TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS
ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
In re:
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT
Deposition of DR. JAMES JOSEPH HUMES
Pages 1 thru 242 College Park, Maryland
February 13, 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 Tuesday, February 13, 1996
The deposition of DR. JAMES JOSEPH HUMES, 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 10:12 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
DENNIS QUINN
C 0 N T E N T S
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR:
WITNESS ARRB
Dr. James J. Humes
P R 0 C E E D I N G S
MR.
GUNN: We are assembled for the deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes to be
conducted by the Assassination Records Review Board, which is an independent
agency of the Federal Government. We are located now in the National Archives
Annex in College Park, Maryland. My name is Jeremy Gunn. I am the general
counsel of the Review Board.
Seated
next to me is Douglas Horne, who works with me on medical evidence in the case.
The next person seated next to Mr. Horne is Dennis Quinn, who also has worked
with medical evidence in this case. The person at the end of the table is Dr.
David Marwell, who is the Executive Director of the Assassination Records Review
Board. Also in the room is Colonel Tim Wray.
During
the course of the deposition today, some people from the National Archives will
presumably be coming in the room, and I will introduce them at the time.
Approximately
three years ago, Drs. Humes, J Boswell, and Pierre Finck agreed to be
interviewed in depth by the Journal of the American Medical Association
regarding their autopsy of President John F. Kennedy. The Assassination Records
Review Board applauds the willingness of the doctors to speak out publicly about
the autopsy of President Kennedy and to help dispel the appearance of secrecy
that has surrounded the assassination and the autopsy. In that same spirit, the
Review Board will now be conducting the deposition of Dr. Humes under oath.
In
the conclusion of the JAMA article that 1 mentioned, it quoted the distinguished
Dallas Medical Examiner Dr. Earl Rose. Incidentally, had the autopsy been
performed in Dallas, it would have been performed by Dr. Rose. In the JAMA
article, Dr. Rose said, "If we have learned anything in the 29 years since
the President was shot, it is that silence and concealment breed theories of
conspiracy and the only answer is to open up the records, without self-serving
rules of secrecy, and let the American people judge for themselves." Dr.
Humes, we appreciate your having gone on the record in the JAMA article that I
mentioned, and we appreciate your being here today. It's our understanding that
you drove here from Florida, which is a long trip, and we appreciate the effort
that you've made.
At
this point, I would like to ask the reporter to swear the witness.
Whereupon,
DR. JAMES JOSEPH HUMES 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.
Dr. Humes, I'd like to show you two documents and ask you whether you have seen
them before. I will note for the record that they are designated as MD 100 and
MD 101, the MD standing for medical document.
A. Yes, I've seen them both.
Q.
MD 100 is a cover letter and a notice of subpoena to Dr. Humes. MD 101 is a
letter to Dr. Humes rearranging the date and specifying the place of the
deposition. Have
you seen those two documents before, Dr. Humes?
A. Yes, I have.
Q.
Is it your understanding that you're appearing here today pursuant to your
having received these documents?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Dr. Humes, in Exhibit 101, 1 mentioned to you—and I believe also by
phone—that you had the right to have an attorney here today if you wish. Was
it your understanding that you did have the opportunity to have an attorney?
A.
Yes. I couldn't imagine what I would do with an attorney, but I understood it
clearly.
Q.
If you wish, you will be given the opportunity to see a copy of the-transcript
that is being prepared today. You will be able to review the transcript to see
if there are any errors. There will
be a tape recording made of the deposition, and there will also be a new
document created to record any of the errors that you may have identified in the
transcript.
A.
I would welcome that.
Q.
I'm going to attempt to ask clear questions. Whenever I do that, sometimes I
succeed and sometimes I don't. If there's any time that I'm asking a question
that you don't understand, please ask me to either rephrase it or state it
again. You also may wish to have the court reporter read back the same question
again, but you shouldn't hesitate if there is anything that is unclear.
During
the deposition, we're going to be working with a numbered exhibit list which is
going to be given to the reporter to be included as part of the record. We are
not going to be referring to all documents in the order in which the numbers are
designated, but a person would be able to identify the document by making
reference to the exhibit list.
Dr.
Humes, I'd like to ask you to oblige us with one further request. We would
appreciate your not disclosing to anyone the content of the discussions that we
are having today until the Assassination Records Review Board has been able to
conclude its work on the medical aspect of the case. It's my best estimate that
that would be completed probably within this calendar year. Is that agreeable to
you?
A.
Yes, sure.
Q.
It's our understanding that you have testified on the record three times before
government commissions. Is that correct?
A.
Yes, I guess so: the Warren Commission and twice in the Congress.
Q.
Did you have an opportunity to review the transcripts of those statements before
they were published?
A.
I'm not sure, to tell you the truth. I don't remember.
Q.
Did you ever have an opportunity to review the statements at all?
A.
It seems to me that in one—well, certainly nothing from the Warren Commission.
In one or another of the House, I may have seen my portion of the testimony. But
I'm not absolutely certain about that, but I think I did.
Q.
Do you recall whether in your reading the testimony that you just made reference
to that you identified any mistakes, transcriptions, or errors in the words that
were attributed to you?
A.
I really can't recall. It was a long time ago.
Q.
As I mentioned to you shortly before we went on the record, we will be asking
questions to help clarify some of the issues that are in the record related to
the assassination and to the autopsy of the President. Certainly at the end of
the deposition, and before, if you think that that would be appropriate, you
should feel free to explain any area that you think has not been—any questions
or explain any statements that you have that you think would help clarify the
record. Dr. Humes, did you bring any records with you today pursuant to the
subpoena that was marked as Exhibit 100 to this deposition?
A.
Yes, I did.
Q.
Could you tell me briefly what it is that you brought to the deposition?
A.
I brought a videotape of an interview that 1 granted to a local television
station in Jacksonville in 1988 on the 25th anniversary of the assassination. I
brought the tape and the cover letter from the producer who sent it to me. I
brought a brief CV of my own to maybe assist the committee. I brought a copy of
a reprint of the Journal of the American Medical Association article of May
1992, which records the interview that Dr. Boswell and I gave to personnel from
the Journal. 1 brought a letter to me from Congressman Louis Stokes, who was the
chairman of the House Select Committee. It's dated in October of 1978, and he's
just thanking me for appearing there and trying to help them in their work.
I
brought a letter from Carl Eardley, an Acting Assistant Attorney General, dated
May 1967, prior to my agreeing to appear on a CBS interview program with Mr. Dan
Rather, saying that the Justice Department had no objection to my doing that.
I
brought a list of—a copy of our—Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and I—our review of
all the various photographs that are present in the Archives that we reviewed on
November 1, 1966, the details of various photographs numbered and identified by
that.
Q.
If I can ask you one question about that document.
A.
Yes.
Q.
On the document that you brought, are there original handwritten notes in blue
ink?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And does the document contain the actual signatures of the three doctors whom
you mentioned?
A.
Yes, it does. I brought, for interest, a newspaper recording of the demise of
Dr. John Ebersole, who was the radiologist on duty at Bethesda the night the
President was killed, and he was very helpful to us in our work.
I
brought a copy of a newspaper clipping describing the demise of Dr. George
Burkley, who was the President's physician at that time. I brought two receipts
signed by Dr. Burkley. The first is dated November 24th when he acknowledges the
receipt of the original and six copies of the autopsy report which we had
prepared, one having been retained in the office of the commanding officer of
the Naval Medical Center. And then on the 25th of November, I delivered that
final copy to Dr. Burkley, and he signed acknowledging the receipt of that.
Q.
With regard to the two receipts that you mentioned, would it be fair to say that
those documents are themselves photocopies?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
So neither of those is an original.
A.
Right.
Q.
Did you bring any other documents with you today?
A.
I brought two letters from Dr. Judd Pearson dated in 1967, in July and October,
in which he describes the interest of a number of people in the Congress,
mentioning specifically Senator Russell, who had served on the Warren
Commission, stating that they were concerned about some of the problems the
Warren Commission perceived and the various things related to it and wondering
if we could get together and discuss what some of those problems were and what
action might be taken to avoid them in the future.
And
in a similar vein, a letter from then District Attorney of Philadelphia, Mr.
Arlen Specter, basically on the same point of view, in which Senator Specter
described some of the things that he thought had been problems and that steps
should be taken to try and avoid those kinds of problems should we have such a
future tragic occurrence.
Q.
Now, I understand from a statement that you made prior to the deposition that
you have concern that you are worried about release of this particular letter
without Senator Specter having had the opportunity to examine it first.
A.
Yes, I do have some concern about that.
Q.
And that reason is based simply on issues related to privacy and—
A.
Right.
Q.
—confidentiality of communication?
A.
The letter was addressed to me. it doesn't say don't do anything with it, but
this is long before this Commission was established, and so 1 just feel it would
be appropriate if, before it's officially entered in the record, to get the
acquiescence of Senator Specter.
Q.
We'll be happy to send a letter to Senator Specter requesting his permission—
A.
Thank you.
Q.
—to release that record. What we will do is take the copies of the documents
that you brought here today, plus the videotape. We'll arrange to have copies
made and then return them to you, if that's acceptable.
A.
That's fine.
Q.
Thank you very much.
A.
Well, I have a number of letters from private citizens, who are generically
known as "assassination buffs" around the country, who express all
kinds of points of view, and I receive them frequently, usually two or three
times a month, sometimes two in a week. I never answer any of them. I don't
understand what keeps these people going. I did bring one such letter, but I
really don't think it's mundane to what you're doing. I guess this will go along
for time immemorial while I'm still this side of the grass.
Q.
Would it be fair to say or to recapitulate what you say that, although you have
received these letters from the public, you have not engaged in any
correspondence with those people?
A.
Absolutely.
Q.
Dr. Humes, other than with your family, have you discussed the subject matter of
the deposition today with any other people?
A.
Oh, I've told people I'm coming, my golfing partners that I'm going to be
missing this week and I was coming to give a deposition, and they all expressed
dismay. That's all I can say about that. I said nothing about what I—I had no
idea what you were going to ask me, so I couldn't very hardly tell them what was
going to transpire. So it's no secret that I'm here, if that's what—
Q.
Sure.
A.
I was not instructed to remain silent about this affair, particularly when I
understand you're trying to get it all ultimately out in the open.
Q.
Would it be fair to say, then, that you have not spoken with any officials of
the United States Government other than the Assassination Records Review Board
regarding the subject of the deposition?
A.
Absolutely.
Q.
Dr. Humes, I would like to show you some records, many or all of which you may
have seen before, and I would just like to ask you if you can identify them for
the record.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Or I will read a description, and you tell me whether that's accurate. The first
document is MD 3, which on its face appears to be the autopsy protocol, signed
by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck.
A.
Yes, that's what it is.
Q.
I'd like to show you the next document, which is identified as Exhibit No. 2,
and ask you if you can recognize what that document is.
A.
Yes, this is my longhand notes from which the previous document was put
together. I did this by myself over the weekend after the assassination, and
then on Sunday morning, we three met in the office of the commanding officer of
the Naval Medical Center, Admiral Galloway, and made certain editorial changes
that we mutually agreed were preferable. Somebody had to do the writeup, and
since I was the senior person responsible, I did it. And we revised it by mutual
consent.
Q.
The next document is marked Exhibit 1. Would you identify that document?
A.
Yes. This is a form which we used in the morgue routinely, more or less, to make
certain notations about the findings at the autopsy. There's a place for the
weights of certain organs and so forth and sketched diagrams of a human body on
which certain notes have been made. These notes were made almost exclusively by
Dr. Boswell.
Q.
Would it be fair to say that Exhibit No. 1 is the autopsy face sheet for
President Kennedy?
A.
This?
Q.
Yes.
A.
No. It's not the face sheet. It's just an aide-memoire that we use routinely. It
never appears like that in an autopsy report, no.
Q.
Is there any other name that this document would go by other than face sheet
that you're aware of?
A.
I never heard it called a face sheet, to tell you the truth. I never heard it
referred to in that way. I can't tell you, no.
Q.
And Exhibit No. 1 is two pages long; is that correct?
A.
This is the second page?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Yes, well, this—the first page that you showed me was a schematic portrayal of
the human body and certain other information—was a routine that we used day to
day. The second page is not a pre-prepared form. This is a sketch made by, I
presume, Dr. Boswell, because I didn't make it—I presume by Dr.
Boswell—showing schematically the head injuries to the President.
Q.
I'd like to show you Exhibit 4, which appears to be the Supplementary Report of
Autopsy, No. A63-272, of President John F. Kennedy. Do you recognize that
document?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that, in fact, a supplementary report-
A.
That's the supplementary report, right.
Q.
And that's your signature at the bottom of that page?
A.
That's correct. I haven't seen it for about 40 years, but outside of that ...
Q.
I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 11, which appears to be your testimony before
the Warren Commission on Monday, March 16, 1964. Do you recognize that document
as being—
A.
Yes, I do. I don't think I ever saw it before, incidentally, but I recognize
what it is, certainly.
Q.
The next document is MD 20, which appears to be the transcript of the medical
panel meeting in which you were interviewed with Dr. Boswell from the House
Select Committee on Assassinations on September 16, 1977. Have you seen that
document previously?
A.
No. I have not. I recall that experience with some misgivings as to what people
thought they saw or didn't see in photographs and drawings and whatever. It was
somewhat confusing. But I never saw the document, no.
Q.
The next document appears to be the testimony that you provided to the House
Select Committee on Assassinations. It is marked Exhibit 21. Have you seen that
document previously?
A.
No. If I have, I totally forget it. But 1 doubt very seriously I ever saw it.
Q.
The next document, marked Exhibit 14, appears to be a review of autopsy
materials with a handwritten date of 1/26/67. 1 assume you have seen that
document previously.
A.
Yes, I have seen this paper. I don't know if I ever saw that last page.
Q.
The last page is a National Archives reference page.
A.
Yes.
Q.
You would not have—
A.
Yes, I've seen that document.
Q.
And the final document I'd like to show you at this point is an article from the
Journal of the American Medical Association on May 27, 1992. I assume that you
have seen this.
A.
That's the same article that I brought along today.
Q.
Dr. Humes, for the most part, I am not going to ask questions about your
background or education, but there is one question that I had that I did want to
ask about, and that is, in the document marked Exhibit 22, on page 2795, it
reports that you "performed several autopsies on military personnel killed
by gunshot wounds.”
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that statement correct?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
When did—
A.
Usually they're accidents or homicides or whatever.
Q.
When did you conduct the autopsies for gunshot wounds?
A.
Well, ones that stand out in my mind, two were-in Tripler Army Hospital in
Hawaii. The truth of it, I can't recall, specifically recall where else. In San
Diego, we did 800 autopsies a year. It's really kind of hard for me to
specifically recall the details of many of those. I never held myself forth as
an expert in gunshot wounds. That's why I called Pierre Finck, who was an
expert.
Q.
Had you had experience with gunshot wounds prior to 1963?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And those were, as best you recall now, at Tripler Hospital in Hawaii?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And in San Diego?
A.
Possibly San Diego.
Q.
Dr. Humes, did you at any time receive any orders instructing you not to talk
about the autopsy or restricting what you could say about the autopsy?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Could you tell me about the orders that you received? How many were there, I
guess to begin with?
A.
Oh, I don't know. They were all verbal. 1 never had a written order of any kind
in this regard. When I was summoned to the Naval Medical Center—and,
truthfully, I didn't know why I was being summoned there on the evening of the
President's death—I met with the Surgeon General of the Navy, Admiral Kenny,
and the commanding officer of the Naval Medical Center, Admiral Galloway. And
Admiral Kenny basically gave me my marching orders, informing me that the
President's body was being brought there, that I was to be responsible for
determining the cause of his death, that I should keep the number of people that
were going to work with me or assist me to the minimum that I might require. He
was giving no restriction as to who these people might be other than to—you
know, let's not have the whole country in the morgue; keep it to as many people
as you think you really need to make a reasonable examination. And then I guess
it was more like a tacit understanding that I was not going to have public
disclosure of this. I never received any such written order from anybody that I
can recall. In fact, I know I didn't. It didn't seem to me to be an appropriate
thing to discuss in the public anyway, period.
Q.
Did any officer instruct you orally not to say anything about the autopsy?
A.
I really can't recall such, no. Just common sense, I think, pertained more than
anything else.
Q.
If Dr. Finck were on the record as saying that he received instructions from the
Surgeon General not to say anything about the autopsy, would you have any reason
to question the accuracy of such an observation?
A.
Well, certainly the Navy Surgeon General never told him that, unless it happened
after the autopsy, you know, sometime. I have no knowledge of that. Pierre was
working in a totally different institution from me, and I can't say
whether—was he talking about the Army Surgeon General or the Navy Surgeon
General?
Q.
Navy Surgeon General.
A.
I doubt that very seriously. I don't think he even met the Navy Surgeon General
that night. I don't know. I mean, I can't account for all of Pierre's movements
or people he talked to. 1 have no way of knowing that.
Q.
Do you know of any orders having been issued to anyone who participated in the
autopsy regarding discussion of the autopsy?
A.
Not really.
Q.
When you say not really, does that mean not at all, or could there have been
some instance that you're thinking of?
A.
Yes, there could be, and I'd hate to talk about people who are deceased, you
know. Admiral Burkley had certain personal concerns about just one aspect of the
autopsy, and I understood his concerns, and I abided by them. They had nothing
to do with the assassination of the President. Zero.
Q.
Was the concern about the President's adrenals?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Other than with respect to the President's adrenals, was there any other concern
that you heard expressed by Admiral Burkley at any time regarding the autopsy?
A.
Absolutely not.
Q.
Did you ever tell any person that you would not speak about the autopsy? For
example, did you promise—
A.
That's a rather broad question. I don't- I can't recall any such.
Q.
For example, did you tell Admiral Burkley, even if he didn't give an order
directly or indirectly—
A.
No, no. We had no discussion about it at all. He had more things to worry about
than that.
Q.
Is there any promise, agreement, or understanding that would affect your ability
to talk freely and fully about the autopsy today?
A.
In this milieu, no. The one disturbing thing that I would not like to see widely
publicized any more today than I would in 1963 were the photographs that we
made, which were very, very repulsive. It caused me problems because we didn't
have the photographs at the Warren Commission. We didn't have the X-rays, even.
And that did cause us problems. But I agreed with the reason for not doing it,
because as you already know, I'm sure, some of those photographs somehow or
other have gotten into the hands of people that I don't think should have ever
had them in the first place. That's my only reservation about any aspect of it.
Q.
Were you ever told, directly or indirectly, that the Kennedy family did not want
people to speak about the autopsy?
A.
No, other than the photographs. I was told that the members of the Kennedy
family objected to the photographs being made. I had no— personally, I had no
personal contact with any member of the Kennedy family, either that night or
before or since.
Q.
In your testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations—and I can
show you a document, if you wish—you were quoted as having said, "I have
strong personal reasons and certain other-obligations that suggest to me that it
might not be preferable." And that was referring to the adrenal glands.
When you said "certain other obligations," could you explain to me
what you meant by that?
A.
My conversation with Admiral Burkley, strictly. And the nature of that
conversation I don't think I should discuss with you people.
Q.
Just so it's clear here, that discussion pertains solely to the question of the
adrenal glands?
A.
Precisely.
Q.
As you no doubt know, there have been allegations made about who was in control
of the autopsy. I'd like to ask some questions about that. As best I understand,
you're quite firm on the record that you were the person in charge of the
autopsy; is that correct?
A.
Regrettably, yes. There's no doubt about it, as a matter of fact, unfortunately.
Q.
One of the problems that exists in the record is statements from other people
who were participating in the autopsy who said that others were in charge or
others were giving orders. So I'd like to find out what your response would be
to the quotations that I'm going to show you—
A.
Go right ahead.
Q.
The first one I'd like to make reference to is in Exhibit 26, and I can show you
this, if you wish. This is in the report from the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, dated August 17, 1977, by Andy Purdy, where he conducted an
interview with Dr. Boswell. And I'm now going to quote from Mr. Purdy's words:
"He"—and that's referring to Dr. Boswell—"indicated that Dr.
Burkley was basically supervising everything that went on in the autopsy room
and that the commanding officer was also responding to Burkley's wishes."
That's on page 2 of—
A.
Well, I think that's a misinterpretation by J of what was going on. You see,
Mrs. Kennedy and the Attorney General were upstairs in the hospital. She had
stated she wasn't going to leave there until she could accompany the President's
body to the White House. And Admiral Burkley was anxious that that period be
shortened to as much— you know, as much as possible. And he did from time to
time suggest—but as far as telling me what to do or how to do it, absolutely,
irrevocably no. He's not a pathologist, to start with. He wouldn't presume to do
such a thing. You'll have to talk to J about this. George Burkley, his main
concern was let's get it over with as fast as we could, and we had big problems,
and we couldn't get it over with as fast as he would have liked it to have been
completed. That's my reaction to that.
Q.
Let me show you a second document, Exhibit No.19.
A.
Part of the reason why we avoided talking about this thing, because every time
you say something, somebody misinterprets what you say.
Q.
Document 19 is a memo written by Andy Purdy, who was on the House Select
Committee staff, and 71d like to show you from page 13 of the document where
it's referring to statements made by Mr. Stringer. First, do you know who Mr.
Stringer—
A.
Yes, John Stringer was the chief of our Medical Photography Department, a very
excellent performer. He had won several awards for various photographs in
competitions and so forth, and he was responsible, under my direction, for
taking the pictures.
Q.
Could you look at the second full paragraph of that page 13? And I'll ask you
one specific question from it.
A.
Go ahead.
Q.
The last sentence of that paragraph says, "He"—this is referring to
Mr. Stringer—,"believed the President's physician (Admiral Burkley) was
at the center of these discussions," the discussions relating to not doing
the complete autopsy.
A.
That's a misinterpretation, too. I don't know where he got that idea.
Q.
Were there discussions with Admiral Burkley about doing something less than a
complete autopsy?
A.
With regard to the adrenal glands, yes.
Q.
With respect to anything else?
A.
Absolutely not.
Q.
For example, with respect to the neck, did Admiral Burkley say anything about—
A.
No.
Q.
—the full autopsy?
A.
No. Admiral Burkley's role has really been greatly accentuated here, as far as I
can see. I'd like to blame him for everything if anything's wrong, but I can't.
Part of my problem is I've never seen most of these documents. It's hard for me
to discuss too much about them when I've never seen them.
Q.
I'd like to show you a document marked Exhibit 67, and I caution you about the
staple. Don't puncture your finger. Document 67 is an oral interview with
Admiral George Burkley conducted on October 17, 1967.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And I'd like to draw your attention to the bottom of page 16 and the top of page
17, if you could read that to yourself. You can read any other portion you wish,
but that's where I will be asking you the question. I'll just state for the
record this is an oral history from the John F. Kennedy Library of George G.
Burkley conducted by William McHugh.
A.
Well, his memory is a little foggy here. I ordered every X-ray that was taken.
He didn't have a thing to do with the ordering of X-rays. I X-rayed the
President's body from head to toe for the simple reason that missiles do very
funny things occasionally in the human body. And George Burkley had absolutely
nothing to do with it, period.
Q.
Would you say that—
A.
He says he supervised the autopsy. He was in the room. As far as supervising the
autopsy, he didn't. Nobody supervised. I'm, unfortunately, responsible for it.
Maybe he thought he was supervising it. If that made him feel better, that's
okay with me, too. But I could not have put up with that. You know, just—it
was not in my nature to be that retiring. I'm afraid I haven't changed a great
deal. I never saw this document before, of course.
Q.
Did you ever receive any orders or instructions about limiting the scope of the
examination of the brain?
A.
Never.
Q.
Did you receive any instructions or orders regarding limitations on dissection
of the organs of the neck?
A.
No.
Q.
During the course of the autopsy—
A.
Let me interrupt there. May I?
Q.
Sure.
A.
My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the
posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at
that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past
that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because
when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a
contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura
anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
Of
course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from
the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in
the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked
with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, oh, yeah, there was a wound
right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the
tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated—when we went back
to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of
that wound in the gaping skin where the—but it wouldn't make a great deal of
sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I
didn't—I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that. I wouldn't
have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean,
that's—
Q.
Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy
of the neck?
A.
Well, no. I haven't seen that in—what you say, standard, I mean, many times if
you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in
the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of
entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing
around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't
be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. it
just doesn't work that way.
Q.
Was any probe used at all to track the path—
A.
I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive efforts
superficially in the back of the neck, but no. And if there's a standard
protocol, I don't know where you'd find it, to tell you the truth.
Q.
Dr. Humes, did you request at any time during the autopsy to see the clothing
which President Kennedy had been wearing at the time of the assassination?
A.
No, I didn't. I should have, probably, but didn't.
Q.
Do you know where the clothing was during the—
A.
No, I don't. I did see the clothing ultimately in the Archives, but I didn't
know where it was.
Q.
Other than from Dr. Burkley, did you receive or understand any requests for the
autopsy to be expedited?
A.
No.
Q.
So Burkley was the only source of—
A.
Right.
Q.
Other than for the adrenals and for the autopsy photographs, was it ever
conveyed to you any requests or preferences of the Kennedy family for anything
to do with the autopsy?
A.
No, not at all—well, with one exception: with the brain. And I don't have the
date, and I don't—if I had a receipt, which I wish I had, I don't have now.
Sometime in the next several days -and I can't tell you when it was—George
Burkley came to see me and said that Robert Kennedy wished to inter the
President's brain with the body. And that was the desire of the family, and
Robert Kennedy was the spokesperson. So he asked me would I give him the brain,
which I promptly handed it to him in a pail. And then the mystery really begins,
because what happened after that, I don't know.
Q.
Did you give Dr. Burkley the brain prior to the time President Kennedy was
interred on November
A.
No, no, no, no, no. No. It was afterwards.
Q.
Approximately when?
A.
I couldn't tell you. I can't remember. I would say it was within 10 days,
probably. But I just don't know. I can't remember. It seemed like a logical
request, as far as I was concerned. You know, I didn't have any mystery as to
what happened to the man.
Q.
There are statements on record, which I can show to you, if you wish, that
suggest that Dr. Finck believed that there were restrictions on the scope of the
autopsy with respect to the neck. Does that help refresh any recollection
A.
No, not with—I don't know where Pierre got that information, but he—as far
as I'm concerned, I don't understand that. Pierre had a terrible time,
incidentally, getting into the place because the Marines were not about to let
this Army guy come in that night.
Q.
Did anyone ever suggest to you, directly or indirectly, that there should not be
a sectioning of the brain?
A.
No. Absolutely not.
Q.
Dr. Humes, are you aware of any rules, regulations, or manuals that would have
governed performance of military autopsies as of 1963?
A.
Not really. We had a manual, an autopsy manual that was a guide that we used to
train residents. It wasn't something we frequently referred to, to tell you the
truth, because you changed your technique and what you did depending on the
nature of the problem.
Q.
Let me show you—
A.
At least I did.
Q.
Let me show you a document that's marked as Exhibit 7 and ask you if this is the
autopsy manual you were referring to. I'll
state for the record that Exhibit 7 appears on its face to be an autopsy manual
produced by the Department of the Army Technical— excuse me, Departments of
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, dated July 1960.
A.
I never saw this specific—I never saw this specific document ever. I presume
it was circulated primarily in Army circles. I don't know. If it was in our
department, I never saw it.
Q.
When you received training—let me try that question again. Did you take any
courses in forensic pathology prior to the time of the autopsy?
A.
The only specific course I took was a one-week course at the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology in November of 1953. 1 remember it because it was held at
the AFIP in the old building downtown at 7th and Independence where the
Hirshhorn Museum is now. And I remember it vividly because the course was very
well done. A number of nationwide experts were there. Ford from Boston was the
medical examiner of the State of Massachusetts, and several others I could
conjure up if it was anybody's interest. But the reason I remember it so
vividly, it was over at noon on Friday. I was stationed at the Philadelphia
Naval Hospital, and I was going to drive back to Philadelphia. But I decided to
go by Bethesda and visit some of my friends, some of my former trainees and one
thing or another. So I went out there, and we got embroiled in conversation, and
around 5 o'clock, somebody said, Jim, you'd better get started because it's
snowing. November the 10th, 1953.
So
I look out the window, and there's about a foot of snow. I had just come back
from Panama, and somebody in Panama had advised you disconnect the heater in
your car while you're in Panama. I can't recall what the rationale behind that
was. But I had—it was now fall, and I had not reconnected the heater. So I
start up old Route I to Philadelphia in this car. It was a Plymouth coupe. And,
of course, the snow is immediately blocking my vision. I had to stop about every
five miles or ten miles between Washington and Baltimore to get the snow off the
windshield. By the time I got to Baltimore, the city was deserted. There was
snow all over the place, and nobody was moving. I pulled up in front of the Lord
Baltimore Hotel. I said, Do you have any rooms? The guy said, We got rooms like
they're going out of style. So I stayed—I said, well, I'm going to stay right
here. I called my wife in Philadelphia. She said, Hey, if you want to spend an
extra night down there, don't give me this snow business. I said, Ann, it's
snowing like mad. So, anyhow, she was joshing with me, but it was not snowing in
Wilmington or Philadelphia or any place. So I started out the next morning, and
you never saw such a trip, because I spent—I heard the whole Notre Dame-Penn
football game in one spot in Havre de Grace. Never moved. By the time I got to
Wilmington, there was no snow. So if you ask me do I remember that course, I'll
never forget it. It was a good course, too, by the way.
Q.
Did they have any kinds of written manuals, documentation, regulations that you
used for reference or for instruction in that course?
A.
Not really. There were some handouts that were provided by—the AFIP runs a
number of courses. I was involved in them later on myself. And the instructor
would provide whatever he thought would be helpful to the people taking the
course. I don't recall. There was no particular for instance, that manual might
have been good to have, but it was not a part of the documents of the course.
Q.
Did the Naval Medical Hospital have any rules or regulations at the time that
you were there that would govern conduct of autopsies?
A.
Well, I was responsible for them if there were, and I can't recall that there
were, you know. I've trained young doctors to do autopsies all my life, and I
didn't often use manuals.
Q.
Were there any manuals or references at all that you used during the actual
course of the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A.
No. No.
Q.
Dr. Humes, I'd like to go through the events as they occurred, as best you can
recollect them, on November 26th, starting from—
A.
26th?
Q.
Excuse me. November 22nd, starting in the afternoon. The first question I'd have
for you would be whether you heard from anyone prior to the time the autopsy
began about the nature of the wounds that President Kennedy had suffered.
A.
Not at all.
Q.
Are you familiar with the name of Robert Livingston, Dr. Robert Livingston?
A.
Is this him? No, that's Harry Livingstone. No, I'm not.
Q.
I'd like to show you a transcript of some testimony that he offered in the case
of Crenshaw v. Sutherland?
A.
May I ask who is Dr. Livingston?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Not the guy in the jungle.
Q.
According to "Who's Who in America," Robert Livingston is a
neuroscientist who received his undergraduate and medical degrees from Stanford
University, and he was a resident at Stanford Hospital in San Francisco. In
1963, he was the chief of the Neurobiology Lab at the National Institute of
Mental Health.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Does that help refresh your recollection of who Dr. Livingston is?
A.
I don't know him from Adam, personally. I never heard of him before this minute,
but I don't doubt his qualifications or whatever.
Q.
I'd
like you to take a moment, if you would, and read the deposition from page 23,
line 1, to page 26, line 16. You
should also feel free to read any other part of the deposition that you'd like.
A.
Now, where?
Q.
Page 23, line 1. This is in microscript.
A.
Page 22—okay. I see it now. Okay.
[Pause.]