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.
Are
there any other kinds of records that you have in your possession, custody, or
control that relate to the assassination of President Kennedy?
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.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
For the record, the exhibit number is No. 24.
A.
Well, this is ridiculous. I was at home at this time. He never talked to me,
period. Absolutely never did talk to me. I don't need to read any further, to
tell you the truth. I mean, I don't know what he's talking about. I was at home
helping my wife prepare for a social event that night, and our first knowledge
of the death of the President was when our children came home from school on the
school bus, came in running, yelling, all screaming, of course, "The
President was shot." And I couldn't even remember where the President was,
to tell you the truth, at that time. But I never talked to this person.
Q.
Could you complete through page 26, line 16, please?
A.
I get confused. It stops and goes over to another
...
Q.
24, 25, 26.
A.
It doesn't follow, sir. It doesn't follow.
Q.
23.
A.
I see.
Q.
24.
A.
Well, this doesn't follow this. It makes no sense. It's a nonsense. I don't mean
it frivolously.
Q.
At this point it says—there is an objection, calls for speculation, then
there's some colloquy, and it's back to—
A.
What? All I see is the word "speculation"—oh, somebody objects—
Q.
"Objection, calls for speculation."
A.
Oh, okay.
Q.
The passage between the two pages.
A.
Okay. I didn't understand that.
This
is fantasy. Pure fantasy. I don't know where this guy was or where he's coming
from. He was concerned about the autopsy, he called me and talked to me about
it? He never talked to me. I mean, I'll read it, but I don't know what good it's
going to do you. Never
happened. That's all I can tell you. If I did, I mean, I developed amnesia of
some kind or other. But a long conversation like this at 4 o'clock in the
afternoon, absolutely, categorically did not occur.
Q.
Just so the record is clear here, you are saying that—would it be fair to say
that you're saying that Dr. Livingston never called you on the 22nd—
A.
To my recollection, he never called me. The only person, outside of the people
right there on the scene, I spoke to was Bruce Smith. Bruce Smith, a very dear
friend, close friend of mine, was the Deputy Director-Navy at the AFIP at that
time. He called and offered the services of the AFIP, anybody I needed, which
was very logical. I had been stationed at the AFIP. You know, it was home to me.
It was a very cordial conversation. "Bruce," I said, "Thanks a
lot. Let me see what the problem is, and if I need any help, I'll call you
back." When I saw what the problem was, I needed a ballistics person. And I
called Bruce back. I said, "Who do you have that's in ballistics?" He
said, well, Colonel Finck just got back from Panama, where held been
unscrambling some who-shot-whom between the Americans and the Panamanians, one
of the typical—which was familiar to me because I served for a couple years in
Panama during a revolution. So I was very familiar with that. I said,
"Well, that sounds great." I welcomed the assistance of Dr. Finck.
That is absolutely the only person that I spoke t( outside of that building that
day. Now, whether he talked to somebody else, I can't—it could be. He could
have talked to J or he could have talked to any number of people in our
department. We had a big department, you know, but I did not speak with him.
Q.
When on November 22nd is the first time that you came into contact with
officials from either the FBI or the Secret Service?
A.
Well, contact, I never really had any dialogue with any of them. Some of them
were present in the morgue when the President's body was brought there. I was
not introduced to any of them. I didn't need to know any of them. I had to
occasionally tell them to keep their conversation down. There was a lot of
conversation going on. But I never personally was—can I recall, being
specifically introduced to any of them, which I didn't need to be introduced to
them, because I knew who they were and they ...
Q.
Prior to the arrival of President Kennedy's body, did you see any Secret Service
or FBI officials?
A.
No. I had one interesting encounter in that regard. When I found out what the
problem was, I went downstairs and got into a scrub suit which I was going to
wear to conduct the autopsy. And it was a brand-new morgue. We had just moved
into it a couple of months before. And it had a loading dock outside, and that's
where they were going to bring the President's body. So I walked outside to see
what was going on. A lot of people—oh, I saw a guy with a speed graphic camera
in the building and didn't feel like running after him myself. So I went out to
this loading dock, and several people were milling around. And I said,
"Who's in charge here?" And some general said, "I am." Well,
it turns out he was in charge of the military district of Washington. That was
his role. And I said, "General, sorry to bother you, but there's some clown
in there running around with a speed graphic camera." Well, he dispatched
somebody to corral this guy . That's
the only other person that I had any conversation with at all. He responded very
quickly when I asked who was in charge. He left no doubt in my mind. But he was
in charge of the loading dock. He was not in charge of anything else. I never
saw him again in my life.
Q.
When is the first time you had a conversation with anyone outside of people in
the autopsy room regarding the nature of the President's wounds?
A.
The next morning when I called Malcolm Perry.
Q.
Approximately—
A.
I'm pretty sure that's who I spoke to, I know it is.
Q.
Approximately what time did you speak to Dr. Perry?
A.
I think 8 or 9 o'clock on Saturday morning.
Q.
Were you aware of any telephone calls being made from the autopsy room during
the time of the autopsy?
A.
Well, you see, that's possible. Certainly not by me, but we had a large defect
in the side of—in the right side of the President's skull, and there was
dialogue back and forth between somebody -I didn't know whether the FBI or
Secret Service- that fragments of bone had been picked up on the street. And
there was conversation back and forth between—I guess they were Secret Service
people. I had no idea, to tell you the truth. And they were going to be sent to
us, which was fine because we needed to close the defect if we could. It didn't
turn out to be enough to totally close the defect. We did other things to
accomplish that. But your specific question, if these phone conversations were
going on, I was not directing them, I was not involved in them, and really it
wasn't my problem.
Q.
Was there a telephone in the autopsy room?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you recall whether anyone was stationed at the telephone during the course—
A.
No, no. If there was, I didn't have anything to do with it.
Q.
Did you make any attempts to call anyone in Dallas prior to the completion of
the autopsy?
A.
No.
Q.
Were you aware of any other kinds of communications, in addition to telephone
calls, between Bethesda Hospital and Dallas regarding wounds of the body?
A.
No.
Q.
In addition to the call that you had with Dr. Perry, did you speak with any
other person who had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination regarding
the nature of the President's wounds?
A.
Contemporaneously at that time?
Q.
Thank you. Let me try the question again. Prior to the time that you had
completed the autopsy protocol, did you speak with any other doctor—
A.
No.
Q.
—or law enforcement official about the nature of the wounds on President
Kennedy's body?
A.
I did not.
Q.
Dr. Perry is the only one, then, prior to the completion—
A.
Right.
Q.
—of the autopsy protocol?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you see any written materials prior to the time that you completed the
autopsy protocol that discussed or described events in Dallas?
A.
No.
Q.
In the autopsy protocol, there is reference to information that happened in
Dallas. Do you recall how you came to have that information?
A.
I'd have to know—
Q.
I'll show you the autopsy protocol.
A.
Yes. I can't recall.
Q. Just start with the first two paragraphs of the autopsy protocol.
MR. GUNN: Dr. Humes is now examining Exhibit 3.
[Pause.]
THE WITNESS: Yes, this makes reference to the local newspapers, which is the source, plus I may have had the television on sometime on Saturday. I'm not sure. I was busy doing a lot of things. I can't tell you for sure. I had no personal knowledge. I had to get it secondhand, whatever it was. It was not my job. It was not my responsibility in the first place.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
At the beginning of the second paragraph, it makes reference to the President
fell forward. Do you recall now where you obtained that information? Again, the
beginning of the first paragraph—the first sentence of the second paragraph on
page 2?
A.
I presume from this Washington Post article. I'd have to look at it and see. I
had no other source of information that I can recall.
Q.
So, for example, did an FBI or Secret Service agent tell you that—
A.
No, absolutely. I had no dialogue with them at all. Zero. Maybe it would have
been helpful. It may have been harmful. I have no idea. But I did not have
dialogue with those people.
Q.
Could you describe in a general way what the autopsy room looked like? You
mentioned a few minutes ago that it was new. Could you just describe the room?
A.
Well, it's about the size of the room in which we're seated, which looks to me
like it's 30 by 25 or something of that nature. We had a permanently fixed
autopsy table in the center of the room. We had a viewing stand, a two-place
viewing stand, along one wall. I think it had two steps. It would accommodate
maybe 20 or 30 people, because we used to have conferences in there. Routinely,
at the end of a week, we would retain the organs from the autopsies of the week.
In fact, not only did we review them there, but there was a closed-circuit
television. They went to Andrews Air Force Base, NIH, and it was a closed-
circuit instruction program. That platform, a two- step platform, was for
observers. And in an adjacent area, we had a refrigerated storage place with
either four or sixj -I forget the number—places for retention of bodies. And
we had a shower and restroom adjacent.
Q.
Was there any kind of gallery in the room other than the two steps that you—
A.
That's what I'm speaking of. It might have three steps. I couldn't—you know, I
don't recall how many steps it had. We used to get a fairly decent number of
people. Maybe it had three steps.
Q.
Was there any closed-circuit broadcasting
A.
No.
Q.
—during the night of the autopsy?
A.
No, absolutely not. I wish there was, retrospectively.
Q.
Had you ever performed an autopsy in that room before?
A.
Yes. But let me correct that to some extent. The residents did most of the
autopsies, and we rotated the supervision of that activity. It varies. That's
the way the residents learned their trade, you know. But, yes, we had—I don't
know how many autopsies we've had in that room. it would be easy to find out
from the record, of course.
Q.
Approximately how many people were in the autopsy room at the time President
Kennedy was—
A. Geez, that's a good question. That's one of my—I should have thrown them all
out. That was one of my biggest problems.
There
were, I guess—there was an Air Force aide, the Naval aide, an Army aide to the
President. They were the most shook-up people you ever saw in your life. And I
guess it was around people there off and on, maybe 20.
Q.
During the autopsy, was the room quiet and hushed or noisy and bustling? How
would you describe the scene?
A.
It varied. We were there for a long time. We were there from about 6:00 or 6:30
in the evening until 5 o'clock the next morning. It was very hushed around 5
o'clock in the morning. But in the early evening, it was—I mean, we had X-ray
technicians coming in and photographers and photographers' assistants there, the
kind of thing that you would expect under any circumstances, plus these other
people, the Secret Service and the FBI, who wouldn't normally be present. But I
had to concentrate on what I was doing. I mean, I really couldn't get too
worried about these other people, as long as they didn't get in my way, which
they didn't.
Q.
In the JAMA article, if they quoted you correctly, you said that the scene in
the autopsy room was somewhat like trying to do delicate neurosurgery in a
three-ring circus.
A.
At times it was. Not always, but at times when there was a lot of people around.
You had to stage stuff. I mean, you couldn't be taking X-rays of the whole body
and photographs simultaneously. You know, somebody had to decide who was going
to do what when, and I had to do that. George Burkley sure as hell didn't, you
know.
Q.
Did anyone make suggestions to you other than Drs. Boswell and Finck, regarding
any procedures—
A.
No.
Q.
—during the autopsy?
A.
No.
Q.
None whatsoever?
A.
None. I don't know who it would have been or who would have the ...
Q.
Was your commanding officer there?
A.
I had a separate commanding officer, and he was there, it seems to me, part of
the time. John Stover was his name. Everybody called him Smoky Stover. At that
time, we had a separate command called the Naval Medical School. The Naval
Hospital did not have any laboratories. The Naval Medical School had
laboratories, and we provided the laboratory service to the hospital. So the guy
that was really my commanding officer by rules and regulations was John Stover.
But he had—we had a very cordial, pleasant relationship, but he never
commanded me to do anything in my life, period. He was off in a different area.
We conducted training courses for technologists and technicians and occupational
thera—all kind of training courses, and that was his main role, to run the
training aspects of the, quote-unquote, medical school. At one time, when my
uncle was a Navy doctor, every new doctor coming into the Navy first was
assigned to this Naval Medical School for, I think, six or nine months, and they
taught some tropical medicine and they taught shipboard sanitation—you know,
the kind of things that you'd need to know in the Navy. But if Smoky was there-
and I think he was for part of the time—we had no dialogue at all. He would
never have presumed to tell me anything, I don't believe. He was a general
practitioner, is what he was. He was a field—he spent a lot of time in the
Marine Corps. He was a field medical officer, and a very good one, very much
respected.
Q.
Who was Captain Stover's commanding officer?
A.
Admiral Galloway.
Q.
Was he present at the autopsy?
A.
I don't think so. I don't think Cal came down there at all. I mean, I can't
swear that he was or wasn't there. But if he was, he played no role in it
whatever.
Really,
other than more than look in the room, I don't think Admiral Galloway was there
at all.
Q.
Was the Surgeon General of the Navy present—
A.
No.
Q.
—during the autopsy? That's Rear Admiral Kenny?
A.
Kenny.
Q.
And he was not present at all in the autopsy room?
A.
I can't recall that he was. You know, he might have, again, looked in, stuck hi
s head in the door or something. But I don't recall him being in the room. If he
was, it was very fleetingly.
Q.
Previously, you made reference to the President's Air Force aide. Was that
reference to General McHugh?
A.
I didn't know who they were, to tell you the truth. Still don't know who they
were. And they didn't stay long. They came about the time the body was
delivered, and they didn't—I mean, I didn't concentrate on what these people
were doing. It really didn't interest me. I was empathetic with-their concern,
but as far as otherwise, I didn't have anything to do with them, or they with
me.
Q.
Previously, you made reference to the commanding general for the military
district of Washington.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Was that General Wehle?
A.
You got me. You know, he told me, he said he was in charge, and I heard later
that that was his role. I said to somebody else, "Who's that guy?" And
that's what they said; he's the CO of the military district of Washington. I
never saw him before or since, didn't know who he was then.
Q.
Was he present at all during the autopsy?
A.
No, he was not. or if he was, I didn't know he was there. Let's put it that way.
I don't think he was at all.
Q.
Would you have recognized Joint Chiefs of Staff as of 1963?
A.
No.
Q.
For example, Curtis LeMay, would you have recognized him?
A.
Oh, I'd recognize him if he was there, but he was not.
Q.
Did you ever hear any speculation about whether any members of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff were present at the autopsy?
A.
No, never heard, but if they were, it was unknown to me totally. I doubt very
seriously that they were.
You
asked me, would I recognize them? Sure, you know, from newspapers and
television, one thing or another. I probably knew them all by sight. But they
weren't there.
MR. GUNN: Let's take a short break, a couple minutes to get a drink of water.
[Recess.]
MR. GUNN: We're back on the record following the first recess.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy?
A.
I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was
6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately.
Q.
Was the body in the casket when you first saw it?
A.
Yes, it was in a casket.
Q.
Could you describe the casket in just very general terms?
A.
Yes. It was a wooden casket with long handles on both sides like you usually see
for the use of pallbearers and so forth. one of the handles was broken. I forget
which side it was on. But it was a handsome—the standard of those things. It
was a good-looking casket.
Q.
Where did you first see the casket?
A.
As the people—I think they were sailors that were—it was a Navy ambulance, a
Navy ambulance crew who had picked up the body at the airport, and they brought
it into the morgue and promptly left.
Q.
Do you remember what color the ambulance was?
A.
No—oh, gray. I saw it on television later. And all our ambulances were gray in
those days.
Q.
Were you with the casket from the time it was unloaded from the gray ambulance
until you opened the lid of the casket?
A.
I didn't go out on the loading dock. I was there from the time it came through
the door of the morgue until the President left the next morning.
Q.
How many rooms or hallways are there between the loading dock and the morgue
where you first saw—
A.
Just a very brief hallway. I guess maybe 15, 20 feet, something like that. No
rooms.
Q.
And was the casket opened in the morgue?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Who else was in the room when the casket was opened?
A.
Oh, I can't tell you that. Dr. Boswell and I removed the body from the casket,
and I—I don't know who. There were some enlisted helpers, technicians from our
department there, and I don't know who else was there. I can't tell you. I was
too intent on what I was doing and too, to tell you the truth, a little bit
shook by the whole IS procedure, initially at least. It was disturbing to have a
deceased President there in your arms, you know. It's not an unemotional
experience. But 1 was not worrying about who was around or whatever. It was the
least of my worries.
Q.
Who else in addition to Dr. Boswell, if anyone, helped you remove the body from
the casket?
A.
I don't recall that anyone did, but I don't gainsay the possibility that one of
the enlisted men may have helped. But nobody else.
Q.
How was the President's body wrapped?
A.
It was wrapped in white sheets and the head was—head wound, massive head
wound, was covered with gauze sponges and gauze dressing.
Q.
Was there any plastic or rubber sheeting at all near the President's head?
A.
No. Well, I'm not sure what finally tied down the gauze bandage over the skull
wound. it might have been plastic or something, but, you know, I don't know.
Adhesive tape or God knows what. It was easily removed. It wasn't tight at all.
Q.
Was there any plastic sheeting or rubber sheeting of any kind that you saw in
the casket—
A.
No.
Q.
—with the exception of possibly with the head?
A.
No.
Q.
From the time that you first saw the body of President Kennedy, were you in the
same room with the body until it left Bethesda?
A.
One hundred percent of the time.
Q.
Other than the trip down the hallway, did the body ever leave the morgue room?
A.
No.
Q.
Were you involved with the process of unwrapping the body?
A.
Yes. Yes.
Q.
During that, did any skull fragments fall out from the wrapping?
A.
Not that I recall.
Q.
Did any bullets or bullet fragments fall out from the wrapping?
A.
No.
Q.
Could you describe how the President's head looked at the very first time that
you saw it after it had been unwrapped?
A.
Well, the most obvious thing was a large defect in the right parietal area. The
measurements are in the autopsy protocol, and the hair was matted in that area
and bloody and so forth. And there was a suggestion like a contusion in the
right frontal area over the right eyebrow. The skin was a little bit discolored
in that area, but it wasn't very remarkable. The most striking thing was this
large defect. His face was, for all intents and purposes, normal. Normal as
anybody can be in death, I guess. It was not significantly injured in any way.
Q.
Were any portions of the brain extruding from any wounds in the head?
A.
Well, the wound was so big that—I don't know what you mean by extruding. It
wasn't really- -it was just a gaping hole and the brain was right there. It
wasn't really being extruded, no.
Q.
So you could see it, but it was not as if it were coming out—
A.
No.
Q.
—sort of just seeing inside a hole—
A.
It was a big hole, yeah.
Q.
Did you notice any surgical incisions anywhere on the body of President Kennedy
when you first saw him?
A.
Yeah, there was a gaping defect that was obviously a tracheotomy incision in the
anterior neck, and there were a couple of small—you never heard much about
this, either. A couple of small incised wounds on the chest, and I forget—I
wrote down, wherever I wrote it down, that it looked to me like somebody was
going to think of putting in a chest tube. But they never did, because all they
did was go through the skin. They obviously—I imagine they decided the
President was deceased before they were going to pursue it. But somebody
started, apparently, to insert chest tubes, which would not be an unreasonable
thing to do. They were, you know, maybe two centimeters long, something like
that, and between the ribs, low in the anterior chest.
I'm
sure I described them in the protocol someplace.
Q.
Were there any cutdowns on any of the—
A.
I think there was in one of the ankles. There was a cutdown wound. I forget
whether it was the right or left ankle now, to tell you the truth. If I had to
guess, I'd say it was right, but I'm not sure.
Q.
Did you see any other surgical incisions or incisions that you thought might
have been surgically performed?
A.
No.
Q.
Anything in the head area at all?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you see any sutures?
A.
No—well, there might have been of the cutdown on the ankle. There may have
been some black silk sutures there. I'm not absolutely certain, but I think
there might have been.
Q.
Anywhere else that you remember a suture?
A.
No.
Q.
I'd like to show you the document that's been marked Exhibit 1, which is the
first page of the diagram, and the second page is the drawing of the skull.
A.
Yes.
Q.
I'd like to ask you some questions about this. First, was this document, Exhibit
1, in your possession at any point during which you were writing the autopsy
protocol?
A.
Probably. Probably was. Over the weekend, yeah.
Q.
I'd like to draw your attention to a few items on the first page of this
document. Right next to the marking for brain, there's no entry of weight there.
Do you see that on the document?
A.
Yes, I see that it's blank, yeah.
Q.
Why is there no weight for the brain there?
A.
I don't know. I don't really—can't really recall why.
Q.
Was the fresh brain weighed?
A.
I don't recall. I don't recall. It's as simple as that.
Q.
Would it be standard practice for a gunshot wound in the head to have the brain
weighed?
A.
Yeah, we weigh it with gunshot wound or no. Normally we weigh the brain when we
remove it. I can't recall why—I don't know, one, whether it was weighed or
not, or, two, why it doesn't show here. I have no explanation for that.
Q.
The same would be true also for the thymus. Do you see that?
A.
Yes, well, the thymus in an adult, you can't find—99 percent of the time it's
not there. It involutes after the age of about 12, and so this—for 99 percent
of adult autopsies, you'd never find the thymus.
Q.
Okay. For the thyroid over on the right column.
A.
Yeah.
Q.
There's no weight there. Do you know—
A.
It probably wasn't removed. I don't know. Let me go back for one minute. I was
told find out what killed the man. My focus was on his wounds. I didn't approach
this like it was a medical death due to some disease or whatever. I was focusing
primarily and almost exclusively on the wounds. So I don't know. I don't know if
I weighed the thyroid or not.
Q.
Did you consider the autopsy to be a medical-legal autopsy?
A.
Yes. Oh, sure.
Q.
And there was a gunshot wound to the neck, wasn't there?
A.
Well, you'd better clarify that. There was a big gaping tracheotomy wound in the
anterior neck. I learned later that there had been a gunshot wound in that
location, but I didn't know it. That was 99 percent of my problem. There was a
bullet wound in the back above the scapula, like I mentioned earlier, and there
was a wound of entrance in the back of the skull and a wound of exit in the
skull. Those were the wounds.
Q.
Could you look at the diagram on the right side?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Please, do you see in the head there is a circle with an arrow pointing up and
to the left?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you know what the arrow pointing up and to the left signifies?
A.
I have no idea.
Q.
On the face sheet right next to the head, it appears as if the words
"ragged slanting" are there. Do you see those words?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Does that look correct to you, those words?
A.
No, I don't think it was very ragged at all. It was oval, oblong, and I don't
recall particularly ragged. Maybe the edges were a little bit serrated, but I
don't think I would have used the term “ragged.”
Q.
Do you know what slanting means in that context?
A.
Well, I guess because it was oblong, it might have been interpreted as slanting;
whereas, if it had entered at 90 degrees to the surface, it wouldn't have been
quite as slanting. Do you know what I mean?
Q.
Yes.
A.
It would indicate to me that the wound- the missile did not hit at a 90-degree
angle with the surface.
Q.
So it would be an oblong wound?
A.
Exactly.
Q.
That's the sense of what you—
A.
Right. That's how I would interpret slanting. I think these are J's comments. I
didn't—I don't think I've written anything on this piece of paper.
Q.
Okay. Do you see on the diagram—it's actually true both for the left and the
right diagram—that there are two lines dividing what roughly is at the neck?
A.
Yeah. I assume that those are standard lines—they're on the form before anything else is put on it, yes.
Q.
And what do those two lines signify?
A.
I don't know. I don't know who dreamed this up, to tell you the truth. They
don't signify anything to me. In case you don't know where the head and the
torso join, I guess it would help to show you. But, really, it's not very
helpful. Those lines are not helpful.
Q.
Okay. Down in the bottom left-hand corner, do you see the handwriting?
A.
Yeah. Verified, George Burkley. That was interesting that he verified it. I
don't know why he did that, who asked him to, or whether he volunteered and he
did. I have no idea.
Q.
You don't recollect having seen Dr. Burkley sign this—
A.
No I do not.
Q.
—at all?
A.
I do not. I guess there's the cutdown, now that you tell me about it. It was, I
guess, drawn. It was on the left.
Q.
Could you turn to the second page, please?
A.
Sure.
Q.
I'd like you to help see if you can explain to me what some of these things
mean, and I understand that you did not do this drawing yourself. First, there
is a line right in the middle of the skull that says “10” with an arrow
going in either direction. Do you have any idea what that means?
A.
I would think it's the width of the defect that's portrayed—as you look at it,
it's on your left—the right side of the skull. I know, but this is the same 10
as in there, and he puts arrows back and forth that it was 10 centimeters wide.
Q.
Okay. And do you see right below that—
A.
Now, let me tell you. That couldn't be too precise because it was not a nice,
clean whatever. It might have been 10 centimeters at on point and 12 at another,
or God knows what, you know.
Q.
Okay.
A.
I was relying, through all of this, on my photographs and my X-rays. I wasn't
really worried about these notes that J was making. It didn't—I didn't tell
him not to make them, and I didn't tell him to make them. I didn't tell him
anything. I'm not displeased that he made them. That's fine. But I was relying
upon the photographs and the X- rays to tell the story. I wish I had had a video
camera. Now, of course, I wish a lot of things. But—
Q.
Were you anticipating at the time you were performing the autopsy that you would
have the photographs and X-rays available for your inspection at the time you
were writing the autopsy report?
A.
No, I never expected to have them when I was writing the autopsy—he wanted the
autopsy report in, what, 36 to 48 hours. No, I didn't anticipate I'd have them
at that time.
Q.
When did he—he being Dr. Burkley, I assume—when you said he wanted them in
36 to 48 hours?
A.
Autopsy report.
Q.
Yes.
A.
Before he left the morgue. Before he left the morgue that night, he said he
would like to have the report, if we could, by 6:00 p.m. on Sunday night.
Q.
And that was Dr. Burkley?
A.
That was Dr. Burkley.
Q.
Right below the middle of the skull, there is the number 17 with, again, arrows
pointing, at least on the paper, up and down. Do you see that?
A.
Yeah. I would presume that this is the antero-posterior maximum measurement of
this defect. Okay?
Q.
Okay.
A.
So it was 17 centimeters, fore and aft, if you will, and 10 wide. I got some
slightly different measurement, I think, in my written report, but ball park,
you know.
Q.
Right below the 17 and the arrow, there's the word, it looks as if it's
"missing." Do you see that?
A.
That much bone is missing. That was a big defect, you see.
Q.
Now, when this 10 by 17 centimeters of IS bone is missing, does that mean that
it was present nowhere in the autopsy room during the autopsy?
A.
Not until later when part of it was brought to me, which I described, I believe,
in the written report.
Q.
So would it—
A.
The pieces that were brought to me, it was either two or three, I think three:
one pretty sizable one and two smaller ones. Again, I'm talking off the top of
my head. When they were repositioned to where they should have been, there was
still a defect. We didn't have sufficient bone to totally close the defect.
Q.
So then from the first time that you saw the President's head without the pieces
of skull fragment that came in later, the approximate measurements of the
missing scalp would be roughly 10 centimeters to 17 centimeters?
A.
By 17, right.
Q.
In the autopsy protocol, you referred to the amount as being 10 centimeters by
13 centimeters, and let me show you the protocol.
A.
I'm not going to debate it. I mean, it would depend on how you were measuring
it, because it wasn't a—like this room is 25 by 35. It's got walls and
extreme—this was irregular, so you could make any kind of measurement you
want, smaller than that—you couldn't make it any bigger than we made it, but
you could make it smaller if you measured it more anteriorally or more
posteriorally, whatever.
Q. Sure.
[Pause.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Let me first show you page 3 of the autopsy protocol.
A.
Right.
Q.
The first paragraph. In that paragraph it refers to 13 centimeters as being the
greatest diameter. The question for you would be whether any pieces of the skull
fragments were put back into place in order to reach the measurement of 13
centimeters.
A.
I can't—I have no explanation for that. I don't know whether J's note is right
or my measurement is right. I don't know.
Q.
In this—
A.
Certainly I'm talking about—when I say the wounds, I'm talking about the
wounds before anything was done to them, in other words, primarily before
anything happened.
Q.
When you say before anything was done to them, that means before any skull
pieces were—
A.
Yeah, before anything was put back—
Q.
—put back in or taken out?
A.
Exactly.
Q.
So it would be your understanding that the centimeters in the numbered paragraph
I would refer to the skull as first seen after being removed from the casket?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Could you help me with some of the other descriptions on the second page of
Exhibit I? And, again, I understand that these were not written by you. Can you
read the writing over on the right side of the document, the first word of which
appears to be "Falx"?
A.
"Falx"—I don't know whether that's "bone" or what. Looks
like “parasagittal.” I can't— don't know what that is.
Q.
Let me try what I read it and tell me whether that makes sense to you or whether
something else—"Falx bone from sagittal sinus from the coronal suture
back."
A.
It could be. You'd better get J to tell you what this is.
Q.
"Falx loose from sagittal sinus," is that —
A.
That's more likely. Yeah, the falx cerebri, you know, it's one of the membranes,
and it was detached as part of the wound. I think that makes more sense, yes.
Q.
So "falx loose," does that describe what you saw during the autopsy?
A.
Yeah, I suppose so. I'm not going to debate it now. It's kind of incidental to
the whole affair, as far as I'm concerned, but
Q.
So would it be fair to say, then, that the falx was loose from the coronal
suture back—
A.
Right.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Coronal suture is the one that goes across the middle, the top of the head.
Q.
On the diagram, over on the left side of the skull, there is 10 with not an
arrow but a dash on either side of that. Do you have any recollection of what
that would mean?
A.
I think it's the same 10 that's present with the arrows on either side of it,
but your guess is as good as mine, to tell you the truth.
Q.
Up at the top of the skull, there is a 3 cm, I assume 3 centimeters. Do you see
that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you have any knowledge about what that would mean?
A.
I certainly don't.
Q.
And over on more towards the right, right below where it says "globe right
eye," there is a circle with a line or maybe a hook through it. Do you see
that?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Do you know what that signifies?
A.
No. Well, it says something about fractures through the floor of the—I would
presume of the anterior cranial fossa. There were all kind of fracture lines,
you see, in the skull from this massive wound, and I presume that's one of the
fracture lines. I didn't detail all those for the reasons that I stated in the
protocol. They're going this way and they're going that way, and, you know,
that's the way it goes.
Q.
Okay. If we go down to the bottom of the skull, there are numbers written at the
bottom, a 4, a 3, over a 6. Do you see those?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Do you know what those signify?
A.
No.
Q.
Were there any injuries or fractures in that portion of the skull?
A.
Well, yeah, I guess. Yes. Because the wound was below there, you see. You're
looking at it from above, and the wound, the entrance wound you wouldn't see on
a view from the top. But there were fractures in the posterior cranial fossa
radiating from the wound.
Q.
Okay. Do you see the very small, what looks like a drawing down at the bottom of
the page that looks something like a half circle perhaps?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Do you know what that is?
A.
I think it's just a gross depiction of the configuration of the largest fragment
that we got from Dallas. I think that's what that is.
Q.
One last question on the drawing. There are some dotted lines that go roughly
around the right perimeter, extending around to the left. Again, do you have any
idea what those dotted lines signify?
A.
I'd have to guess they may be fractures, but it's an educated guess.
Q.
Okay. At the time that you first saw the body of President Kennedy, saw the
skull, would it be fair to say, based upon your prior testimony, that there was
a skull fragment or fragments missing that would have been in the approximate
measurements of 10 centimeters by 13 centimeters or 10 by 17, approximately?
A.
Yes. That's right.
Q.
Was scalp missing from that same—from those same measurements?
A.
Not as much scalp. There was some scalp missing, but we were able to pretty much
close the scalp, skin, when we finished everything. So I can't tell you how much
was—but it was not that much skin missing, no.
Q.
So mostly skull fragments—
A.
Right.
Q.
—but not the scalp itself?
A.
Right. Right.
Q.
Was there any scalp on any of the fragments that you received later in the
evening—
A.
No.
Q.
—that you referred to?
A.
No.
Q.
So there was no scalp that came to the autopsy room—
A.
No.
Q.
—during the course of the autopsy?
A.
There was none.
Q.
When the embalming process was completed, approximately how much scalp was
missing?
A.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe three or four centimeters, something like that. Not
much. We were able to—you can undermine the skin, you know, and we pretty much
closed it. We didn't have enough bone to completely close that part of the
defect, and we had—one of the people who was around and very helpful was our
chief of surgery, Dr. David Osborne. And we went to—he went to the operating
room and brought back some rubber dam, which is material that is used in surgery
not infrequently to cover a variety of different kinds of defects. And we used a
rubber dam to help us close the skull bone. But I don't think we had to add
anything to the scalp.
Q.
Approximately where was the missing scalp as of the time that the embalming
process was completed?
A.
You got me—I don't think there was—I mean, we were able to close it by
undermining and stretching and so forth. I don't recall that we didn't
completely close—I think we completely closed the skin and the scalp.
Q.
Without stretching the scalp, just, you know, basically how much scalp was
actually missing at the time that the body arrived at Bethesda?
A.
You know, I couldn't—it would be a rough guess. Maybe four or five centi—three
or four centimeters, something like that. Probably, because it was all torn, you
see, with serrated— and there were—it wasn't like a punch that was punched
out. It was torn apart, you know. So I have a hard time estimating that.
Q.
Do you have any knowledge as to where the missing skull—or missing scalp was?
A.
No. It wasn't that much, I'm telling you. it was more torn than missing.
Q.
The next question I wanted to ask you would be where, as best you recall, the
lacerations were on just the scalp.
A.
They went in every direction. They were— I think I described them as stellate.
So they went down this way and back, and the whole area was lacerated.
Q.
For the scalp?
A.
Yes.
Q.
In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital—
A.
Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily. Parietal and to some
extent occipital, but primarily parietal.
Q.
Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the occipital
bone?
A.
No. No.
Q.
None whatsoever?
A.
No.
Q.
There were tears, however, over the temporal—
A.
Temporal and parietal.
Q.
And the parietal.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And were there any tears over the coronal area?
A.
Well, now you're talking about a line that goes across like this. Whether or not
any of these tears extended to the coronal suture area, I can't recall
specifically. I wouldn't be surprised, but I wouldn't also swear to it.
Q.
You mentioned that there was a rubber dam in the embalming process. Where was
that located?
A.
Well, it was not in the embalming process. When they got finished embalming, we
had to put—we didn't have to, but we helped them put the scalp back together
and the skull. And the defect that remained in the skull—I can't now measure
it specifically—was three or four or five centimeters, something like that.
And we used a rubber dam to cover that part of the skull defect.
Q.
And where was that located?
A.
Well, I can't—it was part of this large defect, and I can't tell you now
exactly where it was.
Q.
When you say part of this large defect, you mean in the parietal area?
A.
Right.
Q.
Did you notice any wounds that appeared to be incisions—
A.
No.
Q.
—in the scalp at all?
A.
No. None.
Q.
Or any in the skull below?
A.
No.
Q.
After the body was placed on the table, having been brought out of the casket,
what was the general order of procedures that you followed?
A.
Take photographs, first off, and X-rays.
Q.
Did you take photos and X-rays before you did any cleaning of the head?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you replace or remove or rearrange any fragments of bones at all before
taking photographs?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you make any incisions at any place before taking the photographs?
A.
Well, depending on which photographs you're talking about. We didn't photograph
the wound in the occiput until the brain was removed, you know. Sure, we had to
make an incision to remove the brain and so forth, but no, generally speaking,
no, we didn't make any incisions at all.
Q.
You previously have seen the photographs that were taken at the autopsy; is that
correct?
A.
Only once—1966.
Q.
Didn't you see some of the photographs during the time that you met with the
HSCA panel?
A.
Well, I guess they had some of them there. That was kind of a confused affair,
and I—did I have the photographs in my hands to look at? No. They had some
blow-ups that they were trying to use to demonstrate to the panel, I guess, and
I found them very difficult to interpret, to be perfectly candid with you. I had
problems with them.
Q.
There is one photograph, or one series of photographs that shows what looks to
be a gaping wound in the head with the scalp reflected.
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Other than that series of photographs, were the remainder of the photographs all
taken at the beginning of the autopsy, do you recall?
A.
Virtually all of them were, yeah.
Q.
Do you remember—
A.
There's only basically two that weren't. one was the inside of the occipital
region, which we interpreted as the wound of entrance, for obvious reasons, and
one that never came—whatever happened to it, I was very disturbed by it. We
took one of the interior of the right side of the thorax because there was a
contusion of the right upper lobe of the lung. So the missile had passed across
the dome of the parietal pleura and contused the right lobe. I wanted to have a
picture of that, and I never saw it. It never—whether it was under-exposed or
over-exposed or what happened to it, I don't know. And it's three years later
when we were looking at it, of course. But we didn't see that photograph. So
that was taken later, and the one of the inside of the skull was taken later.
But all the rest of them were taken at the onset of examination.
Q.
Okay. With regard to X-rays, when were they taken in relationship to the
photographs?
A.
I would guess that most of the X-rays were taken prior to any of the
photographs. But, I mean, I just don't have that crystal clear in my mind. But I
think so. I think most of them were taken before.
Q.
Were any skull fragments rearranged or put into place or removed prior to the
time that the first X-rays were taken?
A.
No.
Q.
Were any skull fragments rearranged or moved at any time during any time that
there was an X-ray of the cranium?
A.
No. No.
Q.
So there was no reconstruction whatsoever—
A.
No. There was nothing to reconstruct. No.
Q.
During the course of the autopsy, did you have any X-rays available for your
inspection?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Developed X-rays?
A.
Yes. We had them all.
Q.
Did you use all of the X-rays that you were aware of—
A.
Sure.
Q.
—during the course of the autopsy?
A.
Yes. Weren't particularly helpful, but we used them, yeah.
Q.
Do you have any recollection now about radio-opaque objects being in or
appearing in the X-rays?
A.
Yes, in the skull. There were some little tiny fragments of radio-opaque
material, which we thought to be bullet fragments, traversing from- well, I
don't know. It looked like it was going from posterior to anterior. Very fine,
sort of granular-looking material, went almost as far forward as the frontal
bone, but not quite that far.
Q.
Those are dust-like fragments?
A.
Yes, right.
Q.
Were there any—
A.
A couple of them were—we did retrieve a couple that were maybe a couple
millimeters, as I recall, from that path, you know. But that was about all.
Q.
Do you recall where you retrieved those fragments?
A.
I think from the frontal lobe of the brain.
Q.
Were there any X-rays taken between the time that you—or after the time that
you removed the small fragments?
A.
No.
Q.
So all of the X-rays of the cranium were taken before any—
A.
Exactly.
Q.
—metal fragments were removed?
A.
Exactly, exactly.
Q.
Do you have any recollection now about the shapes of the fragments that were
removed?
A.
They were small and irregular. That's all I can tell you.
Q.
Long and sliver-like or roundish or—any recollection?
A.
Flat, irregular, two or three millimeters.
Q.
When was the first incision made at Bethesda, as best you recall?
A.
Well—
Q.
Let me withdraw that question. My question is not so much what time it was, as
whether it's 8 o'clock or 8:15 or 8:30.
A.
Yes, okay.
Q.
But just let me start out first: Where was the first incision made?
A.
I believe, of course, the top of the skull to remove the skull plate of the
brain. To remove what remained of the calvarium and to approach the removal of
the brain.
Q.
And was that incision simply of the scalp, or did you need to cut—
A.
No, we had to cut some bone as well.
Q.
Where did you make the incision on the scalp?
A.
Where we usually—in the coronal plane, over the coronal suture. Of course,
half of it was already—I mean, you know, it wasn't a neat incision because
part of it was over the large defect that was already present.
Q.
So did you make any incisions in the scalp other than the one that would be
roughly from either right to left or left to right, roughly over the coronal—
A.
No, we didn't make any others.
Q.
So there were none front to back along—
A.
No. There were lacerations of the scalp in several different directions, but,
no, we didn't make any other incision.
Q.
Where did you cut the bone?
A.
I find that—it's hard to recall. Once we got the scalp laid back, some of
those pieces could just be removed, you know, by picking them up, picking them
up because they were just not held together very well, other than by the dura, I
suppose. So other than that, we probably made it like we normally do, in a
circumferential fashion from books, like right above the ear around. But it was
a real problem because it was all falling apart, the skull. And I can't recall
the details of exactly how we managed to maneuver that, because it was a
problem.
Q.
Who was involved in the process of removal of the brain?
A.
I was.
Q.
Did anyone else assist you with that?
A.
Maybe J. I'm not sure now. I mean, it's not a two-man job particularly. You have
to cut across the top of the spinal cord, of the medulla to—you know, you just
make one incision. I mean, it's not a major thing for a lot of people to be
involved with.
Q.
Were there any lacerations in the area of the mid-brain?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What kinds of lacerations?
A.
They were length-wise. There was one length-wise in the mid-brain, and—it's
hard to describe, you know. From my memory now, there were—and there weren't a
lot—there weren't too many very extensive ones, but they were very
extensive—very serious location, is what the problem was. They were right in
the mid-brain. And they were probably due to disruption by the force of the blow
rather than by the particular passage of any missile, I would guess. The
photographs, again, depict these problems.
Q.
I'd like to hand you a drawing that we will number Exhibit No. 71, which is
labeled the brain and the cranial nerves.
My
question for you first will be: Is this a reasonably fair description of the
brain and cranial nerves?
A.
Yes, well, it's a lateral view, sagittal view.
Q.
When you say that there were lacerations, if I understood correctly, in the
mid-brain, coule you point to where that is on the diagram? Not where the
diagram says that there was a mid-brain, but where the lacerations were.
A.
Well, first of all, they weren't laterally. They were posteriorally. They
weren't laterally. So you don't have the right plane to do it, okay? But they,
as I recall, were—I can't show them because this would have to be sideways,
you see.
Q.
Okay.
A.
I can't do it. I don't know how well I'm going to do it when you give me the
other one from memory, to be quite candid with you about it.
Q.
Would this diagram help you?
A.
Well, it's better, but it's ... well, the problem with this diagram is that
it's, roughly speaking, cut along the coronal suture, because you have the large
ventricles open, and back here in the back of the brain where this was, you
don't have that picture, but basically they were in this vicinity. I'm not going
to mark up this book, but they were in this vicinity here. See, this is supposed
to be the skull, I presume, and you transect the—whether it's the spinal cord
or the brain stem, whatever you want to call it, you do it at the foramen
magnum, which is this space here, and you transect it at that point, and so then
you're left with this. But you don't have this big fourth ventricle. So it's
really hard to—they were in this vicinity here.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Just above where we transected the brain' stem.
Q.
Okay. Back to Exhibit 71, would it be fair to say that it is roughly in the
portion right below the cerebellum?
A.
Yes. The cerebellum was somewhat disrupted, as I recall, as well. But the
photographs of the brain show it to you very clearly.
Q.
Would you mind making a mark on this document? It can just be a point or a
circle, if that's more accurate, and I can make a photocopy of the other
diagram, if you would prefer, of just where you're understanding the laceration
to be in the mid-brain.
A.
It's really hard to do it from—very difficult to do from these kind of
drawings. It's just they don't lend themselves to what you're trying to do, I'm
sorry to tell you.
Q.
Would you be able to do a drawing yourself that would be—
A.
No. I'm the world's worst artist. I tell you, if you'll forgive me for saying
so, we're doing a lot of nitpicking here that I'm having difficulty with, you
know. It doesn't lend itself to what you're trying to have me do.
Q.
I'm just trying to understand where the laceration was or where the disruption
was or—
A.
Well, you're asking me to recall from memory, and I'm having a very difficult
time with that, and I'm referring you to the photographs which we took of this
part of the brain. I can't do that very well. I'm sorry. It's just I'm not that
clever.
Q.
What did you do with the brain when it was removed from the cranium?
A.
Placed it in formalin. The blood vessels were somewhat disrupted. Normally we
would inject the brain with formalin through the basal artery or some place. But
some of these arteries were disrupted, and I can't recall—don't ask me exactly
where the disruptions were. But the brain was damaged, and it didn't lend itself
well to infusing it like we normally do. So we placed it in a very generous
quantity of 10 percent formalin in a, you know, specimen container.
Q.
Was that a sealed container or some other—
A.
It has a lid, but it's not sealed in the way a Dar is sealed. It's like a pail,
really, that you have a lid put on it. For the brain, for that, we use it
routinely for that purpose. I don't think we were able to inject it. I don't
believe that we were.
Q.
But a standard container—
A.
For brains, right.
Q.
For brains.
A.
Sort of like a three-quarter gallon can. I don't know what the volume of it is,
but you can put the brain in and totally immerse it in formalin.
Q.
Were any sections taken at all from the brain?
A.
Not at that time. Some place else I showed you, the report you showed, we did
take certain sections a day or two later, whatever it was, from the
location—we didn't divide the brain like we often do. You know, we often make
a so- called bread loaf-type incision. Some people do it fore and aft. Some
people do it different ways. But we didn't do that with this brain, because the
next thing you know George Burkley wanted it. We might have gone on to do that,
but when he came and said that they wanted the brain, fine, you know. I'm not
going to argue about it.
Q.
After the brain was removed, what was the next thing that you did in the
autopsy?
A.
The next thing we did was look at this wound that was in the back of the skull.
It was obvious from both the point of entrance and inside the skull, and we
examined that very carefully, measured it, took pictures of it.
Q.
Did you identify a hole that you thought to be either an entrance or exit wound
in the back of the cranium?
A.
Definitely. Definitely. Entrance, there wasn't any question in our mind about
it.
Q.
Did the wound appear as something like a puncture in the bone, or was there a
fragment of the bone that was missing and that there was an indentation?
A.
No. It was directly beneath the scalp wound back there, directly beneath it. It
was almost round, but a little bit more ovoid, and the inner margins of it were
shelved. If we put a BB through that glass over there on the side where it went
in, you'd see a little round hole, depending on the size of the missile. On the
other side you'd see shelved out, and that's exactly what we had.
Q.
And the whole circumference of the entry wound was visible without any
reconstruction of the skull?
A.
Oh, yeah, sure.
Q.
In which bone was the entrance wound?
A.
Occipital bone.
Q.
After you examined the occipital bone, what did you next do in the autopsy?
A.
Well, we looked with care at the margins of the defect in the skull, and we
found a similar situation where the bone fragments that were placed—that
remained in place, halfway in place, were shelved on that outer table of the
skull. And when we got the fragments from Dallas, they were similarly—we
almost could complete the circle of what appeared to be the actual exit wound
because it was shelved on the outer table, and we almost could put it all
together, that wound. Not the defect, but the wound.
Q.
So unlike the wound in the occipital bone, the wound towards the front, there
was a nick or a half-circle or some such thing showing what you understood to be
the exit, and you were able then to complete that wound when the fragments came?
A.
When the fragments came, almost, because they're all flying around, you know.
These fragments are—it's like, you know, working with clouds, because they
were—you had to put them together with great care to make that out.
Q.
Approximately how much time did you spend examining the cranium after the brain
was removed?
A.
Oh, you know, that's really hard to estimate. I would guess maybe 30, 45
minutes, something like that.
Q.
Was there any other examination that you made of the cranium at that time?
A.
Well, we looked with care at the whole interior surface of the skull to see if
there were 5, any other-defects or what have you. There were no others. Of
course, the one that was hard to evaluate, of course, was the exit, because it
was all disrupted.
Q.
Were there any fragments or breaks in the left hemisphere of the cranium,
looking from the inside?
A.
I can't recall how far over some of these fractures—whether they crossed the
midline or not. I really can't recall.
Q.
When you finished—or did you return to examine the cranium at any subsequent
point during the autopsy?
A.
No.
Q.
What did you do next?
A.
Well, we looked at this wound in the upper part of his neck, and we made a
customary Y-shaped incision to do the rest of the autopsy and removed the breast
plate, which was standard operating procedure, and examined the' inside of the
thorax. And that's when we saw the contusion of the dome of the upper lobe of
the right lung, and we wondered, 5. where's the bullet? You know. Should have
called Dallas right then and there. It would have saved me a lot of worry and
grief for several hours, because X-rays hadn't found it for us. Like it could
have been in his thigh or it could have been in his buttock. It could have been
any damn place. We don't know where it went. It was obvious after we talked to
the doctors the next morning where it went. It went out. That's why we couldn't
find it. And we weren't going to spend the rest of the night there, you know.
Meantime,
George Burkley is telling me, you know, the family wants to get out of here
sometime tonight. Then we proceeded with the dissection of the lungs,—heart,
and abdominal contents and so forth.
Q.
Do you recall approximately where in the procedures that Dr. Finck arrived?
A.
Oh, pretty early. As soon as I saw the nature of the thing, before-we did
anything, I called Dr. Smith back and said, you know, send us this chap. I
didn't know him. I had never laid eyes on him before. And so I would say around
the time we were taking X-rays, photographs, or both.
Q.
Was he—Dr. Finck—there at the time the cranium was being examined?
A.
Oh, sure. He was there through the whole examination, basically. If he missed
anything, it was when we were taking the preliminary photograph and stuff.
Q.
Approximately how far through the examination did you first locate the wound on
the posterior thorax?
A.
Oh, right away. It was obvious. It was no secret. It was right there. But we
directed our attention first to the wound that we were certain was the fatal
wound, of course, the head wound.
Q.
Were you aware of the posterior thorax wound at the time you lifted the body
out, or was that—did you turn the body over?
A.
We weren't aware of anything when we lifted the body out, but we understand in
Dallas they never did turn him over.
Q.
So when did you first turn the body over to see that wound?
A.
Oh, I can't—probably right away. As soon as we got him on the table, we
probably—part of the external examination right away before we did anything.
Q.
During the time that you were performing the autopsy, did you ever identify what
you took to be the margin of a wound in the area of the trach incision?
A.
No.
Q.
Approximately when during the autopsy did the fragments arrive, the skull
fragments?
A.
Oh, quite late. I couldn't tell you exactly what time, you know.
Q.
Was that after the Y incision had been performed?
A.
Oh, yeah. It was quite late. I couldn't say. Maybe it was 10, 11 o'clock, 12
o'clock. I don't know what time it was.
Q.
I believe you said earlier today that it was your recollection that there were
three fragments that arrived.
A.
I think so. The one quite sizable, and the other two a little smaller,
considerably smaller. I think. I mean, I'd have to go back. You know, you're
asking me something—you realize how long ago this was.
Q.
We appreciate that these are more than 30 years ago, so we understand that.
A.
My wife tells me I can't remember what happened last week sometimes. Or this
morning, as far as that goes.
MR. GUNN: Let's go off the record for a moment.
[Recess.]
MR. GUNN: we can go back on the record.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Dr. Humes, I'd like to ask you some questions now about records that were
created during the course of the autopsy and at any point through the time that
the autopsy protocol was completed.
First,
did you yourself take any notes during the autopsy?
A.
Yes, I took some. And—yes. That's the answer to your question.
Q.
How many pages of notes did you take, approximately?
A.
Oh, I can't tell you now. Maybe two or three.
Q.
Did you see anyone else taking notes during the autopsy?
A.
Dr. Boswell.
Q.
Do you recall anyone else having written anything?
A.
No.
Q.
Specifically, do you remember Dr. Finck having written any notes?
A.
No, I do not. I don't say he didn't, but I don't recall that he did.
Q.
Were autopsies tape-recorded at Bethesda in your experience?
A.
Intermittently. We didn't record any of the session on this case.
Q.
On the case of President Kennedy?
A.
No.
Q.
Was the decision made not to record the autopsy?
A.
I don't think any real thought was given to it, to tell you the truth.
Q.
Do you know how frequently autopsies were recorded?
A.
No, I don't. We were just getting into the business of doing that. It's awkward
to have equipment around the autopsy table and so forth, and we were really just
starting to experiment with foot controls, devices, and so forth and so on. And
so not often.
Q.
Were there any minutes taken of the autopsy?
A.
I don't know what you mean by minutes, but other than the notes that I or Dr.
Boswell made, I don't believe there were any such, no.
Q.
There wasn't any person responsible for—
A.
No.
Q.
—taking down minutes of the autopsy?
A.
No.
Q.
What other kinds of records were typically created in the course of an autopsy?
For example, would there be any log that would have recorded the receipt of the
body?
A.
Yes.
Q.
With that example in mind, what other written records were created that would
relate to the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A.
That's about it. Everybody that came into the morgue was logged in and logged
out when they left, and who picked it up, you know, the funeral home, most
usually.
Q.
Were there logs for photos or X-rays?
A.
No. Not in the morgue, no.
Q.
Were there any kinds of logs or record— keeping of what kinds of tests or
sections were made?
A.
Well, not really. You know, we made sections of most of the organs and put them
in cassettes and turned them over to the technical people, and they processed
them from there.
Q.
Is there any record-keeping process that's used to help identify which tests
have been sent where and when they've been returned?
A.
Well, we didn't send many things anywhere, so far as that goes. I don't believe
so, no. We had a very elaborate laboratory. We had very little need to send
anything anywhere.
Q.
But would there be any paper that would keep track of where things were even
within the laboratory at Bethesda?
A.
Well, every—talking about autopsies, every autopsy was identified by a number,
and every cassette that contained tissue specimens was labeled with that autopsy
number. And there was a log in the histology laboratory that kept a record of
all those things, sure.
Q.
Would there be other similar logs for radiology or toxicology?
A.
Toxicology was part of our lab, and yes, it would be. I can't speak for
radiology. I'm sure they kept very good records of where their films were. Their
biggest problem is people taking out films and failing to bring them back and so
forth. It's a chronic problem in radiology departments around the world.
Q.
At the time in the ordinary course when you would prepare an autopsy
protocol—and I'm not speaking now of President Kennedy—would you receive
written reports back that analyzed the results of any examinations that had been
performed?
A.
Yeah. Again, let me tell you that for most of the latter part of my career, I
didn't personally do these kinds of things. The younger doctors did them under
our supervision, and then they would write a report, and then we would critique
the report with them and so forth. The name of one of the staff pathologists
would be on the final report, but 99 percent of the effort was done by other
people than the person who actually signed the report.
Q.
How would those records be filed or kept in the ordinary course? I mean, for
example, would there be a folder with the autopsy number on it with the serology
report and the histology report—
A.
Right.
Q.
—and other things—
A.
Well, what you would do, you see, it was rare cases that you had to do
toxicology at the autopsy room. The hospital was not a forensic science center.
So we would abstract—most of the patients that we autopsied died as a result
of illness while they were hospitalized. So the person who did the autopsy would
make what's called a clinical summary. He would abstract from the person's
clinical record how long he was in the hospital, what was the main problem, what
were the complications, what were the results of significant laboratory tests.
And we used to try and teach them to have a diarrhea of thought and a
constipation of words. That was one of my phrases that all my residents used to
always kid about. Excess words were not helpful. That's what we—and the final
report, different people do it—I worked in a hospital in Detroit for 19 years.
There we bound in a book by year every autopsy protocol. We weren't doing that
at Bethesda when I was there. We'd just keep them in files, you know. There's
all kind of ways different people devise to keep records.
Q.
What other kinds of records would you expect to find in a typical Bethesda
autopsy protocol from 1963? If you pulled out a folder, what records would you
expect to find in it?
A.
The autopsy report, period, and this other information would be included. You
wouldn't have other—you wouldn't have copies of the tests that were done, for
instance. That would have been abstracted and included in one final document.
Q.
What would be done with the results of the tests if they're not kept in the
folder?
A.
They'd go in the patient's file, in the clinical file.
Q.
Do you know whether there was any other sort of file for President Kennedy at
Bethesda?
A.
Not that I'm aware of.
Q.
Now, I'm thinking back from memory and I may be wrong on this, but maybe you can
help with this. Was President Kennedy ever treated at Bethesda while he was
alive?
A.
I'm not sure. I just don't know.
Q.
Do you know whether if he was treated there when he was alive, as well as while
President, would any of the records from his autopsy conceivably have been sent
to his patient file?
A.
No. I don't believe so. Those records were all—you know where they are. They
weren't sent anywhere, because they were all sent to the White House, within
three days. Nothing was retained.
Q.
Well, were there any histology reports at all that you ever physically held in
your hand from President Kennedy's autopsy?
A.
The ones that are recorded in that supplemental autopsy report.
Q.
There are references to that, but I'm now referring to any documents themselves.
Did you ever see any documents?
A.
No. I mean, we dictated them, and then the results were put in the file—in the
supplementary report.
Q.
What were you looking at at the time that you made the dictation of the results?
A.
The microscopic slides for the various—
Q.
The slide tissue cells?
A.
Oh, sure. All of which we turned over to the Secret Service. I presume they're
in the Archives some place. I never saw them again.
Q.
Could you explain or describe briefly the process that you went through in
drafting the autopsy protocol? So explain the number of drafts that you wrote,
for example.
A.
The decision was made somebody had to take responsibility to write it. We
couldn't do it as a troika. So I took the notes home with me, these, I presume,
and the notes that I had made, some of which I had made were stained with the
President's blood. I wrote a little bit about this in that AMA article.
Around
that time, we had in the government what was called the People to People
Program, and the Navy Medical Department's part of that was to bring medical
officers from foreign countries to the United States to teach them how the Navy
Medical Department functions with the Marine Corps, with the submarines and so
forth. These people would be in Washington for 10 weeks. Five weeks they would
visit activities in the metropolitan Washington area, and five weeks they would
go on field trips. They would go to New London, Connecticut. They'd go to Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina. They'd go to Pensacola, Florida, all kind-of places,
Great Lakes Naval Training Center. 1 occasionally was asked to be an escort for
these people. There'd be 18 to 20, 25 doctors from foreign countries. Sometimes
we had Greeks and Turks at the same time, for instance. They weren't always the
greatest plans in the world, I tell you. But you would escort these guys around.
You'd get them on airplanes. You'd get them in buses. It was a real—it was
real interesting. On one trip, we took them to Pittsburgh to show them
industrial medicine at steel mills and the medical department of a steel mill.
We took them to Detroit and took them to the Ford Motor Company so they could
see how the medical department of a large car company functioned. While there
this particular trip, we took them to Greenfield Village. I don't know if any of
you have been to Greenfield Village. It's a very fascinating place where Henry
Ford acquired all sorts of buildings and structures from around the United
States, and in Europe, to some extent, and had them physically moved to Detroit.
For instance, Edison's Menlo Park Laboratory was totally taken apart and brought
to Greenfield Village, including the trash pile that was in the back yard.
Also
in Greenfield Village, there is an old Illinois courthouse where Lincoln used to
preside when he was circuit-riding judge. And in that courthouse was a chair
that was alleged to be the chair in which Lincoln sat when he was assassinated
in Ford's Theater. And the docent, in describing this chair, proudly spoke that
here on the back of the chair is the stain of the President's blood. The bullet
went through his head. I thought this was the most macabre thing I ever saw in
my life. It just made a terrible impression on me. And
when I noticed that these bloodstains were on this document that I had prepared,
I said nobody's going to ever get these documents. I'm not going to keep them,
and nobody else is ever going to get them. So
I copied them—and you probably have a copy in my longhand of what I wrote.
It's made from the original. And I then burned the original notes in the
fireplace of my family room to prevent them from ever falling into the hands of
what I consider inappropriate people. And there's been a lot of flack about
this, that they're all part of a big conspiracy that I did this because I was
involved in I don't know what I was involved. Ludicrous. That is what I did.
Q.
When you made reference to the notes that you copied out, were you referring to
the document that's marked Exhibit 2, or is that something different?
A.
Now, this is the product of—yeah. It's the product of those notes.
Q.
The question would be whether there were notes that you copied down as one
document and then you used the notes in order to draft the document that's in
your hand.
A.
The only thing that was retained was this.
Q.
Exhibit 2?
A.
Right.
Q.
Now, I presume that the notes that you took during the autopsy did not resemble
in any way the document that you have in your hand now, Exhibit 2.
A.
Well, they did, yes. I mean, I didn't dream this up out of whole cloth.
Q.
Certainly I understand the content, but I'm just referring to the text that is
written in Exhibit 2 tracks reasonably closely the language of the final report.
And what I'm interested in is what the two to three pages of notes looked like.
A.
I can't recall. I mean, I—they would have been my shorthand version of what
you're looking at here, basically, in my own shorthand manner, whatever it may
have been.
Q.
You would agree, I assume, that the document you're holding in your hand,
Exhibit 2, is a basically completed autopsy protocol that tracks the language of
the final autopsy protocol that's Exhibit 1?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And I assume that the notes that you made while you were at Bethesda during the
autopsy were not written in sentence and paragraph form.
A.
No. They were shorthand.
Q.
So what kinds of things, then, were written on it? Measurements?
A.
Measurements, yeah, sure. Primarily measurements. That's where these
measurements came from.
Q.
So when you drafted—well, first, was there any other draft of the autopsy
protocol other than the one that you're holding in your hand now—
A.
No.
Q.
—Exhibit 2?
A.
No. There was not.
Q.
So when you wrote down the information- well, when you were drafting what is now
Exhibit 2, would it be fair to say that you had in your hand two or three pages,
approximately—
A.
Right.
Q.
—of handwritten notes—
A.
And I converted the shorthand information there to that document.
Q.
When you say "that document," you're referring to Exhibit 2?
A.
Yes, exactly.
Q.
Was there any information that was contained on the handwritten notes that was
not included in the document that's now Exhibit 2—
A.
I don't believe so.
Q.
Did you ever make a copy that—a copy of the notes that contained the same
information as was on the original handwritten notes that was in any form other
than the form that appears in Exhibit 2?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever observed that the document now marked Exhibit 1 in the original
appears to have bloodstains on it as well?
A.
Yes, I do notice it now. These were J's. I'm sure I gave these back to J. I
presume I did. 1 don't know where they came from.
Q.
Did you ever have any concern about the President's blood being on the document
that's now marked Exhibit 1?
A.
I can't recall, to tell you the truth.
Q.
Do you see any inconsistency at all between destroying some handwritten notes
that contained blood on them but preserving other handwritten notes that also
had blood on them?
A.
Well, only that the others were of my own making. I didn't—wouldn't have the
habit of destroying something someone else prepared. The only difference that I
can conceive of. I don't know where these went. I don't know if they went back
to J or where they went. I have no idea. I certainly didn't keep them. I kept
nothing, as a matter of fact.
Q.
I'd like to show you the testimony that you offered before the Warren
Commission. This is in Exhibit 11 to this deposition. I'd like you to take a
look at pages 372 to the top of 373, and then I'll ask you a question.
A.
All right.
Q.
I'll read that into that record while you're reading it yourself. Mr. Specter
asked the question: "And what do those consist of?" The question is
referring to some notes. "Answer: In privacy of my own home, early in the
morning of Sunday, November 24, 1 made a draft of this report, which I later
revised and of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally
burned in the fireplace of my recreation room." Do you see Mr. Specter's
question and your answer?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Does that help refresh your recollection of what was burned in your home?
A.
Whatever I had, as far as I know, that was burned was everything exclusive of
the finished draft that you have as Exhibit—whatever it is.
Q.
My question will go to the issue of whether it was a draft of the report that
was burned or whether it was—
A.
I think it was—
Q.
—handwritten notes—
A.
It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned.
Q.
Do you mean to use the expression handwritten notes as being the equivalent of
draft of the report?
A.
I don't know. Again, it's a hair-splitting affair that I can't understand.
Everything that I personally prepared until I got to the status of the
handwritten document that later was transcribed was destroyed. You can call it
anything you want, whether it was the notes or what, I don't know. But whatever
I had, I didn't want anything else to remain, period. This business, I don't
know when J act that back or what.
Q.
When you say "this business," you're referring to Exhibit 1?
A.
Exhibit 1, right.
Q. Dr. Humes, let me show you part of your testimony to the HSCA. Question by Mr. Cornwell- I'll read this into the record. It's from page 330, and it is Exhibit 21 to this deposition.
"Mr. Cornwell: And you finally began to write the autopsy report at what time?"
"Dr. Humes: It was decided that three people couldn't write the report simultaneously, so I assumed the responsibility for writing the report, which I began about 11 o'clock in the evening of Saturday November 23rd, having wrestled with it for four or five, six hours in the afternoon, and worked on it until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning of Sunday, the 24th.
"Mr. Cornwell: Did you have any notes or records at that point as to the exact location of the—"
"Dr. Humes: I had the draft notes which we had prepared in the autopsy room, which I copied."
Now,
again, the question would be: Did you copy the notes so that you would have a
version of the notes without the blood on them but still notes rather than a
draft report?
A.
Yes, precisely. Yes. And from that I made a first draft, and then I destroyed
the first draft and the notes.
Q.
So there were, then, two sorts of documents that were burned: one, the draft
notes, and, two, a draft report?
A.
Right.
Q.
Is that correct?
A.
That's right. So that the only thing remaining was the one that you have.
Q.
Why did you burn the draft report as opposed to the draft notes?
A.
I don't recall. I don't know. There was no reason—see, we're splitting hairs
here, and I'll tell you, it's getting to me a little bit, as you may be able to
detect. The only thing I wanted to finish to hand over to whomever, in this case
Admiral Burkley, was my completed version. So I burned everything else. Now, why
I didn't burn the thing that J wrote, I have no way of knowing. But whether it
was a draft or whether it was the notes or what, I don't know. There was nothing
left when I got finished with it, in any event, but the thing that you now have,
period.
Q.
Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related to the autopsy
that is destroyed, we're interested in finding out what the exact
circumstances—
A.
I've told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as an aide-memoire to
do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that hard to understand?
Q.
When I first asked the question, you explained that the reason that you had
destroyed it was that it had the blood of the President on it.
A. Right
Q.
The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of—
A.
Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don't know what was the matter
with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don't know. I can't recall. I
absolutely can't recall, and I apologize for that. But that's the way the cookie
crumbles. I didn't want anything to remain that some squirrel would grab on and
make whatever use that they might. Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or
not, I don't know. But it doesn't make any difference because that was my
decision and mine alone. Nobody else's.
Q.
Did you talk to anyone about your decision to—
A.
No, absolutely not. No. It was my own materials. Why—I don't feel a need to
talk to anybody about it.
Q.
Did the original notes that you created have any information with respect to the
estimated angle in which the bullet struck the President?
A.
Nothing different than what's in the final version.
Q.
Did the original notes that you took identify the location of the posterior
thorax entrance wound with respect to which of the vertebra of the President the
wound was closest to?
A.
No. The measurements were taken from bony landmarks. As I recall, one was a
mastoid process, the bottom of the—behind the ear, and the other was a midline
of the vertebral column, not how many vertebrae down it was. So the up-and-down
measurement would be the distance from the mastoid process down.
Q.
When you recorded it a being from the right mastoid process, was it your
understanding that the right mastoid process was a fixed body landmark?
A.
Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're really in trouble if it
does.
Q.
Well, is it a fixed landmark, fixed body landmark with respect to the thoracic
cavity?
A.
It's fixed with regard to respect anything you want it respected to.
Q.
Well, if your head turns to the right or to the left, does the mastoid process
distance vary with relationship to—
A.
Well, maybe a millimeter or two. Not significantly.
Are
we getting into a big debate as to whether I did anything properly here or not?
It's not a debate I want to get involved in.
Q.
I'd like to show you a document that's marked Exhibit 6, which appears on its
face to be a death certificate for President John F. Kennedy, signed by George
Gregory Burkley on November 23, 1963?
A.
Right. Never saw it before.
Q.
You've never seen Exhibit 6 before?
A.
No, sir.
Q. I'd like to draw your attention to the first sentence of text on the second page and ask if you would read that, please.
[Pause.]
THE WITNESS: He's sort of mixing his metaphors. He's mixing the wounds up in here, but I presume when he says the wound was shattering type, it's the wound of the skull.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
You're welcome to read as much as you would prefer.
A.
Whatever.
Q.
It's just I have a question for you on the first sentence only.
A.
Okay.
Q.
You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the level of the
third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Was that correct?
A.
I don't know. I didn't measure from which vertebra it was. It's sometimes hard
to decide which vertebra, to tell you the truth, by palpation. Maybe you can do
it accurately because the first and second—did I say the third? Oh, he says
third thoracic. I think that's much lower than it actually was. I think it's
much lower than it actually—you have seven cervical vertebrae. don't know. I
mean, he's got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before, and
I don't have an opinion about it.
Q.
Did you ever discuss which vertebra—
A.
I never discussed anything about it with George Burkley, period, or anybody
else. 1 mean, with all due respect, you seem to have come to me from left field.
You know, I just— they're not things of which I'm aware. The measurements I
made, as far as I'm concerned, were accurate. You could debate whether they were
wise choices to be made or not, but they were accurate.
Q.
When did you sign the autopsy protocol that is now marked Exhibit 3?
A.
Late Sunday afternoon.
Q.
Where was it that you signed it?
A.
In Admiral Galloway's office. His personal—it was decided his secretary was an
appropriate person to—she normally wouldn't do this work for me at all because
I had my own people. But I guess he fell that it was—she was a good person to
do it. That's all. It didn't make a difference to me who did it. It was a
mechanical chore, as far as I was concerned.
Q.
Who else was in the office at the time that you signed the protocol?
A.
Pierre and J.
Q.
And they were the only two others there?
A.
Mm-hmm.
Q.
Was anyone in the room immediately next to where you were?
A.
Admiral Galloway was in and out that afternoon. I don't know if he was there or
not at that-point, to tell you the truth.
Q.
Was he waiting for you to sign the document, or you were just in his office?
A.
I can't tell you what he was doing there. When we were working on it, we made
some minor changes in it. He came in and told us that Ruby shot Oswald, which
was the shock of the day, of course. And I don't know how long he stayed, to
tell you the truth. I don't know if he was there when I left or not.
Q.
Did anyone at any point, other than Drs. Finck and Boswell, make any suggestions
to you about the content of the autopsy report?
A.
It seems to me that Admiral Galloway made some comments, but I don't recall
precisely what they were, because he was there while we were doing it.
Q.
Did he ask you to make any changes in the autopsy protocol?
A.
I don't think so.
Q.
Did he ask you to make any changes that would be of any substantive importance?
A.
Certainly not. I think he made a suggestion—and it wasn't a bad one—to
insert the word "presumably" a couple of times, because they were
presumptions. We didn't know who shot who or anything about it, you know. But
our conclusions were that this was probably the entrance wound, this was
probably the exit wound. I think he thought—he said it would be wise to use
that verbiage, and I didn't have any problem. That's the only suggestion I
recall he made.
Q.
After you signed the autopsy protocol, what did you do with it physically
yourself?
A.
Physically, got a staff car and carried it to the White House.
Q.
How many did you take to the White House?
A.
I think the original and six, it says. I mean, I don't keep that number in my
mind, but whatever it was.
Q.
Original and a few copies?
A.
Leaving one in Admiral Galloway's office, which was subsequently taken there.
Q.
Okay. And was there more than one signed original?
A.
No.
Q.
Was there any draft protocol that you had written prior to that time that had
been signed?
A.
Nothing other than what you have.
Q.
So the one we have is the only signed protocol?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
After you signed the protocol and delivered it to Admiral Burkley in the White
House, what was the next thing that you did that had connection with the autopsy
or supplemental reports of the—
A.
I presume when we got the micro slides processed, which was, I don't know,
Monday or Tuesday, or some day at the beginning of the week. Reviewing those and
writing the report that was the supplementary report.
Q.
Earlier in the deposition today, you mad reference to a sectioning of the brain,
if I understood correctly, that took place one or two days afterwards.
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Did that happen within one or two days after?
A.
Yes. Shortly after. I can't tell you what day now.
Q.
If Dr. Boswell and Mr. Stringer said that it took place two or two to three days
afterwards, would that make sense to you?
A.
I have no—yeah, could well be.
Q.
What did you do in the course of the examination of the brain that took place
shortly after?
A.
We took photographs of the separated—now we have the brain in a pail, and
removed it from there, took photographs from both above and below, and took
these representative sections that we mentioned there.
Q.
Was the brain fixed by that time?
A.
Yes. Pretty well fixed.
Q.
Approximately how much time did you spend on that examination of the brain?
A.
Oh, I don't know. I would say an hour or two, something like that.
Q.
Where did that examination take place?
A.
In the laboratory, the main laboratories of the hospital, medical school.
Q.
Are you able to connect in time the difference in time between the time that you
delivered the autopsy protocol to Admiral Burkley and the time that you examined
the brain?
A.
I just said earlier it took, you know—I don' t know—a couple of days, two or
three days. don't know exactly how long.
Q.
Was that a couple of days after the November 22nd autopsy?
A.
A couple of days after Sunday, after they were delivered. I don't know. In that
week some day. I don't really know. It didn't seem to be important to me at the
time, and still doesn't, quite candidly.
Q.
You suggested earlier that—and this is also true that it also appears in the
JAMA article —that Dr. Burkley suggested to you that the Kennedy family wanted
to inter the brain with the President.
A.
He wasn't suggesting. He told me flat out that the decision has been made and
that Robert Kennedy was their emissary and he was going to take the brain and
deliver it to Robert Kennedy.
Q.
Did you ask or wonder how they would be able to inter the brain if the President
had already been buried?
A.
No. I didn't worry about it one way or the other. I would presume that they
could devise a method of doing that without too much difficulty, however.
Q.
I'll show you a document that I believe you have seen before, earlier in the
deposition, No. 19, which is a memorandum by Andy Purdy to the file dated August
17, 1977, which contains his notes from interviewing Dr. Burkley. I'd like you
to take a look at the paragraph in the center of page 5. Let
me read it for the record, and then I'd like to get your response to it. Within
the paragraph, Mr. Purdy, reporting on his conversation with Dr. Burkley, says,
"Says he"—referring to Dr. Burkley—"was responsible for
saving the brain after it was fixed in formalin. Burkley decided to keep the
brain rather than put it back in the body, as Dr. Humes wanted to do." Is
that accurate?
A.
That's absolutely false. I don't know where he got these ideas. I never put a
brain back in a body in my life. Hundreds and hundreds of autopsies that I've
done, and I certainly wouldn't put this one back in the body. It's ridiculous.
And he had nothing to do with it. Not a thing. God, that really—I can't
believe some of this stuff. George is a fine man. I have great respect for him
as a physician. But this must have spun his wheels or something. I don't know
what happened, but he—this absolutely did not happen. 1 wouldn't dream of it.
It's
just annoying as the devil—forgive me, but it is. And I say, I've never seen
this document before. Just as well, because I'd just have been annoyed for
longer if I had. It makes no sense.
Q.
At the time the interview was conducted, the House Select Committee on
Assassinations was attempting to determine the location of the President's
brain, and there was evidence that Admiral Burkley had been in possession of the
brain at one point.
A.
Yes
Q.
And so they were pursuing that question with him, and so the context is they are
trying to find out where it is.
A.
They're not going to find any help from me. I handed it to George Burkley, and
that was the end of that.
Q.
In this statement, he does not make reference to wanting to inter it with the
body of the President.
A.
All I can tell you is that's what he told me. Now, whether that was true or not,
I have no way of knowing. That's what he told me, and I'm reporting it
factually, period. It didn't bother me one way or the other. It seemed to me
that that was perfectly appropriate. And how they were going to do it, you know,
that was no big problem, I don't think.
And
there's a mention in that thing of two bullets. I don't know what he's talking
about. I mean, it's—makes no sense. The whole thing makes no sense. This was
what, '77 you say?
Q.
Yes.
A.
That was then 14 years after the event. I don't know how old George was at that
point. I'm not sure.
Q.
After the examination of the brain and the review of the sections, what was the
next thing that you did in preparation for the supplementary autopsy report?
A.
I presume I examined the sections of the various organs that we had had caused
then to be made.
Q.
Do you have a recollection as to approximately how long after the autopsy that
was done?
A.
It was just two or three days. The technicians worked very assiduously and got
them to us relatively quickly. What's the date on the delivery of the
supplementary report?
Q.
There's no date originally on the report. It's not dated. There's a handwritten
date that's written elsewhere on it.
What's
your best recollection as to when the supplementary—
A.
Before the end of the week, I would guess.
Q.
So if the assassination was on the 22nd, on a Friday, does that mean
approximately—and I understand we're dealing approximately here—
A.
By the end of the following week, the 29th, or whatever, the 30th.
Q.
Did you personally deliver to Admiral Burkley the brain?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you receive a receipt for that?
A.
If I did, I no longer have it. I don't recall, quite candidly. I do not have it.
I've been through all the papers that I have. I do not have it. So I can't tell
you whether I did or didn't.
Q.
We have not been able to locate any receipt of that sort through all of the
records. Do you have any idea where a copy of that receipt might be?
A.
I don't think there ever was one. I don't think there ever was one.
Q.
In addition to the brain and the sections, was there any other biological matter
that was given to Dr. Burkley—
A.
No.
Q.
—by you?
A.
No. Well, the blocks, the paraffin blocks from which the sections were made,
yeah.
Q.
Did you deliver those to Admiral Burkley in the White House, or did he come—
A.
No, I think he came out. I did not take them to the White House. That I do know.
Q.
Do you have a recollection of the approximate timing of when he came out to pick
up those?
A.
I can't recall. I don't know when.
Q.
Do you know whether it was before or after the supplementary report was
completed?
A.
Oh, it had to be after that, but I don't recall when.
Q.
What we would like to do at this point is bring in some of the autopsy photos,
and I'd like to ask you some questions about those.
A.
Sure.
MR. GUNN: We'll take a short break.
[Recess].