and the paraffin blocks, and all that was to go to the White House. And I just thought that probably we got it ready and got it down there on Monday. But you're right about the fixation of the brain. It may have been a couple of days later. But it was within that first week after the autopsy.

Q. Let me go back to Exhibit No. 1. I'd like to show you the bottom left-hand corner of that where it appears to state in handwriting, "Verified, G. G. Burkley." Have you ever seen that or noticed that before?
A. No.

Q. Do you have any idea what that is?
A. No.

Q. I'd like to point out to you the two lines on the diagrams, both on the left diagram and the right diagram, the two lines that seem, at least from a lay perspective, to be demarking the neck. That's not a very precise term, obviously. Could you tell me what those two lines are that you see? Do you know what those signify?
A. I'm sorry. I can't. I cannot tell you why those are—

Q. I'd like you to note on the right diagram; on the head there appears to be a circle with an arrow pointing up and to the left. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Are you the person who made that mark?
A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what that mark signifies?
A. Well, at this late date, I have to assume. 1 remember that there is a—in the scalp there was a tunneling of the wound through the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and I think that is the direction that the tunnel went.

Q. Does that mean that there was a tunnel between the entrance point and the point where the bullet entered into the skull?
A. Yes.

Q. About what was the distance of the tunnel from the entrance point in the scalp to where the bullet entered the skull?
A. I would assume that that's 15 by 6 millimeters, 6 millimeters across, and that the tunnel itself was a centimeter-and-a-half.

Q. So the tunnel would be definitely shorter than an inch, less than an inch?
A. Less than an inch. About three-quarters.

Q. Could you turn to the second page of Exhibit 1? I'd like to ask you some questions about the diagram. First, just to make sure the record is clear on this point, you were the person who drew the diagram and made the markings on the second page?
A. Yes, right.

Q. I note in the center of the—well, maybe if you can just describe in your own terms what the drawing signifies, just in a general way.
A. Well, right in the center is—or just above the anterior portion here is the word "missing," and all the bone for a distance of 17 centimeters in this direction was missing.

Q. I'm sorry. If I can back you up for just a moment, if you could just describe in a general way what the diagram signifies before any of the measurements are described.
A. Can I go back just a little bit and—

Q. Sure.
A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that.

Q. Dr. Boswell, I'm sorry to jump in here, but I just want to make sure that the record is going to be clear here. And we can come back to this, and I want you to explain it the best you can. But would it be fair to say first that the diagram that we're talking about is a drawing of the skull of President Kennedy as seen from the top? Would that be fair?
A. Yes.

MR. GUNN: I'd like to ask the reporter if he could read back Dr. Boswell's last answer with regard to the transiting and the direction. When you hear this, I would like you to think if this is what you meant to say. I may have heard it differently from what you said, and I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

[The pertinent portion of the record, as recorded, was read by the reporter.]

BY MR. GUNN:

Q. Dr. Boswell, you've just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer read back. was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp actually—scalp missing.

Q. Okay. If you could—when you say the entrance wound, if you could give approximately the point of where that entrance wound is with reference to the diagram in Exhibit 2, and maybe just take as some sort of a reference point the 4 that is down at the bottom of that diagram. Was the entrance wound to the left or to the right of below where that 4 is? Do you see what I'm referring to?
A. Yes. It would have to be a little bit to the right of where the 4 is and farther back than the 4.

Q. In the autopsy protocol—

MR. GUNN: Let's go off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

BY MR. GUNN:

Q. Dr. Boswell, could you look at the top of page 4 of Exhibit 3 that I have just handed to you where it says, "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 centimeters laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 millimeters." Is that an accurate description of where you understood the entrance wound to be at the time of the autopsy, 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance?
A. Yes.

Q. Let me ask you a question about Exhibit 3 as a whole. Have you seen the document previously that is now marked Exhibit 3?
A. A long time ago.

Q. What do you understand, just in a very general way, it to be?
A. The autopsy report. I guess this was the initial report.

Q. Is that your signature that appears on page 6 of Exhibit No. 3?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you at any point ever change your mind I about the location of the entrance wound in the skull?
A. No.

Q. Do you know whether Dr. Humes ever changed his position with respect to the location of the entry wound in the skull?
A. I've had a lot of people tell me that he did, before the House Committee that he agreed to lower this wound.

Q. You're referring to the skull wound in the back of the head?
A. Yeah. But since I've talked with him since then, he denies that, and I think he now relies on this written report right here.

Q. You're referring now to Exhibit 1?
A. Yes.

Q. On the top of page 4, the portion that I showed you just a minute ago, it refers to a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 millimeters. What is the portion that is lacerated that is being referred to there? Do you know?
A. I'm sure that is the tunnel-like wound of entrance on the scalp.

Q. Now, going back to the diagram on page 2 of Exhibit 1, in the center of the diagram there are markings that appear to me to say right in the center 10 with arrows on either side, and 17 with arrows pointing up and down. Is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And below that 17 and the arrow, it says "missing." Am I reading that correctly?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell, was something that was 10 by 17 missing?
A. No. The space measured 10 by 17, and there was missing bone there. But the missing parts were all fragmented, and there were irregular margins all around the space.

Q. I guess the question would be: Were skull fragments missing from this 10-by-17 area space, or does this just mean that there were fractures in the skull from the 10-by-17 space?
A. Most of that space, the bone was missing. There were a lot of small fragments attached to the scalp as it was reflected, but most of that space, the bone was missing, some of which—I think two of which we subsequently retrieved.

Q. When you said that you subsequently retrieved, you were pointing at the figure at the bottom of the page?
A. Yes. That was one of them.

Q. So this is the portion at the bottom of the page that looks roughly half-circular with a notch on one of the sides of it?
A. Yes.

Q. Would that be correct?
A. Right.

Q. Where it says 10 by 17 missing, would that be referring to 10 centimeters by 17 centimeters?
A. Right.

Q. Right above the 10, there's a space where there's a marking that appears to say 19 centimeters or 19 cm. Is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. What does that refer to?
A. That's the—when the scalp is reflected, the space measured 19 centimeters at that level up there, just back behind the frontal bone.

Q. Was there any laceration in the scalp that extended approximately 19 centimeters?
A. No. The scalp had to be reflected for part of that area, but there was an incised wound up there that extended into the right eye socket and then back across his temporal and frontal bone.

Q. So the 19 centimeters does not refer then to the length of the laceration—
A. No.

Q. —in the scalp?
A. That was just the area of the space up there at that level.

Q. Now, was that—I'm sorry I'm not understanding, but was that some kind of a fissure or a break in the bone that was 19 centimeters?
A. The bone was all fragmented for that distance, 19 centimeters across the frontal bone.

Q. Going up further on the diagram, there appears to be a "3 cm" right over what appears to me to be the left eye. Is that correct? First, does that say "3 cm"?
A. Yes. And that's not my writing. Either Jim or—and that doesn't look like his writing, so that may be Pierre. That apparently is the vomer bone, which is crushed and drawn up there. I don't believe that this is in the frontal bone.

Q. When you say "this," you're pointing to the rectangular shape?
A. To the little oblong 3-centimeter specimen there.

Q. Do you know what the 3 centimeters is referring to there?
A. I'm sure it must be—now, that is mine, that 3 centimeters is my writing, and that must be the length of the piece of bone there.

Q. Does that signify a cracked bone or—
A. Crushed, yeah.

Q. Crushed?
A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Could you explain why, at least to me as a lay person, it appears that there is a rectangular drawing near what I would presume to be the area of the right—or the left orbit and it seems to be circular in the right orbit? Is there some explanation for that that you know of?
A. Well, I remember that the fracture through the bone extended from the frontal bone and through the floor of the orbit. Why that is round and this one is square over here, I don't know.

Q. In the center of the circle on the right orbit, it appears that there is a hook-shaped line that crosses through the center of the circle and then goes on to the front of that. Do you see that circle?
A. Yes.

Q. Does that signify a crack in the floor of the orbit? Is that the purpose of that line?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you see the writing that is over on the right side?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you read that?
A. "Falx loose from sagittal suture"—"sagittal sinus from the coronal suture back."

Q. What does that mean?
A. Okay. The covering of the brain attaches in the center of the skull from front to back or back to front, but all along the top. And that's where the dura comes together on both sides and comes down around the brain. And that was loose all the way from front to back. The two lobes of the brain are encased in a fibrous connective tissue membrane, and there's an external and internal one, and they come together and are attached all along the surface in the center, midline.

Q. And so down that sinus that goes down from the frontal bone to the back, all of that was loose?
A. Yes.

Q. What was it in your understanding that caused that to become loose?
A. Well, there was actually an explosion in his cranial cavity, and half of the right lobe of his brain disappeared through that cavity and loosened the surface of the membrane there.

Q. If we were to draw a line down the center of the skull right down the midline, how much of the skull to the left of that midline was missing, approximately? Or how could you describe how much was missing?
A. Well, unless—I'm sorry. Your question was on the right side?

Q. On the left side.
A. The left side. Less than half of the space was denuded bone, because I think this was a loose piece over here that was still attached to the scalp.

Q. You're referring to the—
A. The one that's marked 10.

Q. Over on the left side of the drawing.
A. Right. So I would say that 60 or 70 percent of the space is on the right side, 30 to 40 percent is on the left side, where that bone has been removed.

Q. One of my questions was going to be what the significance of that marking is on the left side with the 10 in the center, and from what I'm understanding you to be saying, that was a piece of the skull that was loose. Is that correct?
A. Fragmented from the rest of the skull but still attached to the scalp on its under surface.

Q. Was that measurement made before or after the brain was removed?
A. Probably before.

Q. How did you make that measurement?
A. I suspect that—well, I don't know. We had reflected the scalp, and whether or not this was measured attached to the scalp as it was reflected down or whether I measured it up here, I can't tell you that.

Q. When you say reflected the scalp, you mean that you pulled the scalp completely off the skull so you could examine the skull from the outside? Would that be fair?
A. Well, we actually folded it back below, because there—you don't have the photographs here, do you?

Q. We'll be looking at them later.
A. I think there's a photograph with this reflected down that I can demonstrate.

Q. Okay. Down at the bottom of the drawing, there are the numbers 4, 3, and 6. Do you see those?
A. Yes.

Q. What do those signify?
A. Well, I think probably centimeters, since that 10, that looks like about a 10-centimeter piece of bone relative to the rest of these. And I think this is 4 centimeters by 3 by 6 centimeters.

Q. Why were the dimensions taken of that piece.
A. I don't think that those were parts of the fragments that came back. I'm sorry. I hesitate to speculate on that. I don't know.

Q. Just one last point that I would like to just clarify in my one mind is: On the piece for the markings for the 10 by 17 centimeters that were missing, would it be fair to say that when you first examined the body prior to any arrival of fragments from Dallas, the skull was missing from approximately those dimensions of 10 by 17?
A. Yes.

Q. I'd like to ask you a question now about the thoracic wound that is on the right diagram, still in Exhibit 1. Do you see that?
A. It's not thoracic, though.

Q. How would you describe it?
A. It's neck.

Q. Okay.
A. Despite the position on the chart.

Q. I'd like you to turn to page 3 of Exhibit No. 3, which was the autopsy protocol. I'd like you to look at the second paragraph down where it says, "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7-by-4-millimeter oval wound." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Could you explain to me what it means that the wound was situated on the upper right posterior thorax?
A. Well, that's what the diagram is meant to depict. Posterior thorax—upper right posterior thorax would be there in that general area. But then the numbers indicate its position much better, and Jim wrote "just above the upper border of the scapula." Well, the scapula is this whole shoulder girdle here, and so it has to be up above here. And then it says "14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process." Well, the mastoid process is not delineated on here, but it's just at the ear. So 14 centimeters really would be down here at the base of the neck.

Q. I'd like to show you, continuing with this thing, Exhibit No. 6, which appears to be death certificate for President Kennedy signed by Admiral Burkley. The first question is: Have you ever seen this document before?
A. No.

Q. I'd like you to note on the second page where it says that—just read the first sentence to yourself, and I'll read it for the record. it says that "President Kennedy was struck in the head by an assassin's bullet, and a second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct?
A. No.

Q. What vertebra was the wound closest to, if you know? Again, we're talking about the wound other than the skull.
A. It would not be a thoracic vertebra. it would have to be a cervical vertebra.

Q. Dr. Boswell, I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 22, page 2800, and draw your attention to one portion of that article that relates to what we're talking about now. If you look over in the third column on the right, the first full paragraph, if you could read that to yourself, please. As I examine the photographs, the President's clothing, and other records, it appears to me as a lay person that the marking that you have made on the diagram on the right seems roughly to correspond to the other records; but it also seems as if you're suggesting that the diagram is incorrect.
A. Right.

Q. Is that right?
A. Yes. When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was—if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been—was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way 1 know this best is my memory of the fact that—see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it. But when we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. And so if I can move this up to here—it's shown better on the front, actually. The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.

Q. When you say "a probe through this," you're referring to the entrance wound—
A. I'm sorry.

Q. —in the posterior part coming out the front?
A. The exit wound in the front.

Q. I'd like to show you a diagram that's marked Exhibit MI 13 and ask you if you've seen that diagram before.
A. I don't remember it, but I—

Q. I'll state for the record this is Warren Commission Exhibit 386 that was prepared by H. I. Rydberg to show the entrance wound in the back. Does that help refresh your recollection on the diagram?
A. Yes.

Q. If I understand you correctly, you have been suggesting that although the wound as depicted on the diagram in Exhibit 1 may look more as if it's thoracic, you are arguing now or your statement of clarification now would be that it's more in the neck wound. Does the drawing in Exhibit No. MI 13 better demonstrate to your mind where the actual entrance wound was?
A. Exactly. Yes.

Q. Is it your sense that Exhibit MI 13 is reasonably accurate for showing the location of the wound entrance to the neck?
A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Boswell, I'd like to show you a document that's been marked Exhibit 44, which, for the record, is a report prepared by FBI Special Agents O'Neill and Sibert, dated November 27, 1963. Agents O'Neill and Sibert were at Bethesda on the night of the autopsy. Dr. Boswell, I'd like to show you page 5, the paragraph beginning "On the basis of the latter two developments." Could you read that paragraph to yourself, please?

[Pause.]

BY MR. GUNN:

Q. Dr. Boswell, have you had an opportunity to read that?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know who Agents O'Neill and Sibert were?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever talk to them?
A. No.

Q. Do you see anything in the paragraph that you just read that you now understand to be incorrect?
A. Yes.

Q. What is it that you understand to be incorrect in that paragraph?
A. Well, it's not totally incorrect. I'm sure he overheard us, while we were dissecting, making comments and discussion and so forth, and there was a time at which point we had seen the X-rays and were looking at the wounds and saw that there were no whole bullets left in the body. And one of the possibilities early in the investigation was that that bullet had gone in there and worked its way out or was still there or something. By X-ray it wasn't there, so it had to have gone someplace. And we had the bullet wound of entrance. We didn't yet have the bullet wound of exit. We had the tracheostomy wound in the front, but no other place. And so we were just contemplating whether that had gone in and had not come out until they had done some manipulation on him and that it might be on his stretcher or something. Well, they did find a bullet on the stretcher, but not that one.

Q. So would it be fair to say that although Sibert and O'Neill's statement that the doctors believed that there may have been an entrance wound in the back and the bullet worked itself out during the course of treatment, that although that may have been speculation at one point during the autopsy, that was abandoned by the conclusion of the autopsy?
A. True. That's true.

Q. So this would be almost as if the agents were present at one point, they left the room, and that that was their conclusion based upon something that had occurred partway through the autopsy?
A. Yes. They were reporting this stuff by telephone at the time we were talking.

Q. Do you know to whom they were reporting it?
A. I have no idea.

Q. Did you ever, in terms of probing the wound either in the skull or in the neck, did you ever calculate the angle at which the bullet had entered the body?
A. No. We couldn't.

Q. Let's go back, if we could, to the location of the entrance wound in the skull. Could you tell me whether the entrance wound that you identified in the skull was something that appeared like a puncture in a bone with the remainder of the bone surrounding the hole? Or did the hole break off such that you would need other pieces of bone to be brought into place to show the entire periphery of the wound? I'm not sure that question made—
A. Yes, I understand it, and I think—I think maybe photographs that we have explain it. I believe that there was an area of bone intact down here that we could attach this to.

Q. Let me just state for the record you're referring now to the second page of Exhibit 1, and when you say "this," you're referring to the small fragment at the bottom of the page. Is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.
A. And the beveling is such on both the wound here—or the remaining bone that is someplace in this area, but not shown in this diagram, and in this piece which, when put there, shows the approximate dimensions of the wound, and the beveling on the bone shows entrance and exit.

Q. So when you say "this wound which was placed there," just because that won't necessarily be clear on the record, when you say "this wound," you're referring to the diagram at the bottom of the page and suggesting that that would be placed into the larger diagram towards the bottom?
A. Approximating a piece of bone which is not demonstrated or diagrammed here.

Q. Okay. So do that mean that it was your understanding that the piece of bone that is drawn at the bottom of page 2 is showing part of the entrance wound in the back of the skull?
A. Yes. Actually, that Rydberg drawing that you showed me earlier may—

Q. Exhibit 13?
A. Yes.

Q. MI 13?
A. Now, this is not—this is contrary to my arrow here, and I don't know why, because it shows the tunneling going to the right rather than to the left.

Q. When you say "this," you're pointing at Exhibit MI 13 and to the ovular wound in the skull; is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you're saying that the wound that is depicted on MI 13 is proceeding in a different angle and direction from the one that you have marked on Exhibit 1—
A. Right.

Q. —in the diagram on the right. Is that correct?
A. Yes. And I don't know why that is depicted in that manner, unless they decided that—the artist decided that that went that way. But, anyway, this piece of bone right here—

Q. You're referring to the bottom of page 2 on Exhibit 1?
A. Yes, should fit right here.

Q. Now, you're saying that it should fit right over the top of the ovular wound that is on MI 13?
A. Right.

Q. So would it be fair to say, then, with the drawing on MI 13 that there is a piece of bone that has been replaced into the skull before the drawing is made? Would that be fair?
A. Well—

Q. The drawing as it's depicted in MI 13 is not how the skull appeared when the autopsy began?
A. Well, this is really the—really the scalp. This is as though the scalp were intact and everything. This is not meant to depict the bone and bone fragments, except for this defect here.

Q. So MI 13, with the exception of the black portion up at the top right, does not depict any of the skull wounds. Would that be fair?
A. Right, except the wound of entrance here.

Q. Except the single wound of entrance. We have been referring to page 2 of Exhibit 1 in the small diagram at the bottom. Is the bone that you have drawn there the sole fragment that separates the entrance wound in the back of the President's head from the large fragment that is missing at the top right of the head?
A. I seem to remember two pieces, two fragments, and I seem to remember a photograph or a drawing depicting two fragments. And I don't know—I think the other one is even larger than this, and I don't know where it came from.

Q. When you say the other fragment is larger than this, the "this" is the small diagram on page 2 of Exhibit 1?
A. Right. I think that this came in like halfway through the autopsy, and then sometime during the night the other piece came in, and we still have—there it is, I believe. These are X-rays.

Q. Dr. Boswell is now being shown Exhibit MI 15, which are X-rays taken of fragments arriving from Dallas during the course of the autopsy.
A. And I think this is an X-ray of this piece showing the wound of entrance there, part of it.

Q. You're now making a connection between the medium-sized fragment on MI 15 and comparing that to the drawing at the bottom of page 2 on Exhibit 1; is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Boswell, I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 74, which is a three-dimensional plastic model of a human skull. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. I would like you, if you would first for me, just to point to where on the skull, to the best of your recollection, was the entry wound in the skull.
A. Someplace here. It had a measurement okay.

Q. You're referring to page 4 of Exhibit No. 3, which is the autopsy protocol.
A. I don't know where ... I don't know where our measurements are for the skull wound, but it says 2.5 centimeters laterally to the right, slightly above the external occipital protuberance. That's about as good as I can—

Q. Okay. Could you make a mark? I understand that this is going to be somewhat approximate, but your best marking of where that occasion is for the entrance wound. Okay. Now, I'd like to go back to Exhibit 1 on the second page and have you mark the approximate dimensions of the 10-by-17 portion of the skull that is missing. Let me ask maybe just one question first. The 10 by 17 was the measurement taken as if the full direction of the skull were in place, or would it be, that is, going in a curvular—or in a curve, or would it be a straight line through the wound?
A. I think the 10 by 17 was a straight line, and then the 19 was a curved line at the—

Q. Does it make sense to remove the top portion of Exhibit 74 to take the measurement, to give an approximate—
A. I think that will be all right. Work on this a while. See, most of this was gone, and so the distance is going to be actually across here, and that's almost all the skull. This is almost an impossible task. It's an adult skull?

Q. Yes. while you're doing that, let me try a question. Would the measurement for the 17 centimeters begin at the entrance wound and go forward?
A. I think it goes—it's right here, yes. And that's why this is almost impossible to do.

Q. I understand it's a difficult—I mean, and we'll just treat this as being, to some extent, approximate. But just the best that you can do. Let me try one question while you're doing that. When you made the measurement on the night of the autopsy, what kind of measuring device did you use? Would it have been a straightedge?
A. Straightedge.

Q. So not a tape or a cloth tape?
A. No, no. Straightedge. I'm having an awful hard time. This is almost the dimensions of this, although this—

Q. Just so it will be clear on the tape, you're saying the two dimensions are—the points that you have made on the plastic skull are approximately the same as the dimensions on the drawing in Exhibit 1?
A. Yes, and I can't—I can't fit a 19-centimeter margin into this.

Q. Into the cranium of the plastic skull.
A. Into the base of the cranium. This really should be right above. It should be all the way down here.

Q. When you say this should be down here, you mean—
A. This last, the most posterior mark, because this comes across like this.

Q. But that's fine. You should just go ahead and draw that one. And, again, I understand that this is approximate and it's a difficult task.
A. And then this comes around like so. And that is very crude. That's about the space that we're talking about, though, with approximate measurements.

Q. Okay. What I'm going to do, if this is all right, is to call this Line 1 on Exhibit No. 74. I'll draw a 1 in a circle to signify that the line going across the top of the skull is the portion, if I understand correctly, of the skull that was missing when you first began the autopsy. Is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. Now, I'd like to ask you to describe for me just in words as best you can what portions of the scalp were missing when you first began the autopsy?
A. Actually, very little. This drawing is somewhat deceptive, but there was—

Q. When you say "this drawing," you're referring to MI 13?
A. MI 13, in that we were able to—the morticians were able to cover this defect completely by using some sort of plastic to cover the brain cavity, because there wasn't much bone to replace the brain cavity. But they were able to use his scalp to almost completely close the wound.

Q. So it would be fair to say that although there was a very large piece of skull missing, there was very little scalp missing?
A. Right.

Q. Do you recall whether there were tears or lacerations in the scalp?
A. Right across here and—

Q. Approximately across the midline?
A. What I previously described, post-occipital, and on the left, across the top, and then down to the right frontal area, and then the laceration extended into the right eye.

Q. Okay. Could you make another drawing—and we'll put Line No. 2 on this—to show the approximate direction of the large laceration that you just referred to?
A. Well, it's not a—I can't say what direction, but—and then this came on down like so, and—actually, I think it came right into here.

Q. Okay. I'm going to put a 2-in circle right next to that line, and the 2 will signify the approximate direction and shape of the large laceration. Would that be fair?
A. Mm-hmm.

Q. During the course of the autopsy, did any skull fragments, in addition to the three that you've already shown on the X-ray drawing, come to the autopsy room?
A. No.

Q. Just those three?
A. Well, I'm not sure all of them came in that night. Probably just this one. And then the other two I think came later. I know we had them by the time we examined the brain.

Q. When you say "just this one," you're referring to the drawing on the bottom of Exhibit 1; is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you have skull fragments with you at the time of the supplementary examination of the brain?
A. Yes.

Q. How many fragments did you have, as best you recall?
A. I think there were three.

Q. Do you know whether those fragments were X-rayed at about the time of the supplementary examination?
A. I'm sure they were.

Q. Did you see them being X-rayed during the supplementary examination?
A. I don't know.

Q. Did you see any X-rays of the three fragments during the time of the autopsy?
A. One.

Q. Just one?
A. The one piece that's on that diagram here. 

Q. When you first saw President Kennedy's head, was there any brain tissue that was extruding from the hole in the top of the head, or was it all roughly within the cranium?
A. I'm sorry. I can't—I don't remember that.

MR. GUNN: Let me go off the record for a minute.

[Discussion off the record.]

[Recess.]

Ahead to Afternoon Session
Back to ARRB Period