Part II of Deposition of James J. Humes
MR. GUNN: We can go back on the record. I will state that we have now been joined by Steve Tilly and Martha Murphy of the National Archives, and we are now examining the original autopsy photos. I will state for the record that the first set of photos that Dr. Humes is looking at are in the series that are described in the November 10, 1966, inspection as "left side of head and shoulders," and they are photos number—black and white photo Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and color photos Nos. 29, 30, and 31.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
The first question for you, Dr. Humes: Are these the photos that you previously
have identified as being the autopsy photos of President Kennedy?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Earlier in the deposition, I asked you about whether there were any procedures
that were taken on President Kennedy before the photos were taken, and it was my
understanding that you said that there had been no cleaning and no incisions
made.
A.
Correct.
Q.
Would that be true for the photos that you're looking at right now?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Dr. Humes—
A.
Other than as you remove the dressing from the head, it's possible that coming
off with some of the gauze that was there, some of the blood might have been
removed. But it wasn't a deliberate attempt to clean it up.
Q.
Sure. No cleaning, no combing of the hair or anything of that sort?
A.
No. No, no, no, no.
Q.
The side that you're looking at is the left profile; is that correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Do you see or do you recall having seen any lacerations on the left side of the
skull?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you at any point during the autopsy, presumably after these photos were
taken, make any incisions on the left side of the—
A.
Other than when we went to remove the brain, the coronal incision would have
come down to above the left ear.
Q.
Okay. Could we now look at what we're identifying as the second view, which was
identified as the "right side of head and right shoulder"? And for the
record, those are black and white Nos. 5 and 6. and color Nos. 26, 27, and 28.
Dr. Humes, do you recognize these as being the original and authentic autopsy
photos of President Kennedy?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
I'd like you to look at the object that looks somewhat triangular right over the
right eye of President Kennedy. Do you see that triangular mark?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Was that triangular mark made by any incision that was caused at Bethesda?
A.
No.
Q.
Can you identify or explain whether anything on that triangle appears to have
been a surgical incision?
A.
No. I think it's a result of the disruptive missile that left the President's
skull in that vicinity.
Q.
Immediately above the right ear is a somewhat triangular but not exactly
triangular shaped object. Can you explain what that object is?
A.
That's a flap of skin that's turned back.
Q.
And is it turned back from the front towards the back of the head—
A.
Towards the bottom of the hair. It would approximate here if you put the two of
them together, if it comes down like that, I would think.
Q.
So a flap that is coming down towards the ear; is that correct?
A.
Yes. With the hair behind it, you see.
Q.
In the area above the left eye—and this is back to the triangle that I
mentioned before— there is a white object that is, appears to be perpendicular
on two sides and somewhat rounded on the other side. Do you see that?
A.
A piece of skull.
Q.
Is that broken skull or is that—are you able to tell?
A.
Am I able to tell what?
Q.
Is that skull intact within the cranium, or is that a piece that has broken out?
A.
No, I think it’s still fixed at its base.
Q.
Okay. And right opposite that to the left, there is a sharp line almost creating
another V.
A.
Right.
Q.
Can you identify what that object is immediately to the left?
A.
Another piece of skull. I don't think there's any question about it.
Q.
And is that piece of skull intact, or is that piece broken off?
A.
No, I think it's fixed inferiorally.
Q.
Near the top of the President's head, there is matter that is extruding. What is
that matter?
A.
That's scalp reflected that way.
Q.
Does that consist of any brain tissue, or is that entirely scalp, as best you
can tell?
A.
I think it's just scalp.
Q.
Do you see in this photograph or these photographs any brain tissue at all?
A.
Not that I can identify, no.
Q.
If we could go now to the next view, which we will call No. 3, No. 3 consists of
photographs described as "superior view of head," which correspond to
black and white photo Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10, and to color photographs 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, and 37.
Dr.
Humes, do those photographs appear to be authentic autopsy photos—
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
—of President Kennedy?
A.
Mm-hmm.
Q.
Do you have any reason to doubt their authenticity?
A.
None whatever.
Q.
Dr. Humes, do you see any brain tissue extruding from the wounds of President
Kennedy in those photos?
A.
I regret that they're not more sharp than they are.
Q.
When you're saying "sharp," you're referring to the focus?
A.
Yeah. I can't be absolutely certain whether there's brain at the base of this or
it's just all scalp that we've reflected off, because the superior surface of
the brain, other than off to the one side, was pretty much intact, as you
see—you got the brain pictures some place? Because you'll see that. So I don't
really think that that's brain, no. I don't think so.
Q.
I note along the left of the midline there appears to be a rather sharp or
straight—not exactly straight—line. Can you—
A.
Scalp folded back.
Q.
Is that the result of a surgical incision?
A.
No. Heavens, no.
Q.
Did you pull the scalp back at all in order to be able to have a better view of
the injury?
A.
Yes, I probably did.
Q.
Was the hair combed in any way to help make—
A.
No. The hair was not disturbed in any way.
Q.
Would it be fair to say that this photograph was taken before the Y incision was
performed?
A.
Oh, sure.
Q.
And you can see on the chest that the Y incision has not been performed—
A.
Right.
Q.
—is that correct?
A.
Like I told you, we directed our attention to the head wound first before we did
it.
Q.
Previously, I showed to you a line that goes what appears to be along the edge
of the scalp. I'd like you to look at another lines that appears to go right
down the middle almost of the parasagittal sinus. Do you see that line?
A.
Yeah, but I think you're making more of it than there is. I think that's just
where the skin fold was laid back.
Q.
Is there a break in the skull at that point?
A.
I'm not sure. I would guess that it well may be, but I can't see it in the scalp
at this point.
Q.
I'd like you to look at the object that appears very roughly over where the
right ear would be. Do you see that?
A.
Are you talking about this dark-colored material?
Q.
It is a—
A.
That's a piece of bone there. That's a piece of bone, I think. That's the edge
of one of the—that's the edge of the wound. It corresponds with that V-shaped
thing you saw in the picture before where you had those fragments. That's one of
them.
Q.
Okay. And you're pointing now at a line that goes—
A.
Not the whole line. Just this piece right here. This is bone.
Q.
Sure. The margin of—the left margin of the bone?
A.
Yeah, right.
Q.
And that corresponds with the V in the—
A.
I think so, with part of those two pieces that you saw from the lateral view.
Q.
And the two pieces that you're referring to have to do with the bone and not the
V that was over the forehead in the scalp?
A.
V over the forehead? I don't know what you're talking about now. This is a piece
of the skull, I do believe, you see. In that picture, you had two pieces. You
only see one of them well here.
Q.
I just want to make sure that we can identify this. If a person were looking at
photo, looking at it from the right of the photo, it. would be probably the
first piece of skull that one would see coming from the right.
A.
Yeah. I think this—
Q.
We need to make this clear on the record when you're pointing to this. So when
you say "this," you're referring to View No. 3.
A.
Right.
Q.
Corresponding—and the piece of bone that is in the far right on View No. 3
corresponding to the piece that is approximately in the very center of the
photograph in View 2.
A.
Correct.
Q.
Is that correct?
A.
That's correct, in my opinion.
Q.
If we could turn to View 4, please? View 4 has been described as "the
posterior view of wound of entrance of missile high in shoulder," and it
corresponds to black and white photo Nos. 11 and 12 and color photos Nos. 38 and
39. Dr.
Humes, do those photographs appear to be the original and authentic photographs
from autopsy of President Kennedy?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Prior to the time that the photographs in View 4 were taken, was there any
cleaning of the hair or scalp of President Kennedy?
A.
It looks like there might have been. I can't recall specifically. There was
probably still some blood involved there. We may have cleaned that off slightly.
I don't recall.
Q.
When you said "there," you were pointing at the bottom of the
hairline; is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Dr. Humes, could you explain why the ruler or the measuring device is in that
photograph?
A.
Just to record visually the size of the wound.
Q.
Is the measuring device designed in this particular photograph to show the
relationship to any other landmark in the body?
A.
It looks like it may be down the middle of the spinal column, but I can't be
sure that that was the intent. It may well have been, and it looks like it
might—I don't know. it's a little crooked. It seems to go like so, so I can't
say. It may have been lined up along the vertebral—the spine of the vertebrae,
but I can't be sure.
Q.
Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than those
that are exposed to—
A.
Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q.
Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high at
approximately the second-centimeter line.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A.
Yes, Sir.
Q.
And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring to
something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A.
Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have no idea.
Q.
Was there more than one wound of entry—
A.
No, there was not.
Q.
And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that is at
the higher [position?]
A.
Yes, sir, I am.
Q.
Is that correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
I'd like to show you a photographic enlargement of one portion of this
photograph that was reprinted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations as
Figure 5. It is marked as Exhibit MI 3. It comes from Volume 7 of the HSCA
report at page 86. I'd like to ask you whether you can independently correlate
the wound as enlarged on Exhibit MI 3 with the wound that you have described as
the entry wound on photograph—
A.
I really can't. I don't have any way of knowing what this would look like when
magnified to that extent. I don't know. Could be, but I have no firm opinion
about it. It seems distorted to me, that particular view.
Q.
When you're saying "distorted," you're referring to Exhibit MI 3?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you identify an abrasion collar on the wound on View 4?
A.
Not with certainty.
Q.
Did you ever identify an abrasion collar on the wound on the posterior thorax?
A.
I don't remember, to be perfectly candid.
Q.
Was a section taken of the posterior thorax wound?
A.
I believe so.
Q.
Dr. Humes, I've put before you a drawing from Grant's Anatomy that shows the
posterior portion of a human skull. Do you see that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Where the occipital bone is identified?
A.
Mm-hmm.
Q.
I'd like to mark this document as Exhibit 72. I'd like to ask you now, Dr.
Humes, if you can tell me where there were any missing pieces of skull on the
back of President Kennedy's head, if there were any, that can be seen within
the—
A.
I'm confused by this drawing. What is this? Is that the teeth?
Q.
Yes. That's from the—
A.
This is a funny—it's a strange way to depict the posterior portion of the
skull, is all I can tell you. There was no significance. It was just a hole. But
it was further down, you see. it wasn't way up here.
Q.
I note here is the external occipital protuberance.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Sir, could you show me first on Exhibit 72 where the wound was, approximately,
in relationship to—
A.
Not without referring to my notes. I don't have that number in my mind. Or
referring to the report that you have, the autopsy report.
Q.
Okay. Let me try another question. Can you describe generally where there was
any missing bone from the posterior portion, to the best of your recollection?
A.
There basically wasn't any. it was just a hole. Not a significant missing bone.
Q.
So a puncture hole—
A.
Puncture hole.
Q.
And no bone missing—
A.
No.
Q.
—anywhere in the occipital—
A.
No, no. Unless maybe—you know, these drawings are always strange. Unless the
part of this wound extended that far back. I don't think it did, really. Most of
it was parietal temporal.
Q.
So on the scalp of President Kennedy here, still in View No. 4, that underneath
the scalp the bone was all intact with the exception of the puncture wound—
A.
Yeah.
Q.
—and perhaps some fragment—
A.
In the back of the skull, back, yes, sir.
Q.
Okay. So all of the skull that is within the range in View 4 would have been in
place, though there may be fractures in it and there would be a puncture hole?
Other than that, that view shows—
A.
But it's a guessing game, you see. The head seems to be retroflexed a little
bit. You know, it's—to get me to say what's under here or under here, I can't
do that.
Q. Could we now look at the sixth view? Excuse me, the fifth view.
[Pause.]
MR. GUNN: The photographs that Dr. Humes is now being shown have been described as "wound of entrance in right posterior"—let me withdraw that. Off the record for a moment.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. GUNN: Okay. We are now on the fifth view, which corresponds to black and white Nos. 13 and 14 and color Nos. 40 and 41, with the description being the "right anterior view of head and upper torso, including tracheotomy wound."
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Dr. Humes, do those photographs appear to be the original and authentic
photographs from the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Do the eyes of President Kennedy appear to be open in these photographs?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Were the eyes, in fact, open during the autopsy, do you recall?
A.
The picture shows me that they were.
Q.
If other photographs did not have the eyes open, would you be able to explain
the difference in that appearance?
A.
I don't know. I might, I guess. I don't know.
Q.
Does that help at all explain the timing in which the photographs may have been
taken?
A.
No. It may have been, but the timing...
Q.
In the second view, we were looking at a triangle that was slightly above the
left eye. Do you see that triangle in this same photo?
A.
Yeah, I see it in the—yeah, I see it in both of them.
Q.
As far as you can tell, that would be the same triangle that was identified
previously?
A.
I think so.
Q.
And there is what appears to be a flap that is immediately above the left—or
above the right ear?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that flap the same flap that you noted in View No. 2?
A.
I think so.
Q.
Do you see the tracheotomy wound in President Kennedy's neck?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Did you take any action at Bethesda that increased the size of the tracheotomy?
A.
I don't think so. I don't believe so. We didn’t need to. It was wide open.
Q.
Is that how the wound appeared to you when you saw the body of President
Kennedy?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
You don't notice any difference in size?
A.
No. The thing is that when we first—I think we noticed this when we first saw
these pictures. There's a suggestion at the inferior margin of this wound that
might be a portion of the actual missile exit, a little notch, what looks like a
notch there.
Q.
So you're referring to a notch at the bottom of—
A.
Of the incision.
Q.
Of the incision.
A.
Mm-hmm.
Q.
I'm showing you a document now that's marked MI Exhibit 6, which also is taken
from a reproduction of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Are you
able to correlate the blow-ups in MI 6 with the photographs in View No. 5?
A.
Well, I guess so. My problem is they get distorted when they blow up like this,
you know. But it's certainly not unlikely that that's a—you know.
Q.
In the bottom photograph in MI 6, there's something labeled Figure 9, and I see
at the bottom of that photograph there is a somewhat niched figure.
A.
Right
Q.
Does that seem to correspond to some extent with the niche that you had noted?
A.
Yes, I think it does. Yes.
Q.
Okay. Could we go to the sixth view, please? View 6 was described as "wound
of entrance in right posterior occipital region," and it corresponds to
black and white Nos. 15 and 16 and color Nos. 42 and 43.
Dr.
Humes, do you recognize the photos before you now as being original and
authentic photographs from the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A.
I presume they are.
Q.
Is there any question in your mind?
A.
No, not really. No. They are.
Q.
I'd like to show you documents marked MI 5, MI 1, and MI 2 and ask you whether
those photographs which were reproduced by the House Select Committee on
Assassinations appear to correspond to the photograph in your hand, noting that
MI 5 is a drawing and not a photograph. My question is just whether this seems
to be a general correspondence.
A.
Yeah, I think—these two, I can't make anything of these blow-ups. I really
have great difficulty with those.
Q.
With the blow-ups, you're referring to Nos. MI 1 and MI 2?
A.
Yeah. I really can't make anything of those.
Q.
Dr. Humes, are you able to identify what you have described previously as an
entrance wound in the posterior skull of President Kennedy on photographs in
View 6?
A.
This is the same problem I had at the committee hearings.
Q.
Referring to the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
A.
Yeah. I had big difficulty trying to see which was which among these things,
between here and here.
Q.
When you say "here and here," the first one you were pointing to
something that appears roughly slightly below the ruler, and the second
"here" was referring to the object that is quite near the bottom of
the frame?
A.
Right. I mean, they threw these up on a great big screen and said which is what,
and I really had difficulty. I couldn't be sure. I'm disappointed. I was
disappointed in that regard. I still have trouble with it.
Q.
Are you able to identify on View 6 the entrance wound?
A.
Not with certainty, I'm sorry to tell you.
Q.
Are you aware of where the House Select Committee on Assassinations panel of
experts identified what they believed to be the entrance wound?
A.
No. No.
Q.
Do you see the gloved hand?
A.
Mm-hmm.
Q.
Are you able to identify whose arm that is holding the President's head?
A.
No.
Q.
When that photograph was taken, was the scalp being pulled forward, that is,
towards the eyes of the President, in order for that photograph to be taken?
A.
It's possible. I'm not sure. It looks like that's what's happening. The edge of
the defect is up there. The edge of the defect is adjacent to where the fingers
and thumb of the person appear on the photograph.
Q.
Dr. Humes, I would like to show you a document that's been marked as Exhibit MD
14, which you previously have seen, and I'd like to show you a portion of that
document, on the bottom paragraph on page 3, going to the top of page 4, and ask
you if that helps you orient the photograph.
A.
See, they're talking about the scalp shown in the photograph, and I'm not sure
which one it is that they're referring to. I suppose that's what they're talking
about there. I have to presume that's what they're talking about.
Q.
When you say "they're talking about," do you mean the House Select
Committee—
A.
Yes.
Q.
—on Assassinations? And the point that you're pointing to is the apparent spot
that is slightly below the top of the measuring device.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And based upon your recollection and examination of the photos, is that where
you now would identify what you believe to be the entrance wound in the skull?
A.
I cannot flat-footedly say that. I have trouble with it. The head is turned
toward one side. I don't know. It's very difficult. Very difficult. It's an
educated guess, to be perfectly honest.
Q.
For that marking that is towards the bottom near the hairline, what is your best
understanding of what that designates?
A.
I don't have the foggiest idea. See, what's important is where is the wound in
the bone. You can't tell that from these pictures.
Q.
What was your understanding of the correlation, if any, between a puncture wound
in the scalp and the puncture wound in the bone?
A.
They're directly over align—directly aligned.
Q.
So there was not a penetration of the scalp with the bullet going along the
cranium and then going in at some—
A.
My impression was it went right through
from
the site of the skin wound, when you looked at the wound from the inside and
matched them up with the scalp wound.
Q.
Did you have any difficulty identifying the scalp entry wound during the time of
the autopsy?
A.
No, I didn't at the time of the autopsy, but the photographs I think create
ambiguity. For me they do, much to my displeasure and dismay. I thought they
would erase ambiguity rather than create it.
Q.
Would you have expected the marking that you took to be the entry wound in the
scalp to have been better represented in the photos than what you were seeing—
A.
Yes, I would have hoped that it would have been. Yes, sir.
Q.
I'd like to point out to you the flap that appears to be above the right ear.
A.
Right.
Q.
And ask you if you can identify now what that flap is.
A.
Not with certainty. Not with certainty. It looks like the inner surface of the
scalp, you know, viewing here. And how it got to be in that position, I'm not
sure. The distances are hard to judge, for me, from this. I don't know.
MR. GUNN: Steve, could we look at the other photographs from this same series just to see if there's anything more than can be shown? So 15, 16, 42, and 43. For the record, Dr. Humes now has all the photographs just identified above available for his inspection.
THE WITNESS: In this particular one, which is No. 43, this object down near the hairline seems more obviously to be an artifact of some kind. I don't know what it is. I have no idea what it is. And this does seem to be the wound.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
When you say "this," you're referring to the portion that is up near
the—
A.
Near the top of the ruler, yeah.
Q.
Could you examine the black and white photos and see if they help?
A.
They don't help me. You can't even see any wound in the upper area of this.
Q.
When you say that, you're referring to photograph number—
A.
Whatever this is—15.
Q.
And photograph 16?
A.
This is 16. This looks like dura now, this piece of material.
Q.
You're referring to the flap now that's above the ear?
A.
Yeah, it does look like dura, but I'm not absolutely certain. And the wound is
really—I don't know. Not discernible, I guess.
Q.
I asked you a similar question with another view, but I'd just like to try the
same question again. Looking at the posterior skull here, the portion that is
below the ear—so if we were to draw a line from between the top of the ear and
the top of the ruler down, is it your understanding that the skull behind that
scalp would be intact?
A.
Reasonably intact.
Q.
We'll go to the seventh view, which is described as "missile wound of
entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of scalp," Nos. 17, 18,
44, and 45.
Again,
the descriptions that I am reading come from the numbering system supplied by
the November 10, 1966, inspection. Could you turn these so they're all the same?
Just so the rulers are in the same relative position. The
first question for you, Dr. Humes, is: Can you identify these photographs as
being true and authentic photographs taken at the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A.
They certainly appear to be as such.
Q.
The first question for you would be whether you can orient those photos so as to
describe what is being represented in the photographs.
A.
Boy, it's difficult. I can't. I just can't put them together. I can't tell you
what—
Q.
Can you identify whether that is even posterior or frontal or parietal?
A.
Not with any certainty, no. Very disappointed. No, I can't.
Q.
Previously in your deposition today, you said, if I recall correctly, that you
had photographs taken with the scalp reflected that showed the entrance wound.
Is that correct?
A.
I thought that I had, yes.
Q.
Is it your understanding that these are photographs that—
A.
They could well be, but they're disappointingly confusing to me.
Q.
I'd like to show you the description that you made in 1967 and have you review
that and see if that helps.
A.
Now, this is the wound of exit that you're talking about. This is certainly not
the wound of exit that we're talking about here.
Q.
I'm referring to what the testimony was that you said earlier today when I said
entrance.
A.
I'm sorry, sir. You've lost me.
Q.
Okay. In my last question, I was referring to your prior testimony today where
you referred to the scalp being reflected and photographs being taken of the
entry wound in the posterior of the skull.
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Okay. Now we're on a different question, and I'm showing you a description from
another thing to see if this helps at all.
A.
No. It doesn't help at all. This is the wound of exit from the skull, the big
gaping hole in the right side of the temporo-parietal area. This doesn't help
me. I don't know how it could be expected to help me.
Q.
In the seventh view of the photographs, what you're looking at today, do you see
any notches in any of the bones that could be identified either a wound of
entrance or exit?
A.
There's what appears to be a notch in a major portion of bone here centrally
located, but I'm not at all sure about it. I don't know where it is or—I can't
get oriented at all. I just can't. It shows up in the black and white thing
here.
Q.
Was any photograph taken during the autopsy with scalp reflected of the frontal
bone or the parietal bone?
A.
Certainly not specifically of the frontal bone, but, yes, I presume of the
parietal bone. I presume there was.
Q.
What I want to see if we can get clear, as best we possibly can, is when—is
what photographs were taken when the scalp was reflected—
A.
Sir, you're asking me to tell you something that happened too long ago for me to
be able to respond intelligently.
Q.
What I would like to see if we can do the best that we can with is to understand
whether there was a photograph taken with the scalp reflected of the posterior
portion of the head. Now, I understood from the testimony earlier today that you
had thought that there was such a photograph taken. Whether the photograph
you're now looking at or not, whether that is that photograph or not isn't the
question, but whether there was such a photograph taken.
A.
I cannot recall specifically.
Q.
Dr. Humes, I'd like to show you a document marked Exhibit 13, which appears to
be a November 1, 1966, inventory which has your signature on it. Is that
correct?
A.
Right.
Q.
And this inventory was prepared approximately three years after the autopsy; is
that correct?
A.
Yes. That was one of the problems. Yes.
Q.
Could you identify for me roughly the procedure that you followed in preparing
the document that's now marked Exhibit 13? Just if you could explain the
circumstances of how you came to prepare the document.
A.
We came—we were told that it was necessary to have the photographs identified.
We proceeded to the old building downtown, Archives building, where we met with
Mr. Rhoads, I believe was the Archivist. And J and I—Pierre wasn't there, was
he?—Jack Ebersole—no, Pierre was not there. J and I and Jack Ebersole and
John Stringer, who actually took all the photographs, and they were brought out
to us one at a time, and we wrote a description of what we thought we were
seeing.
Q.
Okay. Could you look at the description that you created in 1966 that
corresponds with the photos that we're looking at now?
A.
44, for instance, this one.
Q.
Does that document reference No. 17? That would be to one of the black and white
photos. Does your description from 1966, three years after the autopsy, help you
today identify or orient the photographs in view 7?
A.
Well, now, I guess now that I look at it, perhaps it does. The black and white
one, down here opposite the edge of the rule, I presume that. is what we're
talking about right there.
Q.
Okay. You're referring to something that is very near the point of the—
A.
Right, right there.
Q.
—ruler where the centimeter marks are?
A.
Right. It's not anywheres near as clear as I would have hoped it were to be. But
that I have to presume is what we're talking about right there, because that's
about the size of the location, as I can see where it is. The scalp is reflected
downward, as you can see here.
Q.
So would it be fair to say that—
A.
This here again would be it, you see; there, there, and—you lose it here with
all this business. I don't know. I have trouble with this. I can't really
recognize it there.
Q.
So this is a portion that, if the ruler were on the bottom of the—if the ruler
were placed at the bottom of the drawing, this would be slightly above the
corner of the uppermost part of the ruler?
A.
That's my belief, yes, sir.
Q.
And that is what you believe to be, as
best
you can tell now—
A.
Yes.
Q.
—to have been the entrance wound—
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
—in the posterior skull?
A.
Yes, sir. Without major conviction, but I believe that's the case.
Q.
Dr. Humes, I'd like to show you part of your testimony to the Warren Commission,
particularly on pages 352 and 353, and I'd like to ask if this testimony that
you provided helps refresh your recollection as to whether there were any
photographs taken of the posterior skull with the scalp reflected. So at the
bottom of pages 32— excuse me, 352, to the top of page 353.
A.
He goes on to a motion picture here.
Q.
Pardon?
A.
He goes on to a motion picture.
Q.
You're referring to the testimony.
A.
Yeah, I see it, but it says photographs illustrating the phenomenon from both
the external surface of the skull and the internal surface were prepared. We
conclude that the large space on the upper right side—and so forth. I
don't—I have not yet been shown what I would construe to be the photograph of
the wound of entrance from the internal surface.
Q.
And at least it was your understanding as of March 1964 that a photograph of
that sort had been taken?
A.
Yes. Yes.
Q.
Let's move to the bottom of the final paragraph of Exhibit 13, which is your
report of November 1, 1966, signed November 19th.
A.
May I say what it says? We thought that we hadn't seen them all.
Q.
As of November 1966, were you of the opinion that there were any photographs of
the autopsy that had been taken in addition to those that you were able to see
at the Archives?
A.
The only one I recall specifically in that connection is the one I spoke to you
about later, was the interior of the thorax. I thought we had seen all the
others. Maybe we hadn't. I don't know. You got to remember, this was three years
after the fact. That's part of the problem with all of this, temporal distortion
of memory and what have you, accentuated when you get 35 years away.
Q.
I'd like to show you another statement from your Warren Commission testimony on
page 360. This is from Exhibit MD 11. Dr. Humes, could you read the portion from
the point where Mr. Dulles is saying, "Just one other question," and
then your answer to that?
A.
Yeah, sure.
Q. While you're reading it to yourself, I will read it for the record.
"Mr. Dulles: Just one other question. Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if the shot were fired from in front or the side of the President? It had to be fired from behind the President?"
"Commander Humes: Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind or to have exited from other than behind."
A. I don't know where that phrase got in there, "to have exited from other than behind," other than—it's a peculiar use of words, that it came in from behind and exited from behind. I presume going forward. I don't—that's kind of bad sentence. I don't know how to interpret that.
Q.
Did you mean—
A.
There was no exit from behind as far as I'm concerned, period.
Q.
So anyone who would—let me rephrase this. Would it be fair to say that when
you intended to say to the Warren Commission would not have been that the exit
wound also came from the posterior portion of the President?
A.
Yeah. The exit wound did not—was not in the posterior portion of the head. I
don't know how that verbiage got in there. A bad statement if I actually made
it.
Am I led to believe that we have not found the photograph from inside of the posterior portion of the skull?
Q.
You have now seen today all of the photographs of the skull we had.|
A.
I don't know how to explain it, because we didn't—I don't think we described
in anywheres here that photograph. I'd have to go through the whole list of the
photographs to see, but my recollection is that we took it from both the outside
and from the inside after the brain was removed.
Q.
When you were referring to that photograph in your previous answer, were you
referring to the photographs from View 7 that are in front of you now? You can
hold off on the answer. Maybe if you can—if you could just—
A.
Well, these are quite obviously from the outside of the skull. They're not from
the inside. That's perfectly obvious. So I don't see one from the inside of the
posterior cranial fossa where the defect was. And I'm disappointed because I
thought we had such a photograph.
Q.
Okay. Did you go back to the Archives in January of 1967—this would be a
couple of months later—and draft another statement or description of the
autopsy materials?
A.
If you've got such a statement, I presume we did. I don't remember the details
of it.
Q.
I'd like to show this Exhibit No. 14. Do you recall that document?
A.
I recall it, but I don't recall what caused it to be produced. I do not recall
what caused this to be produced.
Q.
Do you see who the people are who signed Exhibit 14?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you see that Dr. Finck is involved with that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Does that help refresh your recollection at all as to the circumstances for
signing that document or preparing that document?
A.
No. Doesn't help a bit.
Q.
Do you have any idea who wrote Exhibit 14?
A.
No. I don't think so. I don't know who wrote this, and reading it, it doesn't
seem like I wrote it, just because of the phraseology and some of the comments.
I don't know who wrote it.
Q.
Do you recall what the purpose was for your going to the Archives in November of
1966 to prepare the inventory? What circumstance led to that?
A.
Well, the photographs were there. Nobody knew exactly what they depicted, so
they asked us to attempt to resolve that problem, and that's what we tried to
do.
Q.
And do you know whether what is now Exhibit 14 is continuing in that process at
all?
A.
It would appear that that was the purpose. But I have no—as I say, I don't
recall anything about it. I really don't. I don't recall it. Other than—other
than the earlier, longer report that takes the photographs number by number—
Q.
That's Exhibit 13?
A.
Yeah. It didn't really draw any conclusions. That was strictly a narration and
a—
Q.
Catalogue?
A.
A catalogue of the pictures. And I would guess then we were asked to try and put
it together in a form that made it more expository. That's what I have to
presume is what we did.
Q.
But as of today, you're not able to recollect what the procedure was for that
document having been created?
A.
I certainly am not. The statement I just made would have to be my presumption of
what occurred, because as you know, this is just a catalogue. It comes to no
conclusion. It doesn't attempt to correlate these pictures with the autopsy,
really.
Q.
And by that, you're referring to Exhibit 13?
A.
13, yes, sir. So to your just previous question, was it part of the same
process, I would have to say yes, it must have been.
Q.
Let me try one last question for View 7, the four photographs that you have in
front of you. You have suggested that you think that there is some evidence or
some possibility that photographs depict an entrance wound. Is there a
possibility that those four photographs portray the exit wound?
A.
I would think that's possible that this large notched thing here may be part of
the exit wound of that missile. It could be. But I'm not sure. I'd have to go
back—because after we got the pieces of bone from Dallas, we attempted
to—-if this is what I'm saying it may be, we estimated what the actual margin
of that was with a little gimme factor because we didn't have the whole. But we
thought we had more of—if this is the exit wound, more of the circumference of
it, because it seems—this wound seems to be somewhat—if that is a wound, I
don't know. It seems to be beveled from the outside.
Q.
If View 7, in fact, shows the exit wound, would it then be fair to say that you
now would recall three photos that you believe were taken that are not now in
the collection, one of them being a photograph of the posterior skull entry
wound with the scalp reflect—
A.
At least not recognizable as such.
Q.
Sure.
A.
It may be here, but not, to me, recognizable as such.
Q.
The second one being the interior of the skull—
A.
Yeah. And that should have been sharp and clear because there was no blood by
that time, you see. The brain had been removed, and it was a through-and-through
hole, and I had every anticipation that you had no problem—you could tell the
contour of the internal—you know, the internal portion of the posterior fossa,
a child could recognize that. And we don't have that to see. And the chest.
Q.
The chest being the third?
A.
Yes.
Q. Okay. Thank you. Could we go to the eighth view, which is the basilar view of the brain?
MR. GUNN: Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
THE WITNESS: What George Burkley did with that brain is the mystery of the century. And why I so easily acceded to his wishes, I don't know, other than he's talking about Bobby and the family and what they want.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
The next view is the eighth called in the 1966 inventory the "basilar view
of brain," and it's color photos Nos. 46, 47, 48, and 49.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Dr. Humes, can you identify those photographs as photographs of the brain of
President Kennedy?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And previously you spoke about this issue, but just to clarify it at this point:
Were these photographs taken within a few days of the autopsy?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
And these were after they had been thoroughly set in formalin; is that correct?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Can you describe briefly what the photographs portray?
A.
Well, really the black one is somewhat— excuse me, the black and white one is
somewhat more graphic and easy to describe because it shows you a view of the
brain from above, with the cerebellum below, and the more or less intact left
cerebral hemisphere.
Q.
I'm sorry. If I could interrupt you for a minute, the one that you're referring
to now is a superior view of the brain, and I'd just like to see if we can get
the—
A.
Right. A superior view of the brain looking down on the cerebellum, which is
below and behind the cerebrum.
Q.
The numbers that I gave identified this as the basilar which—I just want to
make sure that we're all on the same page here for the record.
A.
This can't be basilar.
Q.
That's correct. I didn't know this one was going to be handed to you.
A.
You want me to do something different?
Q.
Sure. If you can just look at the basilar view of the brain, if you could
describe what that view shows. That is View No. 8 corresponding to color
photographs 46, 47, 48, and 49.
A.
Boy, I have trouble with this. I don't know which end is up. I don't know what
happened here. Looking at this photograph, which is labeled No. 46, the
structure which is on the right side of the brain appears to be intact, the
cerebrum intact. And that's not right, because it was not. And the structure,
which is all distorted—let me see. Well, well, I guess this—this is the left
side of the brain more or less intact. This I guess is the brain stem down here
somewhere, but I can't make it out.
Q.
Is the cerebellum visible in the basilar view?
A.
Well, yeah. Here's the one that I now take to be the right lobe of the
cerebellum is in view and discernible. The structures in the picture to the
right of that were very difficult to—there's more cerebellum. Yeah, this is
a—this is the cerebellum and brain stem in through here.
Q.
In the photograph that you're looking at of the basilar view, is the left
cerebellum disrupted?
A.
No—well, I guess so. Yeah, probably.
Q.
It's on the right of the photograph that you're looking at, but that would be—
A.
Yeah, that would be the left cerebellum. It seems to be to some extent
disrupted.
Q.
Do you know how the left cerebellum came to be disrupted?
A.
I would have to presume by the explosive force of the missile as it entered near
there. There seems to be a laceration in the mid-brain here, see?
Q.
Can you point out where the laceration in the mid-brain is?
A.
Right there.
Q.
Is the mid-brain above or below the cerebral cortex?
A.
Oh, below the cerebral cortex.
Q.
Was the—
A.
This is basically probably the lesion that, was fatal.
Q.
The one to the mid-brain?
A.
Yes. Presumably.
Q.
I'd like to show you page 4 of the autopsy protocol, Exhibit 3, and ask you to
read to yourself the first full paragraph.
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Does that paragraph, which I'll read for the record in just a moment, accurately
describe the injury to the brain? Let me read it for the record; then you can
answer the question. "Clearly visible in the above-described large skull
defect and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue, which on close inspection
proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this
point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with disruption
of the superior sagittal sinus."
A.
There might be one word that you changed in there. Instead of "the
major" to "a major portion" of the right lobe of the brain.
Q.
Now I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 4, which is the supplementary report, and
ask you to read the first paragraph of the supplementary report which refers to
injury to the brain.
A.
Yeah, I think it rather accurately describes what you see here.
Q.
Okay. Now, there is reference in that paragraph to a longitudinal laceration of
the right hemisphere, and it then goes on to say that the base of the laceration
is situated approximately 4.5 centimeters below the vertex. Is that laceration
visible on the photographs of the basilar view of the brain?
A.
Well, not very clearly. Not very clearly.
Q.
Would you expect—
A.
I presume it's in through here.
Q.
Would you expect that laceration to be visible on the superior view of the
brain?
A.
I don't know. I can't tell from this.
MR. GUNN: Could we have the photographs of the superior view, colors 50, 51, and 52?
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Is that laceration which is 4.5 centimeters below the vertex visible on the
photograph of the superior view of the brain?
A.
You know, laceration is a bad way to describe it. It's a big disruption. I guess
we called it a laceration because that seemed like as good a word as any. But it
significantly destroys much of that right cerebral hemisphere.
Q.
So I'm clear, is there a laceration that comes down, that goes from what you're
describing as back to front that is 4.5 centimeters below the top of the skull
and a separate laceration that goes down near the mid-brain?
A.
Yeah, I guess so.
Q.
Do those two lacerations connect to each other?
A.
I don't know. You can't tell from here.
Q.
"From here," you're referring to this—
A.
From the photographs.
Q.
Dr. Humes, did you take a section from the right cerebellar cortex?
A.
According to the supplementary report, I did.
Q.
Why did you take a section from the right cerebellar cortex?
A.
Just to be more all inclusive. For no particular reason.
Q.
Did you take a section from the left cerebellar cortex?
A.
It doesn't appear that I did.
Q.
Is there a reason for not taking one from the left cerebellar cortex?
A.
No. No. If there is, I certainly can't recall what it would have been.
Q.
When you removed the brain, which part of the brain did you cut in order to
remove it?
A.
The brain stem.
Q.
Was the brain—were you able to ascertain whether the brain stem had received
any damage prior to the time that you made the incision?
A.
It was my impression that it had, yes.
Q.
Was the brain stem already disconnected at the time that you—
A.
No, it was not disconnected.
Q.
How was it that you had the impression that it was—that it had received some
kind of laceration or injury?
A.
Well, one of these photographs shows you, as I tried to point out earlier, the
one that was here a few minutes ago—
Q.
The basilar view?
A.
Yeah, the basilar view shows this disrupted-looking area right there. That's the
brain stem.
Q.
Looking at the basilar view, are you able to ascertain whether either the left
or the right cerebellum has been disrupted? We touched on this issue before, but
I just wanted to return to that.
A.
In this photograph, it would appear the right cerebellum has been partially
disrupted, yes.
Q.
But not the left cerebellum?
A.
Not the left. The left seems pretty intact.
Q.
From the superior view of the brain, are you able to identify any disruption of
either left or right hemisphere of the cerebellum?
A.
They both look pretty good from above. You can see both sides. That shows you
why pictures don't always tell the whole story.
Q.
What this seems to be pointing to is two separate lacerations of the brain, one
going through the right cerebrum and the other one high—(?) along the—or 4.5
centimeters from the vertex, the other one going low and hitting the brain stem.
Is that—
A.
I object to the two separate. I think they're all extensions of one another.
Q.
So it is one projectile going through that's causing—
A.
Partially the projectile and partially the explosive force of the missile, and I
can't evaluate with any certainty which is which. If you ever saw a high-speed
photograph of a missile going through a block of wax—many times people use
this to demonstrate speeds of missiles- you'd see that the explosive force is
much larger and destructive, really, than the single path—the path of the
bullet is like an ice pick, relatively narrow in its effect, but it's the force
that's expended as it goes through that is much more dangerous and disruptive.
Q.
Was there a non-disrupted portion of the brain between the portion that was 4.5
centimeters below the vertex and the portion that goes through the brain stem?
Or was it all—
A.
I think there's very little of the right cerebral hemisphere that was not in
some way damaged by this. Very little. Maybe the tip of the temporal lobe,
possibly, was not particularly involved, but as you can see from the
photographs, most of the right cerebral was very seriously injured.
Q.
Other than the left cerebellum, did you notice any disruption of the left
hemisphere of the brain?
A.
No. But there was some contusion, I think, over the surface. There's some
suggestion that the brain bounced off the interior of the skull, and there was
some bruising like thing. Contrecoup injury, they call it.
Q. All right. If we can go to the X-rays.
MR. GUNN: Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Dr. Humes, you're now looking at X-ray 5-B No. 1. I'd like to ask you whether
you have previously seen that X-ray.
A.
I probably have. It's antero-posterior view of the skull and the jaw. It shows
the large bony defect in the right side of the skull, and some white material,
which I presume may be metallic fragments, in the right side of the photograph.
Q.
The left side of the photograph but the right side of the skull?
A.
Right side of the skull, yeah.
Q.
And that appears to be, at least in height, in the orbital range?
A.
Yes, somewheres. Yeah, I would guess.
Q.
Did you notice that what at least appears to be a radio-opaque fragment during
the autopsy?
A.
Well, I told you we received one—we retrieved one or two, and—of course, you
get distortion in the X-ray as far as size goes. The ones we retrieved I didn't
think were of the same size as this would lead you to believe.
Q.
Did you think they were larger or smaller?
A.
Smaller. Smaller, considerably smaller. I mean, these other little things would
be about the size of what—I'm not sure what that is or whether that's a
defect. I'm not enough of a radiologist to be able to tell you. But I don't
remember retrieving anything of that size.
Q.
Well, that was going to be a question, whether you had identified that as a
possible fragment and then removed it.
A.
Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these films.
They all were more of the size of these others.
Q.
What we're referring to is a fragment that appears to be semicircular.
A.
Yeah. I don't know.
Q.
Looking at that X-ray, 5-B No. 1, could you correlate any damage that you see on
the right hemisphere of the skull with the photograph that's to your left now,
which is color photograph—
A.
Oh, sure. The skull defect is obvious. Now, not the brain. You can't tell much
about the brain from here. The brain doesn't—in plain films it doesn't, you
know—it's not well imaged at all.
Q.
To the lay eye—and I mean this to not have any presumption of being
accurate—there is a large gap in the top right quadrant of the skull. That's
on the left side of the X-ray, the right quadrant.
A.
Right.
Q.
What does that signify, as best you recall, having been present at the autopsy?
A.
That's the bone that was removed by the path of the missile.
Q.
Was the frontal bone present on—was the frontal bone still intact on the
President?
A.
It was intact, yes. I can't even make it out here, really.
Q.
You can't see it there, but it was present?
A.
No. It was present, yes, sir.
Q.
Could we look at the second X-ray, please? This will be a right lateral view of
the skull, 5-B No. 2. Dr. Humes, can you identify 5-B No. 2 as being an autopsy
X-ray taken on November 22, 1963?
A.
I guess so. That's really—it's got some very—it's a peculiar exposure. These
are the spines of the vertebrae here, of course, and these are the bodies of the
vertebrae. And these lines are some of the fractures that were present in the
skull.
Q.
You're referring to the lines that are in the top of the parietal bone—
A.
Right.
Q.
—and into the occipital bone; would that be correct?
A.
Right. Those were the fracture lines, and it's difficult—I don't know why this
is so radio opaque, this whole area.
Q.
You're referring to the right frontal area.
A.
What seems to be the frontal portion of it. I don't understand why that is.
You'd have to have some radiologist tell me about that. I can't make that out.
Q.
I'd like you to see if you could identify where you understand the entrance
wound to have been on the skull, looking at this lateral X-ray.
A.
Well, back in this area.
Q.
You're referring to the very low back of the cranium—
A.
Cranium.
Q.
—very near to the vertebra; is that correct?
A.
Well, fairly near, yeah. You can't see it here. I can't see it.
Q.
Do you see any fragments, stellate or otherwise, that would be consistent with
an entry wound in that point?
A.
Well, there's no fragments there. There's fragments or what appear to be
fragments up higher towards the vertex in this picture. Maybe one right in the
middle of the picture. And this may be—do you see where this increased density
is here? There may be two pieces—it may be overlapped. This piece of bone may
overlap that one so it looks more dense there.
Q.
Okay.
A.
That's about as much as I can make of that.
Q.
What I'd like you to do is look at Exhibit No. 73, which is a drawing from
Grant's Anatomy, and see if you could make a marking on Grant's Anatomy—these
are both laterals with the posterior portion of the cranium on the left of the
drawings. If you could make a mark with the pen at approximately where you
understand the entry wound to have been?
A.
No, because it would be down here and you wouldn't be able to see it on this
lateral view, I don't think.
Q.
You're referring to the Grant's Anatomy—
A.
Whatever it is.
Q.
—drawing?
A.
Yeah. See, but it was not that far from the midline, and this is really somewhat
lateral to the midline, this depiction. But, in general, it would be back in
this area some place.
Q.
You're making a blue marking approximately—
A.
Right.
Q.
—Where the entry wound was. Of course, that's not showing it in relationship
to the midline.
A.
No, it does not show it. No. don't understand this great big void there. I don't
know what that's all about.
MR. GUNN: Excuse me for a moment.
[Pause.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
Dr. Humes, I had another question for you about the lateral X-ray.
A.
Mm-hmm.
Q.
And that is whether you can identify the particles that you made reference to
before and where they appear in this photograph.
A.
Well, you see, there's nothing in this projection that appears to be of the size
of the one that appeared to be above and behind the eye on the other one. But
that could be positional or the other thing is an artifact. I don't know what.
But here, above where I talk about this double density that you see here,
there's a fragment. There seems to be one up here in the frontal region and a
couple further up by the vertex.
Q.
Do those metal fragments—or do those radio-opaque objects help you in any way
identify entrance or exit wounds?
A.
No. No, they really don't.
Q.
Is there any relationship or correlation between those metal fragments and the
bullet wound?
A.
Not that I can make out at all, no. They seem to be random.
Q.
Okay. Dr. Humes, I'd like to show you Exhibit 3, which, again, for the record,
is the autopsy protocol, and ask you if you could read the paragraph on page 4
that I'm referring to, the paragraph that starts with "Received."
A.
This would reinforce my opinion that that one photograph was part of the margin
of the exit wound.
Q.
You're referring to View 7 that showed the inside of the cranium? Is that—
A.
Well, it didn't really—I don't know what it showed, my problem is, but in one
of the bone fragments there was a semicircular defect that w not complete, only
part of it. And then when we got these fragments, at one margin of it there's
something that seemed to match up with that fragment that was still in the
skull. My memory's pretty good. I said we had three. That's what we have, I
guess. I described several metallic fragments along the line corresponding to a
line joining the occipital wound with the right supraorbital ridge.
Q.
The above-described small occipital wound and the right supraorbital ridge.
A.
Two small irregularly-shaped fragments of metal are recovered. They measure 7 by
2 and 3 by 1. Well, that large one that you saw in that first AP view of the
skull could be the 7-by-2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI.
Q.
Could you point out for me on X-ray No. 2 where the minute particles of metal in
the bone are in relationship to the small occipital wound and the right
supraorbital ridge?
A.
Well, they don't relate at all in this picture, as far as I'm concerned.
Q.
"This picture" being X-ray No. 2?
A.
Yeah. They don't. I don't know where I got that, but there's—the occipital
wound would never be up that high anywheres up there. There's nothing up there.
Q.
You're pointing to the top left portion of the brain slightly above—
A.
Well, I don't know whether it's left or right. You can't tell that from this.
Don't say that because there's no way of telling that it's left. An X-ray
doesn't tell you whether it's left or right. These fragments here.
Q.
Do you see any fragments that correspond with a small occipital wound?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you recall having seen an X-ray previously that had fragments corresponding
to a small occipital wound?
A.
Well, I reported that I did, so I must have. But I don't see it now.
Q.
Did you have X-rays available for your use while you were preparing the autopsy
protocol?
A.
No.
Q.
Are you reasonably certain that there was an X-ray that showed metallic
fragments going from a small occipital wound?
A.
All I know is I wrote it down. I didn't write it down out of whole cloth. I
wrote down what I saw.
Q.
Does that raise any question in your mind about the authenticity of the X-ray
that you're looking at now in terms of being an X-ray of President Kennedy?
A.
Well, there's aspects of it I don't understand. I don't understand this big void
up— maybe a radiologist could explain I don't know what this big—
Q.
You're referring to—
A.
—non-opaque area that takes up half of the skull here, I don't understand
that.
Q.
Do you remember seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
A.
No, I don't. That doesn't mean it wasn't there, but I don't remember it.
MR. GUNN: Okay. Off the record for a minute.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. GUNN:
Q.
During the course of the deposition, we have talked three photographs that you
had had some understanding existed and that you did not see here today. I'd like
to ask you a question about another possible photograph or X-ray to see if you
have any recollection of it. Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was
taken with a probe inserted into the post thorax?
A.
No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such.
Q.
Do you recall any X-rays that were taken that would have the extremities,
including the hands
and feet?
A.
Yes, we had them. I thought we did, at least. Or maybe—whether we went as far
as the feet and hands—we simply went down the arms. Whether or not the hands
and feet were there or not, I can't remember.
Q.
Why did you take X-rays of the arms?
A.
Because as I mentioned earlier, missiles that enter one portion of the body have
a very strange proclivity of going to the most unexpected locations, and that's
why we did that, to be sure that there wasn't such a missile any place.
Q.
Are you familiar with the term "whole-body radiographic survey"?
A.
Well, I can conjure up what it means. I don't—it's not a phrase that I would
frequently use.
Q.
Is there a term for understanding in radiography that would refer to an X-ray of
the entire body?
A.
I would guess that would be it, yeah.
Q.
And do you remember something of that sort having been ordered by Dr. Finck on
the night of the autopsy?
A.
Truthfully, I don't know. Pierre was really laid back through the whole thing,
and I can't recall him really ordering anything. Maybe he did. But 99 percent of
any kind of orders that were given, I gave. And I don't know. Maybe Pierre did
make such a—I wanted to do that kind of thing for the reason I already gave
you, with or without Pierre. And I don't know whether he commented about it or
was the one that actually told Jack that's what we wanted. I don't know. I don't
remember that.
Q.
When you're referring to Jack, that's Jack Ebersole?
A.
Jack Ebersole, right. He's no longer here to defend himself, unfortunately.
Q.
When did you first meet Arlen Specter?
A.
That's a good question.
Q.
I hope that's not my first good question.
A.
Shortly after the Warren Commission was established, whenever that was. It
happened fairly quickly. President Johnson was anxious to have this whole
matter, obviously, investigated. And I truthfully can't recall exactly when it
was.
Q.
Did you meet him at any point before the Warren Commission was established?
A.
Oh, yes—oh, before
Q.
Before the Warren—
A.
Oh, no. I'd never met him before. No.
Q.
So your meeting with him was entirely in
conjunction with the Warren Commission?
A.
Exactly.
Q.
Approximately how many times did you meet with him during the time that the
Warren Commission was in existence?
A.
Oh, Lord, several times, and for different purposes. We went to view the
Zapruder film, Zapruder, the amateur photographer who made this famous movie. We
went with him to look at the President's clothing. These were all in that
downtown Archives building. We met with him to discuss in the absence of the
photographs and the X-rays how we were going to present our materials when I
decided to employ one of our medical illustrators, a young sailor who was, I
thought, quite capable, and he, acting under my direction, performed pictures
which have been published, I think in the Warren Commission.
Q.
That's Mr. Rydberg?
A.
Yeah, right. Rydberg. He later went to— went on as a medical illustrator at
Chapel Hill at the University of North Carolina. I think now he's down in Texas.
He decided to change careers and become an EMT, of all things. I was very
surprised at that.
So
we met to discuss—not how this was going to be depicted, but would that be an
appropriate device to use in the absence of the photographs and X-rays.
Q.
When you say several times, can you give me a very rough estimate of whether
we're talking in the area of three to four or eight to ten?
A.
I would say more likely in the eight to ten range. Again, that's really off the
top of my head.
Q.
How many times, if you recall, did you meet with Mr. Specter prior to the time
you gave your testimony to the Warren Commission?
A.
All the meetings I ever had with him were in that time frame. So I would say
that many times, whatever I told you, about eight. Don't hold me to that number
because I couldn't swear to that at all.
Q.
That's fine. Did you not meet with him at all after the testimony?
A.
No, other than socially quite a while later when he was by now the district
attorney in Philadelphia, and we didn't even discuss the Warren Commission or
any aspect of it. We seemed to develop a cordial relationship when we were doing
this thing. I haven't talked to him in recent years.
Q.
During the time that you were preparing for the testimony of the Warren
Commission, did you ask to be shown the photographs?
A.
No, because I had already stated that I didn't want them to become public
information, so, therefore, I never asked for them.
Q.
Did Mr. Specter—I keep wanting to say "Senator Specter." Did Mr.
Specter ever suggest to you that he thought it would be appropriate for him to
examine the autopsy photos?
A.
I don't recall that he ever did, no.
Q.
Were you ever pressured or encouraged in any way to have the drawings, the
Rydberg drawings, depict wounds in one place versus another?
A.
No. No. Nobody but me and Rydberg had anything to do with the preparation of
those drawings, and nobody gave me any instructions. See, it's really
funny—whatever. I just don't even understand the question. I was not operating
under anybody's direction at any time, before, during, or after this horrible
event.
Q.
Did you meet with any medical consultants on the Warren Commission staff?
A.
On the Warren Commission staff, No. No. I don't even know who they were, if
there were.
Q.
Did you meet with any forensics consultants on the Warren Commission staff?
A.
Not that I recall.
Q.
Other than Mr. Specter, do you recall having met with anyone else on the Warren
Commission staff other than at the time you testified?
A.
No. I can't swear that I didn't, but I certainly don't remember it.
Q.
During the time that the Warren Commission was in existence, did you meet at all
with any FBI agent or FBI personnel?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you meet during the time the Warren Commission was in existence with anyone
from the Secret Service, other than during the night of the autopsy?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you meet with anyone who was affiliated with the Edgewood facility?
A.
Edgewood Arsenal?
Q.
Yes. During the time of the Warren Commission.
A.
No, I don't think so.
Q.
Does Mr. Olivier, does that name sound familiar?
A.
I have some vague recollection of the name, but I can't go beyond that.
Q.
Did you ever go to Edgewood Arsenal during the time the Warren—
A.
No, no, no.
Q.
—Commission was in existence?
A.
No, no. No.
Q.
Earlier in the deposition, you made reference to your interview with Dan Rather.
Do you recall that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you tell me what the circumstances were that led up to your doing that
interview for CBS?
A.
Only in the vaguest kind of terms. CBS apparently announced that they were going
to put on a three—I think it was a three-hour or a three night report on the
Kennedy assassination, and they apparently approached the Surgeon General of the
Navy to get his permission to speak to me. And he apparently acceded to that.
And then either I or the Surgeon General or some combination of us approached
the Justice Department, and Eardley then sent that letter.
It
was a relatively brief affair. He and I met—CBS has a studio downtown, not too
far from the White House, actually. I forget exactly where it is now.
Pennsylvania Avenue maybe some place. And I got there about 45 minutes before I
was to tape this interview. I was very impressed. He just asked me a few
questions over a period of maybe 10 or 15 minutes, and then I was very impressed
at how he was able to synthesize that into something that seemed to make sense,
you know. And that was the end of it right then and there. I've met Dan Rather a
couple of time since, but it had nothing to do with the Warren Commission.
Q.
Did you speak personally with anyone in the Justice Department about the
interview with CBS?
A.
No. Not that I recall.
Q.
Did you ever meet Mr. Eardley?
A.
Oh, yes. We met him on several occasions. He came down with us when we went to
look at the photographs and so forth. So I met with him on several—I can't
remember how many times, but not real often. Three or four times, probably.
Q.
What was your understanding of his role at the Justice Department in conjunction
with the assassination?
A.
I don't know. He was put forth as a person responsible for some correlative
activities of, I thought, the Warren Commission. I really can't—didn't delve
into it particularly. He seemed to be the Justice Department person that had
some responsibility for the Warren Commission. That responsibility, of course,
was divided up among a lot of people, and I don't know that he was supposed to
just relate to the medical evidence or —I can't recall.
Q.
Did you ever receive any suggestions from him, either directly or indirectly,
about what you should say in the interview with Dan Rather?
A.
Not at all. Zero. If you ask me now what I said, I couldn't tell you. I never
got a tape of it or anything.
Q.
Moving right along, Dr. Humes, did you have any role with respect to the Jim
Garrison investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw?
A.
None.
Q.
Were you ever contacted during the time of the Shaw investigation and trial in
regard to possibly offering testimony?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you ever communicate directly or indirectly with any of the following people
I'm going to name regarding the autopsy or the assassination? First, Robert
McNamara?
A.
No.
Q.
With Robert Kennedy?
A.
No.
Q.
With Jacqueline Kennedy?
A.
No.
Q.
With Admiral Burkley?
A.
Oh, yes. I mean, in the course of the—as we discussed earlier in the
deposition today several times.
Q.
Did you discuss anything with him that you now recall in addition to what we
have previously discussed?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you remember when the last time was you spoke to him about anything related
to the assassination or the autopsy?
A.
Within a week or two after the autopsy.
Q.
That was the last time?
A.
Now, I've seen him socially a couple times. There was no conversation about it
at all. I saw him—I forget when he died. He probably died about eight or ten
years ago, and I saw him a year or two before that at a social affair. No
discussion about it at all.
Q.
Continuing the list, President Johnson?
A.
I met with President Johnson, but not in any way connected with this. In fact,
I'm wearing a pair of cuff links that he gave me today. I was able to report to
him that the nodule we took out of his larynx was benign, and he was very happy.
Q.
I can imagine. I would be, too. You don't wish your cuff links to be part of the
exhibit—
A.
Oh, I think we ought to just take that out of the report, if you don't mind. I
shouldn't have mentioned it, I suppose. But not everybody has a pair of these
presidential cuff links.
Q.
Let me try a last question for you, and that is whether you can yourself think
of any additional information that would be useful to know about the autopsy
that would help provide a better understanding of either what occurred during
the autopsy or the wounds that were inflicted on President Kennedy.
A.
I have trouble conjuring up—I wish that the photographs were more graphic and
more specifically helpful than they are. I'm disappointed by that, and I didn't
find that out with certainty, really, until I got to that House Select Committee
hearing. I had difficulty. There was a lot of people around, and they were
showing and throwing these up, and I really didn't have the time that I had here
even today. And I'm somewhat confused today, as you heard. I was even more
confused at that point. But, you know, that's spilled milk. There was nothing I
could do about those photographs and X-rays, and I just wish they had been more
graphic.
But
would I have done anything otherwise differently retrospectively? Not
particularly, you know. I could have had any number of additional people,
friends of mine in special fields like neuropathology and—I didn't need a
neuropathologist to see that the man's brain was blown—you know, to me the
critical thing was to have somebody that had some experience with ballistics,
and that's when Pierre Finck arrived on the scene. We didn't have anybody like
that in the Navy that I was aware of, to tell you the truth. We since have had
several people very highly trained in forensic pathology, but we didn't at. that
time.
So,
no, it was a very long night that didn't get over until about 5 o'clock in the
morning, just by everybody's urging that we be expeditious in our efforts. It
was not an experience I'd wish to relive, I'll tell you that.
Q.
Are there any additional comments that you would like to make? I told you I'd
give you that opportunity.
A.
No. I'm still somewhat vague on the precise bottom line of your all efforts to
do these things, and I hope that they're helpful. But if you ask a person enough
questions often enough, you're going to confuse themselves sooner or later and
not say the same thing twice. Probably minor variations, but—so I'm concerned
that we've got so much information put together that we—well, there's an
expression in golf. You get paralysis of analysis. You know, you get more
information than you can usefully put together. But that's for your—I mean,
that's for you to decide, not me. I can't tell.
I
continue to be dismayed by the large number of these so-called assassination
buffs. In fact, they seem to proliferate. I was also very displeased with the
Oliver Stone film, which my children urged me to go see because they said,
"They got some guy that looks like he's 89 years old playing your role, and
you were 39." So I did go to see it, and it just seemed to me to be a
disservice to the American people. There were so many vague and cloudy
implications that were mentioned during it. I just found it mind- boggling. It
just disturbed me.
The
other people who—they got an Academy Award for film editing, which they
deserved because they took contemporaneous film and blended it with their film,
and it really made it look like it was contemporaneous. So I think young people
who weren't even born or were in their infancy when this event occurred can be
just totally confused by it, such things as that. That really has nothing to do
with anything. Apparently, that's artistic license. That's what I understand.
But I didn't think it was very helpful to anybody.
Q.
Okay. Thank you very much, Dr. Humes. We appreciate it.
A.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I hope I have not appeared to be
evasive, because I had no intention of being evasive. But when I came upon
questions that I really couldn't specifically remember, I know of nothing else
to say but I don't specifically remember.
MR. GUNN: Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]
[Signature not waived.]
*******
Written Interrogatories to supplement the oral deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes.
In the Autopsy Protocol, the skull entry wound was described as follows: "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm." (Autopsy Protocol, p. 4.)
The Forensic Pathology Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported the following exchange from September 16, 1977:
"Dr. Petty: I'm looking at No. 2, X-ray No. 2. Is this the point of entrance that I'm pointing to?
Dr. Humes: No.
Dr. Petty: This is not?
Dr. Humes and Boswell: No.
Dr. Petty: Where is the point of entrance? That doesn't show?
Dr. Humes: It doesn't show. Below the external occipital protuberance.
Dr. Petty: It's below it?
Dr. Humes: Right.
Dr. Petty: Not above it?
Dr. Humes: No. It's to the right and inferior to the external occipital protuberance.
[Dr. Humes then shown photo 42 (the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region").]
Dr. Petty: Then this is the entrance wound? The one down by the margin of the hair in the back?
Dr Humes: Yes, sir."
(Vol.
7, p. 246 of the House Select Committee on Assassinations Appendices to the
Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.)
The following was taken from your sworn testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations on September 7, 1978, while being shown the Ida Dox drawing (Figure 13):
"[I]t is obvious to me as I sit here now with [this] markedly enlarged drawing of the photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where was, above the external occipital protuberance; therefore I believe that is the wound of entry-" ....
"[T]he object in the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the original autopsy findings." (Vol. 1, p. 327.)
The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that you changed your opinion on the location of the entry wound. "The panel concludes unanimously that the head entrance wound was located approximately 10 cm above the EOP and slightly to the right of the midline ... [W]hile testifying before this committee, Dr. Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, changed his earlier testimony and supported the panel's conclusion as to the location of the wound." (Vol. 7, p. 176.)
Mr. Gerald Posner, author of the book "Case Closed," reported in Congressional testimony that:
"It was the work of [the HSCA] that had the two autopsy physicians change their mind, that they had been mistaken about the placement of the wound, here [slightly above the hairline], and that it is in fact correctly placed 4 inches higher [near the "cowlick" area]. I have spoken to them about this and they have confirmed their change of testimony that they gave before the House Select Committee on Assassinations."
(Posner testimony, Hearing before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, dated November 17, 1993, 112-113.)
Please answer the following interrogatories under oath. Please feel free to attach additional pages to your answers. Your answers may be handwritten.
Interrogatory 1: Did you believe, at the time you wrote and signed the Autopsy Protocol, that the location of the entrance wound in President Kennedy' s skull was 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, as is stated in the Autopsy Protocol?
Interrogatory 1 answer: Yes.
Interrogatory 2: During your communications with the House Select Committee on Assassinations, did you ever change your original opinion about the location of the skull entrance wound? If so, what did you conclude about the location of the entry wound?
Interrogatory 2 answer: See accompanying letter.
Interrogatory 3: Did you ever change your opinion about the location of the entrance wound in the skull? If so, please explain when you changed your opinion and the circumstances that. led you to change your opinion.
Interrogatory 3 answer: See accompanying letter.
Interrogatory 4: What is your current belief as to the location of the entry wound in President Kennedy's skull?
Interrogatory 4 answer: As stated in the autopsy report.
CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT
I have read the foregoing 248 pages which contain the correct transcript of the answers made by me to the questions therein recorded.
(signed James J. Humes MD)
Subscribed and sworn before me this 11th day of March 1996
(signed
Barbara Cole)
Notary Public in and for
My commission expires 11/21/99
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I, ROBERT HAINES, the officer before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby testify that the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me stenographically and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken; and further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
(signed Robert Haines)
ROBERT
HAINES
Notary Public in and for the
State of Maryland
My commission expires: March 18, 1998
*******
FYI
Assassination
Records Review Board
600 E Street NW - 2nd Floor - Washington, DC 20530
(202) 724-0088 - Fax: (202) 724-0457
March 7,1996
Dr.
James J. Humes
Spy Glass Lane
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082-3719
Dear Dr. Humes:
I
am enclosing a copy of the transcript of your February 13,1996 deposition. As I
mentioned to you, I would like you to take the opportunity to review the
transcript and correct any errors that you notice. Once you have made the
corrections, I would like to ask you to sign the certificate at the end of the
transcript before a notary, and return your original to me. The changes will be
made to a final draft, and I will send a copy of the final to you as soon as it
is completed.
I
would like you to be aware of some minor changes that I am proposing to make to
the transcript in order to improve the clarity. As you may recall, at one point
during the deposition I inaccurately referred to the autopsy photos View Number
4 (the "posterior view of wound of entrance of missile high in
shoulder"), which you had in front of you at the time, as "View Number
5." In order to clear up what may be unclear in the transcript, I have
marked out (in red ink) the incorrect number (5) and substituted the correct
number (4). These changes may be found on pages 166 and 169 (line 5) and page
171 (lines 13 and 22). Unless I hear from you on this matter, I will assume that
those changes are acceptable to you.
There
was another ambiguity in my questions that I would like to clarify, if possible.
While we were discussing View Number 7 ("missile wound of entrance in
posterior skull, following reflection of scalp"), we discussed the
possibility that additional photos might have been taken of the skull entry
wound both from the exterior (with the scalp reflected) and from the inside of
the cranium. I would like to propose two changes to my questions on page 200 to
help clarify this issue. The changes, which are marked in red ink on your
original, would delete "back" from line 3 and insert "posterior
skull" and delete "scalp" from line 10 and insert
"'skull." Although I believe that the purport of your answer presumed
the sense of the question that I now propose, I do not want to make any
revisions if the proposed changes would alter the accuracy of your answers. Once
again, please let me know if these proposed changes are unacceptable to you.
Finally,
I would like to add some additional short questions to help clarify an important
issue: your opinion as to the location of the skull entrance wound. As you may
know, there has been some uncertainty with respect to whether you ever changed
your opinion on the location of that wound. I have added a short series of
interrogatories, beginning on page 241 of the deposition transcript, that I
would appreciate your answering subject to the same oath that you took during
the deposition. You should feel free to handwrite your answer in the appropriate
place. It is possible that the questions might be answered with a one word
"yes" or "'no," but you should feel free to elaborate to
make your answer clear. I am enclosing a photocopy of one of the drawings
referenced therein, Ida Dox (Figure 13).
I
am enclosing a self-addressed pre-paid Federal Express envelope for your
convenience. Please do not hesitate to call (collect) if you have any questions.
I
should not neglect to mention that we heard from Senator Specter, who said that
he had no objection to the inclusion of his letter in the JFK Collection. I am
attaching a photocopy of his letter.
Once
again, we very much appreciate your cooperation.
Sincerely,
(signed T. Jeremy Gunn)
T.
Jeremy Gunn
General Counsel
Enclosure
FILE COPY
RECEIVED MAR 12, 1996
James
J. Humes, M.D.
Spy Glass Lane
Pontce Vedro Beach, FL 32082
(904) 285-6541
Fax: (904) 273-8571
March 11, 1996.
T.
Jeremy Gunn,
Assassination Records Review Board,
600 E. Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC, 20530.
Dear Mr. Gunn,
I am returning herewith the transcript of my deposition before the Board on Feb. 13,1996. In my review I found the following minor errors:
Page 22. L21 "Peter " should be "Pierre".
Page 32, L1 "Picture" should be "Pictures".
Page 43, L5 "Roof" should be "Windshield".
Page 62, L10 "thera-" should be "therapists".
Page 80, L15 'to " should be "on "
Page 120, L10 delete the "s" in anywheres.
With
regard to the changes which you have suggested in the printed transcript, I
agree with all of them.
With
regard to your four final questions, I make the following response. Both during
my testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and during
this disposition I experienced great difficulty in interpreting the location of
the wound of entrance in the posterior scalp from the photograph. This may he
because of the angle from which it was taken, or the position of the head, etc.
It is obvious that the location of the external occipital protuberance cannot he
ascertained from the photograph. I most firmly believe that the location of the
wound was exactly where I measured it to be in relation to the external
occipital protuberance and so recorded it in the autopsy report. After all that
was my direct observation in the morgue and I believe it to be far more reliable
than attempting to interpret what I believe to be a photograph which is subject
to various interpretations.
I
appreciated your courteous manner in conducting the deposition and will be
available if I can he of further assistance.
Sincerely
(signed James J. Humes)