INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY SELECT U.S. HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 6, 7, AND 8, 1978 VOLUME I Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Assassinations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1978 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS LOUIS STOKES, Ohio, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, North Carolina SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio WALTER E. FAUNTROY, District of Columbia STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, California CHARLES THONE, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michigan HAROLD E. FORD, Tennessee FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana ROBERT W. EDGAR, Pennsylvania Subcommittee on the Subcommittee on the Assassination of Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. John F Kennedy WALTER E. FAUNTROY, Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER, Chairman HAROLD E. FORD YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE FLOYD J. FITHIAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD ROBERT W. EDGAR CHARLES THONE STEWART B. McKINNEY HAROLD S. SAWYER LOUIS STOKES, ex officio LOUIS STOKES, ex officio SAMUEL L. DEVINE, ex officio SAMUEL L. DEVINE, ex officio (II) CONTENTS September 6, 1978: Page Opening statement of Representative Richardson Preyer.................. 3 Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director........ 5 Testimony of Mr. and Mrs. John B. Connally, Dallas, Tex................ 11 AFTERNOON SESSION Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director........ 61 Testimony of Robert Groden, photo-optics technician.................... 62 September 7, 1978: Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director....... 141 Testimony of Ida Dox professional medical illustrator................. 146 Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director....... 148 Testimony of Dr. Lowell Levine consultant to the chief medical examiner, New York City and Calvin S. McCamy, chairman of the American National Standards Working Group on Print Quality for Optical Charac- ter Recognition.................................................. 149 Testimony of Dr. Michael Baden, pathologist and chief medical examiner for the city of New York......................................... 180 AFTERNOON SESSION Testimony of Dr. Michael Baden--(Resumed)............................. 303 Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director...... 323 Testimony of Capt. James J. Humes, M.D., clinical professor of pathology Wayne State School of Medicine........................ 323 Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director....... 332 Testimony of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, coroner, Allegheny County, Pa........ 332 September 8, 1978: Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director....... 375 Testimony of Dr. Charles S. Petty M.D................................. 375 Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director....... 381 Testimony of Larry Sturdivan, physical scientist, Aberdeen Proving Ground Vulnerability Laboratory, Aberdeen, Md.................... 383 AFTERNOON SESSION Narration by G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director....... 442 Testimony of firearms panel:.Monty C. Lutz, Donald E. Champagne, John S. Bates. Jr., and Andrew M. Newquist............................ 444 Narration G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director.......... 489 Testimony of Dr. Vincent P. Guinn..................................... 491 (III) INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C The committee met at 9:05 a.m. pursuant to notice, in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Stokes, Preyer, Fauntroy, Dodd, Fithian, Edgar, Devine, McKinney, and Sawyer. Staff present: Clifford A. Fenton, Jr., chief investigator; Kenneth D. Klein, assistant deputy chief counsel; Gary T. Cornwell, deputy chief counsel; Leodis C. Matthews, staff counsel; Belford V. Lawson 111, staff counsel; G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel; Elizabeth Berning, chief clerk; Michael Goldsmith, staff counsel; and Jane Downey, staff counsel. Chairman STOKES. A quorum being present, at this time the committee will come to order. This morning, the Select Committee on Assassinations begins its public hearings into the death of President John F. Kennedy. The committee has identified three main issues to investigate in order to fulfill its legislative mandate, which is found in House Resolution 222. First: Who assassinated President Kennedy? Second: Did Federal agencies perform adequately in the sharing of information prior to the assassination, in the protection of President Kennedy, and in their investigation of the assassination? Third: Did the assassin or assassins have assistance; that is, was there a conspiracy? In addressing these issues, the committee has made every effort to be fair and objective. As I said when the committee began its public hearing into the King assassination, we regard each of these issues to be equal in importance with the others. We are not, for example, more interested in conspiracy theories than in a balanced evaluation of agency performance. Moreover, while it is true that individual members of the committee may have reached some preliminary judgments on certain issues after many months of studying them, we are suspending judgment as a committee until all of the evidence is in. This, then, brings me to a very important part of our assignment. We must, in the end, report our recommendations to the House of Representatives and to the American public. For this purpose, we have set aside a period in December to weigh the evidence in both (1) 2 the Kennedy case and the King case. Only then will we be ready to reach conclusions, make them public, and propose new legislation, if we deem it appropriate. It will be then, too, that we will write our final report. These hearings now are designed to present and to assess the credibility of the evidence the investigation has developed. If, in the process, new leads are uncovered, we are also prepared to pursue them. Now, I would like to spend a minute explaining the important difference between these hearings and a criminal trial. The distinction is a fairly subtle one, and it would be easy for people to become confused. I suspect that some did during our hearings into the possible involvement of James Earl Ray in the death of Dr. King. It is necessary to appreciate the differences in order to understand the nature of our work. There are several characteristics of a trial that do not apply to these congressional hearings: First, there is no defendant. Second, there is no prosecutor. Third, there is no specific burden of proof, no requirement to demonstrate anything beyond a reasonable doubt. And, Fourth, there is no pending indictment. Now, then, what are we doing here? This committee is evaluating evidence, and we are, in fact, willing to listen to evidence that some of our members may not ultimately be willing to credit. We want to examine all of the evidence, not just that which fits some predetermined mold. Unlike in a trial, we do not insist that evidence be vouched for in advance by either the staff or the committee. Of course, a minimum test of credibility has been applied to evidence the staff presents, or the committee will permit to be publicly aired; that is to say, the committee will not listen to evidence that a reasonable person would dismiss out of hand. Indeed, that is the reason why the committee has examined much of the evidence it will receive in public session in executive session. We want a preliminary judgment of credibility. But the committee wants to be open minded. We want to be able to assess all of the key evidence on the relevant issues, leaving our ultimate decision to the public meetings to be held in December. A further point. Those people who follow the hearings either in person or by way of the news media cannot expect each day's presentation to be self-contained. We may raise issues one day that cannot be resolved until testimony can be taken on a subsequent day. Indeed, certain issues may not be resolved at all, in the event some important evidence is not available to us or to anyone. Not all questions that can be asked can be answered. It is also the intent of the committee to write a complete historic record, one designed to be read as a whole, when we have completed all of our work. It would be a mistake, therefore, for anyone to look for some sensation that makes a news headline each day that this committee meets. Those who do I am afraid will be disappointed. Indeed, some of our work may be dull, but necessary nevertheless. For one reason, we are not only concerned with the meaning of our work at this given moment, but hopefully for years ahead. 3 Today, and the rest of this week, we will address these subjects: One. The facts and circumstances surrounding President Kennedy's trip to Dallas on November 22, 1963; and, two, a scientific analysis of the facts of the President's death, including the autopsy performed on the President's body, the effect of the missiles that hit him, and other ballistics evidence. To begin the first phase of our hearing, I would like to at this time recognize Congressman Richardson Preyer, my distinguished colleague from the State of North Carolina, who as chairman of the Kennedy subcommittee has indeed worked tirelessly many long hours with the members of his subcommittee in order to prepare for these hearings that will now unfold. It is my pleasure at this time to recognize my distinguished colleague, Judge Preyer. OPENING STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE RICHARDSON PREYER, NORTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the hearings to be conducted throughout the month of September on the assassination of President Kennedy, we intend to develop three general themes. First, we will consider the life and death of President Kennedy and the involvement in that death, if any, of Lee Harvey Oswald. The emphasis here will be on hard evidence, much of it old evidence we will reexamine, though in some instances new evidence that has been turned up by the committee. In either case, we will be assisted in the effort by science and technology that wasn't readily available to investigative agencies in 1964. Second, we will present an evaluation of the performance of Federal agencies whose assignments have been related to the assassination or the investigation that followed it. These include the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Justice, and the Warren Commission. Third, we will review conspiracy theories. some specious, some sinister, some inconsistent With one another. In this effort, we will take into account the climate for conspiracy in 1963, and we will closely examine the possible involvement of certain groups or forces that had the motive, opportunity, and means--all three elements being essential--to seek the President's death. It must be emphasized that as yet the committee has reached no final judgment of the validity of these theories. Indeed, the committee has not reached an ultimate judgment on any of the issues posed in any of the areas I have mentioned. It is for this very reason that as these hearings progress, the committee will at times be considering bodies of evidence that point in mutually contradictory directions. As I have noted, Mr. Chairman, this is particularly true in the area of conspiracy. Now, I would like to talk for a minute about the course of this investigation to date. The evidence about to be presented is the product of over a year of effort by the subcommittee and a staff of 40 attorneys, investigators, and researchers. They have spent many man-hours sorting out a voluminous 15-year accumulation of information, interviewing hundreds of witnesses and helping the subcommittee conduct hearings in executive session. 4 The staff and committee members have found it necessary to go on the road to pursue leads and gather data. Cities like Miami, New Orleans, and, of course, Dallas were visited often, and there were trips to foreign cities--Havana, Mexico City, Paris, Madrid. In all, there were 385 trips to 564 points, taking into account return visits, over a total of 1,807 days traveled. As for witness interviews, 1,548 of them were conducted, and a total of 75 witnesses were questioned in executive session. I should note, Mr. Chairman, that these figures are based on statistics compiled as of the end of the first 6 months of this year. Since the investigation is ongoing to the end of the year, they will be revised upward. Mr. Chairman, I realize, while statistics don't always lie, they seldom voluntarily tell the truth and I am not offering these statistics as a measure of the success of the investigation, but I think it is some measure of the effort that has gone into it. One important measure of that effort, however, is hard to pinpoint. It is the hundreds of agency files the staff reviewed. It combed through over 500 files from the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, Departments of State and Defense, and others. But a file can range from a few pages to thousands. To get an idea of the size of the task, one should realize that the FBI file on Lee Harvey Oswald alone consists of 238 volumes that in turn contain 5,754 serials. Finally, we employed several consultants in areas of the investigation that required very specialized knowledge and training. A panel of medical experts, for example, studied the autopsy X-rays and photographs. The results of their work will be the subject of tomorrow's hearing. There have been 44 consultants under contract--in such diverse fields as ballistics, photography, pathology, handwriting, polygraph analysis, and medical illustrations. It has been a concerted effort, Mr. Chairman. Now comes the real test, as we assess the quality of the evidence in these hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Judge Preyer. Now, I am pleased to recognize my colleague from Ohio, the distinguished ranking minority member of this committee, who has worked untiringly as a member of this full committee and also of the Kennedy Subcommittee, for such remarks as he cares to make at this time. Mr. Devine. Mr. DEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I would like to point out that our investigation will not end with these public hearings at the end of this month, at which time we still will have 3 months of hard work to do. Important aspects of the investigation will continue as we fit the last pieces into the mosaic that we are making. We expect to interview additional witnesses, to meet in executive session, and to complete the task of writing our final report. Much of the effort that remains has to do with resolving seemingly minor points. The alternative to doing this would be to allow gaps to go unanswered and to publish a report that lacks unity. If we did that, we would fail the tests that surely will be applied to the job we do--the test of professionalism and the test of craftsmanship. 5 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Devine. The Chair would like to announce that close to the hour of 10 a.m., it will be necessary for the chairman of the committee, the ranking minority member, Mr. Devine, the chairman of the two subcommittees, Mr. Preyer and Mr. Fauntroy, to leave these hearings and appear before the House Administration committee relative to the balance of the funding for this committee. So when we depart, it will be for that reason. Of course, we will return to the hearing as soon as our work before another congressional committee has been completed. The Chair at this time recognizes general counsel of the committee, Professor Blakey. NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the committee begins its public hearings on the assassination of President Kennedy, it seems appropriate to reflect for a moment on the meaning of the life and death of our 35th President. Appropriate, because, as in the King assassination, ultimately this committee must face this question: Was the President's death unrelated to his life, a senseless act, or did it have meaning? To begin to understand his death, it is perhaps instructive to refresh our memories of his life, to go back to a cold January morning in 1961 when he stood before the Nation that had just elected him and voiced these memorable words: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any prices, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty. No words that could be written now more aptly portray the determination of John F. Kennedy as he assumed office. An articu- late, confident new President--his mettle was yet to be tested--he confronted the issues that would put him in conflict with awesome forces abroad and at home. The war was his foremost concern, as the United States and the Soviet Union stood poised to obliterate each other--or to coexist. Kennedy had come down hard in the campaign on a need to bolster military might, a position he would amplify by tacking an extra $4 billion to the budget for defense that former President Eisenhower had approved. There were, in fact, trouble spots in the world where the poten- tial of hostilities was real, countries where the Communists were securing a foothold, including one only 90 miles away--Cuba. Domestic issues had a potential for violence as well. There was racial turmoil in the South-freedom rides and sitins--and there was no way a man like John F. Kennedy would or could stand on the sidelines. And there was the menace of organized crime. The Justice Department run by the President's brother, Robert F. Kennedy, was gearing for an all out drive on the mob which would include a concerted effort to send teamster President James Hoffa to prison. The President's popularity was high--he came into office with a 69-percent approval rating in the Gallup Poll. But his policies both 6 foreign and domestic were in for rough going. A trend against him, barely perceptible at first, was running in the country . On the international scene, Kennedy had scarcely been in office for a formative 100 days when disaster struck. After long deliberation, he approved the landing of an invasion force of anti-Castro exiles on the southern coast of Cuba; a place whose name would signify failure in American foreign policy for years to come. It was called Baya Cochinos, the Bay of Pigs. Responsibility for the fiasco was accepted by Kennedy shortly after the exiles were defeated by Castro's troops and when the United States could no longer disavow its role in the ill-fated expedition. But privately he blamed the CIA, reportedly vowing to "splinter the agency into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." Kennedy was a war hero with combative instincts. He would not soon forget the Bay of Pigs easily, for it had raised questions about him as a coolheaded leader and opened him to the criticism of friend and foe alike. But he was not a man to back down. His military policy was to beef up conventional forces--more footsoldiers and planes and ships to transport them--and he ordered a maximum effort in training troops for guerrilla warfare. When the release of Cubans captured at the Bay of Pigs had been negotiated by late 1962, Kennedy greeted them at the Orange Bowl in Miami with a defiant promise to return their flag to them in a free Cuba. Kennedy went to Europe in May, and in Vienna he talked cold war politics with Khrushchev for 12 hours. Nuclear testing, disarmament, and Berlin were the topics of discussion, but there was no indication of agreement. Khrushchev's hard line stand on Berlin became clear within a month of the meeting. He told the Western Powers to get out of the city by the end of the year, threatening to sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany, one that would give the East Germans control of western access routes and end four-power control of Berlin, called for in the Potsdam Agreement. With Russian determination to eliminate West Berlin seemingly as avowed as the U.S. commitment to preserve it, the prospect for world war III was greater than ever. True to form, Kennedy did not back down. In July, he made a stirring address to the Nation on the will to fight, and he backed it up with a call for 217,000 more men in uniform. He ordered the draft doubled and tripled, if necessary, and he requested authority to activate Reserve and National Guard units. "In meeting my responsibilities in these coming months," he told the American people, "I need your good will and your support and, above all, your prayers." Meanwhile, Kennedy was determined not to be blindsighted in his own hemisphere. His Alliance for Progress was designed to wipe out the seedbed of communism in Latin America by raising living standards. Throughout the summer of 1961, the leaders of Central and South American countries were coming to Washington for their share of the billions of dollars the United States was paying to contain Castro. 7 As 1962 opened, Kennedy was wrestling with the nasty decision of whether to resume atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. The Russians had thrust it upon him by a series of surprise tests started the past September, despite an earlier promise by Khrushchev to join the United States in a no-test policy. At the same time, the world's hotspots simmered: In Berlin, Khrushchev had backed his threats by building the successive deadlines passed, Western rights remained intact. In South Vietnam, Kennedy had decided to take a stand against Soviet inspired "wars of liberation.' He fortified this position by sending over 4,000 military specialists. To add to international hazards, negotiations with the Russians on nuclear tests had stalled. So, in April, Kennedy made the agonizing decision to resume them, giving a go-ahead to a series of blasts over Christmas Island in the central Pacific. He told a writer it was his fate to "take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them." On a visit to Mexico in June, Kennedy was greeted with rousing enthusiasm that seemed to say his hemisphere policy was faring well. But then in October, he faced in Cuba a crisis of a dimension unparalleled during his brief Presidency. The world had not faced at any time before, nor has it since, a more immediate prospect for nuclear holocaust. Kennedy had returned abruptly from a political trip to Chicago on October 20, using a sudden cold as a pretext for the surprise change in plans. On Monday, the 22d, he revealed the real reason for the move-the United States had discovered from reconnaissance photographs that the Soviet Union had deployed ballistic missiles and jet bombers in Cuba. He announced he had ordered an air-sea quarantine on shipping into Cuba and promised more drastic action if the missiles and bombers were not removed. It was a tense 5 days that led to a decision by Khrushchev to pull out his offensive hardware. Kennedy, for his part, agreed not to invade Cuba, and he lifted the blockade. By the end of 1962, Khrushchev finally had come to realize that President Kennedy was not a toothless tiger. Kennedy, in turn, felt the momentum the Soviets had gained from the time they leaped out ahead in the space race had been braked by the outcome of the Cuban adventure, and he was satisfied that the foe in the Kremlin would be more cautious in the future. Still there was an uneasiness over Cuba in 1963. The Soviet presence was symbolized by an attack of a Cuban Air Force Mig on an American shrimp boat. Some 17,000 Russian troops still occupied the country; 500 antiaircraft missiles plus a large quantity of other Soviet armaments were emplaced there. But a thaw in the cold war was perceptible, a result of Kennedy's foreign policy strategy which emphasized inch-by-inch progress. On June 10, he said in his memorable American University speech, "Let us focus on a peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution of human institutions." He announced the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union would begin work on a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. 8 The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a major achievement of the Kennedy administration, was initiated in Moscow on August 5 and ratified by the U.S. Senate on September 4. On the domestic scene, the Kennedy administration was most note worthy accomplishments were in Civil rights, though the President would not live to see the passage of legislation he proposed, the most far reaching since Reconstruction. Violence erupted soon after Kennedy took the oath of office. In Alabama, in May 1961, the Congress on Racial Equality staged a series of freedom rides for the purpose of integrating buses and terminals. Through a long night of rioting in Montgomery, quelled only after troops had been called out, Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy was on the phone counseling one of the leaders of the civil rights movement in the country, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The freedom rides ended when the protesters were arrested in Mississippi, but the point had been made. The Attorney General soon petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission, which the following September adopted rules banning segregation on interstate buses and in terminals. There was another civil rights storm in October 1962. James Meredith, a 29-year-old black student, had tried to enroll at the University of Mississippi but had been refused, despite the orders of Federal courts. The Kennedy administration led a step-by-step campaign to force compliance by the State, whose Governor was equally determined to defy the courts. When Meredith arrived at Ole Miss on a Sunday, he was accompanied by 300 U.S. marshals, but they were no match for an angry mob of 2,500 students and outside extremists. Just as Kennedy went on the air to ask for calm, the campus exploded, and it took Federal troops to restore the peace. But Meredith was successfully enrolled. The civil rights summer of 1963 began in Birmingham, Ala., in April. There, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., led an all-out attack on what he called "the most segregated city in the United States." On May 3, the demonstrators were attacked by police dogs and doused with firehoses, and pictures of these brutal tactics led to a worldwide outcry. When calm was restored, the movement for equal rights had triumphed. Birmingham became a rallying cry in cities across the South, as well as in Chicago and New York. Kennedy addressed the Nation on June 11 to win support for his civil rights bill which, among other things, guaranteed blacks the right to vote and access to public accommodations. "We are confronted primarily with a moral issue," he said. "The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand." The menace of organized crime was another dominant issue of the Kennedy years. The President had first encountered it when, as a Senator, he became a member of a new Select Committee on Labor Racketeering. Bob Kennedy was chief counsel of the Rackets Committee, and later, as Attorney General, he would become the President's surrogate in an unprecedented campaign against the forces of the underworld. There were dramatic developments in the war on organized crime just before and after Kennedy came to the White House. A roundup of hoodlums in Apalachin, N.Y., in 1957--followed by an 9 abortive prosecution of many of the leaders--served to show how lackadaisical the Federal effort had been. Then the Senate testimony of Mafia member Joseph Valachi helped to catalyze a renewed emphasis on that effort. More than anything, though, the personal zeal of the Kennedy brothers meant hard times for the mob--the roughest period in the history of the Department of Justice. The historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., wrote in a recent book about Robert Kennedy that due to his pressure "the National Government took on organized crime as it had never done before." Schlesinger observes: In New York, Robert Morganthau, the Federal Attorney, successfully prosecuted one syndicate leader after another. The Patriarca gang in Rhode Island and the De Cavalcante gang in New Jersey were smashed. Convictions of racketeers by the Organized Crime Section and the Tax Division steadily increased--96 in 1961, 101 in 1962, 373 in 1963. So long as John Kennedy sat in the White House, giving his Attorney General absolute backing, the underworld knew that the heat was on. Bob Kennedy directed his big guns at targets he had pinpointed when he was with the Rackets Committee. One in particular was the alliance of top labor leaders and racketeering figures, one that to him was personified in the character of Teamster President James R. Hoffa. "The pursuit of Hoffa," Schlesinger writes, "was an aspect of the war on organized crime." He adds: The relations between the Teamsters and the syndicates continued to grow. The FBI electronic microphone, planted from 1961 to 1964 in the office of Anthony Giacolone, a Detroit hood, revealed Hoffa's deep if wary involvement with the local mob. For national purposes a meeting place was Rancho La Costa Country Club near San Clemente, California, built with a $27 million loan from the Teamsters pension fund; its proprietor, Morris B. Dalitz, had emerged from the Detroit underworld to become a Las Vegas and Havana gambling figure. Here the Teamsters and the mob golfed and drank together. Here, they no doubt reflected that as long as John Kennedy was President, Robert Kennedy would be unassailable. In the beginning, Kennedy was an extremely popular President. Ironically, his ratings were highest in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs--a remarkable 83 percent in the Gallup Poll. But by the fall of 1963, the fateful fall of 1963, he had dipped by 24 points, and he had begun to have misgivings about the political implications. In October, Newsweek reported that the racial issue alone had cost him 3.5 million votes, adding that no Democrat in the White House had ever been so disliked in the South. For several reasons--politics among them--Kennedy was an active traveler. His diplomatic missions abroad were interspersed by trips around the country. In June 1963, he was in Germany, Ireland, and Italy, and later that summer he toured the Western United States--North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Utah, Oregon, Nevada, and California. Not only did Kennedy like to be on the go, but, almost recklessly, he resisted the protective measures the Secret Service sought to press upon him. He would not allow blaring sirens, and only once-in Chicago in March 1963--did he permit his limousine to be flanked by motorcycle policemen. He once told the special agent in charge of the White House detail he did not want agents riding on the rear of his car. 10 He was philosophic about the danger. During the Texas trip, he told his special White House assistant: * * * if anybody really wanted to shoot the President, * * * it was not a very difficult job--all one had to do was get a high building some day with a telescopic rifle, and there was nothing anybody could do to defend against such an attempt. There has been dispute over why Kennedy would risk traveling to Texas at a time when the South had been the scene of violent incidents stemming out of the civil rights controversy. Why Dallas, in particular, where only a month before Kennedy's scheduled arrival on November 22, Adlai Stevenson had been booed and spat upon? Some say Kennedy went to shore up his own political standing in a State he had won by an eyelash in 1960. Others cite a need perceived by Kennedy to remedy a splintering of liberal and conservative fractions within the State Democratic organization. Most agree, however, it was political. Kennedy was fond of motorcades, because they afforded him an opportunity to get close to people. He made a special point of riding in one in Dallas on November 22, 1963, for he felt it would be his one chance that day to greet working people and members of minority groups. In fact, it was his last chance. Mr. Chairman, the witnesses we would like, with your permission, to call at this time are Mr. and Mrs. John B. Connally, who were riding in the limousine with President and Mrs. Kennedy at the time of the assassination. Wounded in the back, chest, wrist, and thigh by rifle fire, Governor Connally was rushed to Park Land Hospital where, though first listed in critical condition, he eventually recovered. Mr. Connally was an administrative assistant to Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, and he served as Secretary of the Navy in the Kennedy administration. He was Governor of Texas from 1963 to 1969 .and Secretary of the Treasury in the Nixon administration in 1971 and 1972. He was special advisor to President Nixon in 1973. He is presently with the Houston law firm of Vinson, Elkins, Searls, Connally & Smith. It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. and Mrs. Connally. Chairman STOKES. The Chair calls Governor and Mrs. Connally. Governor, would you and Mrs. Connally stand and be sworn. Please, raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mrs. CONNALLY. I do. Mr. CONNALLY. I do. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. Governor and Mrs. Connally, on behalf of the Select Committee on Assassinations, I want to extend to you our most sincere appreciation for your appearance during the beginning of these public hearings. Our mandate from the U.S. House of Representatives requires this committee to investigate all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As 11 you are well aware, this tragic and shocking event occurred during the President's visit to Dallas, Tex. Indeed, you, yourself, Governor Connally, were critically wounded during the barrage of gunfire. The President was visiting the fourth of a five-city visit on an appearance schedule that you were instrumental in planning. The President had come to Texas at your invitation and you were his official host. Accordingly, to begin our inquiry into this area, we considered it appropriate to request your appearance to give testimony on the facts and circumstances surrounding President Kennedy's decision to visit Texas. Your testimony should cover all of the subsequent events that occurred as well as the course of preparations and any considerations involved therein. In addition, it will include all decisions leading up to the President appearing in the Dallas motorcade on a route through an area the world has so tragically come to remember as Dealey Plaza and the building known as the Texas School Book Depository. At this time, I will ask your indulgence in our being excused and I will, at this time, ask my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to assume the chair. Mr. DODD. At this time, I will ask Mr. Gary Cornwell, who is the deputy chief counsel for the Kennedy investigation, to ask you some questions, Governor and Mrs. Connally. Again, we appreciate your appearance here today. TESTIMONY OF MR. AND MRS. JOHN B. CONNALLY, DALLAS, TEX. Mr. CONNALLY. Thank you, Mr. Dodd. Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Connally, I would like to begin by asking you if it would be accurate to state that you had a leading role in the decisionmaking process that led to the President's trip to Dallas on November 22, 1963? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, Mr. Cornwell, it certainly would be accurate to say that. Mr. CORNWELL. When did the possibility of that trip first become a matter of concern to you? Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, I wouldn't characterize it as a matter of concern, but the possibility of a trip to Texas arose, as I recall, in the spring of 1962. Mr. CORNWELL. What were you doing during that period of time? Mr. CONNALLY. In 1962, I was running for Governor of Texas, in the midst of a campaign. Vice President Johnson told me then that President Kennedy wanted to come to Texas, he wanted to come to Texas to raise some money, have some fundraising affairs over the State. I was not the least bit interested, very frankly, at that point in time, in trying to put together a trip, sponsoring a dinner, for a number of reasons. First, I was in the midst of a primary battle. I was running against an incumbent Governor, an incumbent attorney general, and a number of other candidates. The first poll that came out after I announced my candidacy indicated that I had 4 percent of the votes. So, I had an uphill climb in the battle. 12 I fortunately led the primary campaign but went into a runoff with a young man, then the leader of the liberal element of the Democratic Party in Texas, named Don Yarborough. I was successful in the runoff in winning the primary runoff, but then was confronted with very, very determined, well-financed, extremely able opposition in the general election. So frankly, I kept putting off any proposed trip to Texas, again, for a number of reasons. First, every hour, every bit of energy that any of us had was directed toward my own campaign that year. I didn't think we had the organization, I didn't think we had the time, I didn't think it was the appropriate time to try to bring the President into the State. I didn't think we could do credit to a visit, so I kept delaying it, not with standing the continuous and repeated suggestions from the Vice President who, frankly, was being needled by the President. The President was making it quite clear to the Vice President, Mr, Johnson, that he wanted to come to Texas and he wanted to raise some money in Texas. I can pause there, Mr. Cornwell. Mr. CORNWELL. That answers the question. Let me ask you, if you were just beginning to run in the primaries, why was it that the President's desire to have a trip to Texas was brought to your attention? Why was it that you were asked at that point to take part in the trip? Mr. CONNALLY. Well, I think first, I had known President Kennedy since the early 1950's. I had been vice chairman of the Texas delegation to the national convention in Chicago in 1956 when we supported Mr. Kennedy then, Senator Kennedy, as Vice Presidential nominee on the national ticket with Mr. Stevenson. I had, as you know, as Mr. Blakey just recounted, I had been appointed by President Kennedy as Secretary of the Navy and had served in the year 1961 as Secretary of the Navy. I, as a matter of fact, not only talked to Mr. McNamara, but I had gone and talked to President Kennedy before I went home to run for Governor. So I was certainly, at that point, probably the Texan, outside of Vice President Johnson, who was closest to the Kennedy administration, and I think it was normal and natural that they would expect me to become involved in it. Mr. CORNWELL. Why, at that point in time, did you understand the President wanted to come to Texas? Mr. CONNALLY. There was never any doubt in my mind about it. There was never any doubt in the President's mind or Vice President's mind. He wanted to come to Texas for two reasons: First, to raise money; second, to enhance his own political fortunes in Texas. No doubt about it. No other reason. Much has been written, much has been speculated, but I assure you over many, many months, it was very obvious, very clear that that was the purpose. As a matter of fact, in 1963, after the--let me digress a moment. After the campaign was over in November 1962, and I had been successfully elected Governor, then I had only 60 days between November and January in order to build a staff and to develop a budget, to develop a legislative program to submit to the legislature on approximately January 20. This was my first legislative session of 120 days and, again, I resisted any proposed Presidential 13 trips to Texas because I was totally absorbed and consumed, all of my energies, all of my staff, with the legislative program. It was obvious, though, that as soon as that was over, we were going to have to have a trip. I was perfectly willing, at this time, to undertake to organize one, but all during this period of time, it was quite clear that the President wanted to come for the purposes for which I have stated; namely, to raise money; second, to enhance his political fortunes in Texas. I must say that at that point in time, I don't remember the figures exactly, but the President was not extremely popular in Texas, nor was he in the country. He wasn't unpopular. He had had a very bitter campaign in 1960. He carried Texas by 46,000 votes, approximately 46,200-some-odd votes, with Vice President Johnson on the ticket with him. So, it had been an extremely close, extremely hard-fought election. The President had brought great elan, he had brought great culture, he brought great dignity and excitement to the White House, but in spite of that, his legislative program had not faired all that well. He was not that popular in the country and his popularity had diminished considerably, as a matter of fact. He was already looking at 1964 and the campaign of 1964. He had been traveling all ,over the country. He made it quite clear that in 1964, if he didn't carry but two States, he wanted to carry Massachusetts and Texas, and he wanted to come to Texas. So, it was obvious to me--again, my reluctance m encouraging the trip, as a matter of fact, it was more than reluctance; I resisted the trip, very frankly; I didn't encourage it, I resisted it for the reasons that I have already explained. In 1962, I was involved in the campaigning; the first 120 days of 1963, I was involved in legislative session and if he was coming, I wanted him to come to achieve the objectives that he wanted; namely, to raise the money; second, to structure the trip in such a way that he would benefit from it politically. Mr. CORNWELL. During this approximate 1-year period, from the early part of 1961 through the period of the first part of 1962 when, as you described, you were engaged primarily with trying to put together a staff, being a new Governor, and getting your legislative program through the legislature, the hints continued to come that the President wanted to come to Texas, you continued to stall, why didn't the President just come on his own? Mr. CONNALLY. He could have, but he obviously didn't want to. I had been elected in a rather, I guess I would have to describe it as a surprising election. I had frankly been elected by the people that President Kennedy needed the most, by the moderates and the conservatives of the State. He obviously had the most liberal wing of the party already for him. They had supported him. In 1960, in the campaign, they were still for him. What he was looking for and what he was really chafed about was the fact that the moderate and conservative elements of the country, not just Texas, but the whole country, were not supporting him, that he was characterized as being antibusiness, and part of that, I think, was the result of his actions with respect to steel prices. But, nevertheless, I think this irritated him and he said so, and he didn't understand it, and he, on one occasion, said to me, that, 14 "If these business people are silly enough to think that I am going to dismantle this free enterprise system, they are crazy." So, I think it was obvious that he wanted to come on a basis that he could talk to, and hopefully appeal to, the very people that had not supported him, because he was looking at a tough election, at least in our part of the country, in 1964. Mr. CORNWELL. Well, if, then, he basically needed someone to help with the planning arrangements, to achieve the ends that he sought, which was fundraising and improving his political posture in the State, why didn't he just ask the Vice President, who was also from Texas, to arrange those matters for him? Mr. CONNALLY. Well, for the simple reason that I had been able to build a pretty successful organization in Texas and the Governor is the titular head of the party of his State, and, frankly, the Governor of any State, regardless of his party, Republican or Democrat, is the titular head of the party and he sets the political tone of the State, and it would be inconceivable and President Kennedy was too good a politician to try to come to Texas without my wholehearted support, or at least tacit approval, and the Vice President certainly would not have done it. For one of these trips, it is not just as simple as saying, let's go to Texas. This requires an incredible amount of planning, organization, detail, harassment, haranguing. We went through weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks of this. So the idea that they are just going to pick up and come, I don't think was attractive to them at all. It was obvious that the President never seriously considered that. He obviously could have come any time he wanted to and so could the Vice President, and the Vice President was down during this period of time--1962-63--on a number of occasions. But they didn't want to attempt to arrange the type of affair that they were interested in without my personal involvement and without the involvement of the State party machinery that I had constructed. Mr. CORNWELL. Did there come a time when you finally couldn't avoid or push back the hints any longer? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes. The President was making a trip out through the West, in the summer, I believe, of 1963. He was going to Colorado, New Mexico, and perhaps other States. In any event, he was in El Paso and I met him in El Paso, and the minute I walked into the room where they were--- Mr. CORNWELL. What kind of room was it? Mr. CONNALLY. A hotel room. I have forgotten. I believe the Casa Del Norte Hotel. The Vice President was there, President Kennedy was there, and several of the staff people. Kenny O'Donnell, as I recall, was there, and the President made some remark about, "Well, Lyndon, are we ever going to get this trip to Texas worked out?" Obviously he wasn't speaking to me, but he was speaking to me, but he was addressing Vice President Johnson. Vice President Johnson said, "Well, the Governor is here, Mr. President, let's find out." Mr. CORNWELL. At this point-- Mr. CONNALLY. I knew at that point my string had run out. I knew we were going to have a trip to Texas, and I was perfectly willing to do it because I had gotten through a legislative session in 15 fairly good order and we had the time, I had been able to rebuild the structure of the Democratic Party, and we were prepared to organize the trip. So, I said, in effect, "Mr. President, when do you want to come?" Then he said, he said, "Well, I think we ought to have four dinners," and I was in a state of shock. He said, "I think we ought to have four or five fundraising dinners," and he said, "What do you think about having it on Lyndon's birthday, August 27?" This was in June, as I recall. And again I said, "Mr. President, I would like to think about that. Obviously the Vice President s birthday is always a time for celebration, but August is the worst month of the year to have a fundraising affair in Texas, for anybody. Too many people are gone, it is the dog days, it is the hottest month of the year, people are on vacation, they are not interested in politics, we can't get the support, and I think it would be a serious mistake to come in August." Well, we didn't decide at that particular meeting in El Paso when the date would be, but I said, "We will think about it" and I said in effect, "Let me do some planning. Let me do some thinking and we will be back in touch with you and I will suggest a trip, a format of a trip that I think will achieve the purposes that you want to achieve." Mr. CORNWELL. Would I understand your earlier description of the climate in the State of Texas and in the Nation to apply to this period of time? I know you described basically the way you perceived it when the hints first came to your attention in 1962. I take it the climate hadn't changed much by 1963, is that correct? Mr. CONNALLY. No, they had not. I think the President was concerned about the campaign of 1964, his popularity. Your chief counsel, Mr. Blakey, just said it dropped from 83 percent down to about 60 percent, and was on a descending scale during this period of time, and I don't remember the precise figures the poll showed, but obviously he had lost considerable ground and he was concerned about it. Mr. CORNWELL. Well, given that climate in the State of Texas and in the Nation, what, if anything, did you expect that you could personally gain or could be gained for your wing of the Democratic Party from the Texas trip? Mr. CONNALLY. Well, I thought, first, that Texas is always, I think, a considerate and hospitable State to anyone, and most certainly they are to a President, and we were obviously going to be honored by a Presidential visit to Texas, and we wanted one. The President had really not been to Texas since the campaign of 1960 except for the one stop in El Paso. So, he had not been there for any purpose during the intervening years, and we were obviously all going to benefit by his presence. We were all at that point, we were Democrats, we were officeholders, the fortunes of one obviously affected the fortunes of all, and it was important to all of us that he be understood, that he be accepted, that he be supported, as much as we possibly could, and to that extent I would certainly benefit as an officeholder more than that. President Kennedy's strongest supporters were not my strongest supporters. I had developed a base of support among the moderates 16 and conservatives in the State in the Democratic Party, whereas the people that had been most enthusiastic about President Kennedy really had supported my opponent, at least in the primary and in the runoff election. Most of them supported me in the general election in 1962. So, if the President came, and the mere fact that he did come, and my association with him, and the fact that I had helped plan the trip, that I would be with him, Mrs. Connally and I would be with them, obviously was going to inure to my benefit, it seems to me, among the people who most supported President Kennedy. So there was never any question really about--my thinking was not influenced by whether or not I was going to benefit or not going to benefit. My whole reluctance and resistance up until the summer of 1962 revolved around my fear that we couldn't put on the type of trip that I thought the President deserved and that we wanted him to have. Mr. CORNWELL. You told us that at the meeting in El Paso, in the hotel suite of the President, in June 1963, you agreed to help him plan the trip, but that no specific agreement was reached as to the details of the trip or as to the date of the trip? Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. Mr. CORNWELL. What happened next? Mr. CONNALLY. Well, again Vice President Johnson, with whom I talked frequently during that period of time, told me the President was still interested in having four or five fundraising dinners, and I said to the Vice President, I said, "Well, that is a mistake," and he said, "Well, that is what he wants and you had better be prepared to do it or better be prepared to give him a real good reason why you can't do it," and I said, "All right, I will work out something and be back in touch with you." I came to Washington in early October 1963, and went to see the President. I had an appointment before I came up here to see him to talk to him about this dinner, and at that point he still was talking about four or five fundraising dinners in the principal cities of Texas. At that point, I just said to him, "Mr. President, I think that is a mistake; we want the money, yes, but we also need, it seems to me, on your first real visit to Texas, we need to posture you in such a way that you are going to politically benefit from it and it doesn't look like all you are interested in is the money that you are going to get out of the State, and frankly, if you come down and we try to put on five fundraising affairs in the principal cities of Texas, most people down there are going to think that all you are interested in is the financial rape of the State," and I used those words, and he said, "well, all right what do you suggest?" and at that point I said, "I would suggest, we have been giving a lot of thought to it, I talked to the State chairman, I talked to the members of the State legislature, talked to the other political leaders in the State," and I told him that I thought we ought to have a number of nonpolitical events for him to go to, that we ought to try to hit the major cities of Texas--Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio--and that we ought to culminate it with a dinner in Austin. 17 We didn't go over all the details at this particular visit but that was the general outline of what I had proposed to him. He said all right, you work it out and get in touch with, as I recall, he said Kenny O'Donnell, and he will work this out, and we will pick a date, and obviously we were saying to him that he would have to pick the date of the visit. He and I were in the Oval Office and he couldn't have been nicer, couldn't have been more friendly, he got up from behind his desk and came around and was extremely warm and cordial, as he always was. He sat in the rocking chair and I sat in one of those little couches there in the Oval Room and I frankly was a bit surprised that the Vice President wasn't there. But he wasn't. And later I heard about it, because after my visit with the President, I went out that evening to "the Elms," to the Vice President's home and he was considerably irritated with me, and he said so, and he said, "I suppose you think I don't have any interest in what is happening in Texas," and I said, "No, Mr. Vice President, I know you are extremely interested in what is happening in Texas.' He said, "Why didn't you tell me?" I said, "Mr. Vice President, I assumed you knew I was going to see the President,' and I said, trying to alibi any way I could, because I recognized that he was really irritated about it,' and I said, After all, I made this appointment several days ago and it is not my prerogative to say who is in that Oval Office, I assumed if the President wanted you there you would be there." "Well," he said, "you could have told me beforehand what you had in mind." I said, "You have known basically what I had in mind. In any event, here is what we said," and I recounted to him that I proposed that we visit the five major cities, Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio, culminating in a dinner in Austin, and then I apologized to the Vice President and said, "I am sorry, I should have talked to you before I went in to see the President. Frankly, I assumed you would be there. When I got into the Oval Office and I was rather surprised that you weren't, but having the appointment I had no choice but to go ahead and discuss it," and then I said, "But here is what we said." I recounted the conversation as best I could and we proceeded from there. Mr. CORNWELL. Were there any specific discussions with the President on this occasion early in October 1963, as to the groups or persons that he should meet with on his trip? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, we talked about that, as a matter of fact, as early as El Paso, and I told him I thought we ought to try to schedule the itinerary and plan the trip in such a way that he would be, particularly the nonpolitical events, where he could appear before groups, civic groups, basically nonpolitical groups, but groups composed of the moderate to conservative business leaders, political leaders of the State, who had not supported him, who were not enthusiastic about him, in order to try to give him a chance to convert those people, and he agreed with that. No question about that. This trip progressed as they always do. This became quite an issue, simply because Senator Yarborough, Ralph Yarborough, was then in the Senate, he was being constantly harangued by his 18 supporters in Texas, they were saying, "well, they are structuring this thing trying to keep us away from the President and the President's supporters are not getting to see him," and Senator Yarborough was relaying those to the White House and to the advance people, and we were arguing about tickets and arguing about everything in the world. It got to be a major hassle and part of this raised the question that has since been discussed in great length, that the President came to Texas to resolve the differences in the Democratic Party in Texas. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two individuals who were most involved in the split in the party were Senator Yarborough and Vice President Johnson, and both of them were in Washington, D.C. This is where the trouble was. The trouble arose basically over Federal patronage and Federal appointees and Vice President Johnson was trying to get every Federal appointment he could get, and so was Senator Yarborough. Senator Yarborough was complaining constantly to the White House to President Kennedy, that Johnson was usurping his patronage rights of the Senate with respect to Federal judges, marshals, and so forth. This was the battle here. And indeed if the President was interested in resolving that difficulty he had Vice President Johnson right across the street in the old Executive Office Building, he had Senator Yarborough right here on the Hill, and he could have gotten them together in 10 minutes. But that wasn't the purpose of his trip to Texas at all, it had nothing to do with it. In the first place, he couldn't have settled the differences in the Democratic Party. They haven't been settled yet, and they are not going to be settled. As long as it is basically a one-party State you are going to have the division there that you have, and you are going to have the liberals and the conservatives. They have been fighting all my adult life, from the time I first went to a convention in Chicago in 1940, a national convention. We had fist fights on the floor within the delegations, and it hasn't improved a lot since then. So the idea that he was going to go down and settle all of this is pure hogwash. He didn't intend to do it, he didn't want to do it, he was politician enough to know he couldn't do it, and he wasn't even going to try. That wasn't the point at all. But, nevertheless, that created difficulties, but these things shouldn't be taken out of context. Any Presidential trip anywhere in the world arouses jealousies, differences. Every politician--and regardless of his title or position-wants to be close to the President; he wants to ride in the car; he wants to have a private meeting; he wants his group to be seen; he wants them to be heard. This is a constant hassle. I don't care where a President goes. So it is not unique to Texas, but we had our share of it, I will say that, and this plagued the Kennedy advance people and it plagued us, and I organized about an eight or nine-man group, some who worked for me in my own Governor's office, others who were in the legislature, others in the State party, to put on this affair, and the President's trip. As I say, it is not easy. The plans were constantly shifting and changing. We were trying to really get a mix of things, so that 19 people wouldn't feel left out. We had originally planned a l-day trip and it was obvious that we were trying to cram too much into 1 day, because again I wanted to hit the four principal cities plus winding up in Austin. I wanted to see on the evening of the 22d, in Austin, the members of the legislature, all of them. Mr. CORNWELL. If I might, let me show you an exhibit or two before we get to that explanation. Mr. Chairman, may we admit into evidence at this time an exhibit which has been marked for identification as JFK exhibit F-17, which is a newspaper article from the Dallas Morning News dated September 26, 1963. Mr. DODD. Without objection, so ordered. [JFK exhibit F-17 and facsimile follow:] 20 JFK EXHIBIT F-17 21 JFK EXHIBIT F-17 cont. FACSIMILE THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS DALLAS, TEXAS, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1963 (Front Page) DALLAS INCLUDED KENNEDY TO VISIT TEXAS NOV. 21-22 By Robert E. Baskin News Staff Writer JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. - White House sources told The Dallas News exclusively Wednesday night that President Kennedy will visit Texas Nov. 21 and 22. The visit will embrace major cities of the state, including Dallas. Kennedy is currently on a tour of the Midwest and West. The White House sources said the Texas trip Would be political, although they did not reveal the particular political mission. The final White House decision to make the trip to Texas came late Tuesday night, these sources said. Although specific details have not been worked out, it was considered likely that the President will visit Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Fort Worth. There has been speculation for some time that the President was contemplating a visit to Texas, but the final decision has just been reached, The News learned. It has been 22 JFK EXHIBIT F-17 cont. known that numerous Texas Democratic leaders have urged Kennedy to come to the state to repair what they regard as a deteriorating party situation. The presidential decision may have been prompted by what he has seen on his current tour: a strong trend toward conservation and Republicanism in the Western states. He is believed to feel that he must cope with this situation in preparation for the 1964 campaign. Earlier Wednesday at Billings, Mont., Kennedy recaptured his old campaign oratory in his best-received appearance in two days of intensive, "nonpolitical" campaigning across the country. In a straight-forward, rather far-reaching address to some 15,000 persons, Kennedy gave a resounding vote of confidence to Montana's veteran Mike Mansfield, Senate Democratic leader, and won cheers when he explained why he sought the nuclear test ban pact. And he was obviously in high spirits as a result of the House's approval of the tax cut bill, news of which reached him just before he began his talk. For the first time since he left Washington. he was applauded in the course of a speech. The subjects that won him applause, however, had nothing to do with conservation -- 23 JFK EXHIBIT F-17 cont. the announced reason for his il-state tour. Foreign affairs got him his best hand. Kennedy said Mansfield, up for re-election in 1964, was responsible for ratification of the test ban treaty Tuesday. He added that Senate GOP leader Everett M. Dirksen, Ill., had been helpful. He recalled his confrontations with Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev in 1961 and 1962 and how war has been avoided. "What we hope to do," the President said, "is to lessen the chance of a military collision between these two great powers which together have the power to kill 300 million people in a day. That is why I support the test ban treaty." From Billings the President flew on to Jackson Hole for an overnight stop. Earlier in the day at Cheyenne, Wyo., Kennedy claimed that his New Frontier administration "has been able to make a start at getting our country moving again." 24 Mr. CORNWELL. You have described for us, Governor, the meeting you had with the President on October 4. Several days prior to that, the newspaper article, the front page of which is shown in the exhibit, appeared in the Dallas Morning News. The headline on the lower right portion of the page refers to the President's visit to Texas, and because the exhibit is blown up it is relatively small. Let me tell you what the first lines of it read: White House sources told the Dallas News exclusively Wednesday night that President Kennedy will visit Texas November 21 and 22. The visit will embrace major cities of the State including Dallas. Kennedy is currently on a tour of the Midwest and West. The White House sources said the Texas trip would be political, although they did not reveal the particular political mission. Were you aware of either that article or similar publicity prior to your trip to see the President on October 47 Mr. CONNALLY. Well, I don't have any specific memory of it but I am sure I knew it. Mr. CORNWELL. Do you know, apart from what the implication is in the article, who released that report? Mr. CONNALLY. No, but it made no impact on me. I don't have any memory of this particular article at all, but it would not be surprising because we had made it clear to the President that he was going to have to pick the date for the trip, and I just assumed that is the date that probably they had chosen. We were constantly in touch back and forth during this period of time in the fall with the Vice President and with Kenny O'Donnell and others trying to plan the type of trip and without getting down to specific details, and we hadn't yet had the date, but I am sure I knew about this, yes. Mr. CORNWELL. You have told us that after the October 4 trip, you went back to Texas and began the process of planning for the trip. Who all was involved in that process? Mr. CONNALLY. Oh, gosh, a great many people. Everyone in my office was. My Executive Assistant, Howard Rose, certainly was. Eugene Lock, who I believe, from Dallas, still was Chairman of the State Democratic Party was. Pat O'Keefe, who was Executive Director of the State party was involved. Carol Abbott, who worked at the State party, was certainly involved. Bill Stenson, who was on my Governor's staff, was certainly involved. Representative Ben Barnes was involved; Frank Irwin was involved; Julian Reed was involved. There were 8 or 10 of us who spent a great deal of time on it. Mr. CORNWELL. Let me ask Mrs. Connally, were you involved in that process, too? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, I certainly was. Mr. CORNWELL. What was your role? Mrs. CONNALLY. I was shining that mansion up like you never saw. [Laughter.] We were trying to get everything ready at the Governor's mansion for our first visit from a President and his Lady, so I had all the hassles of any housewife trying to get her house in order so it would be just right for the very special guests. Mr. CONNALLY. I think, to put it in a little different context, I think the first thing we agreed on, and Nellie certainly was involved in intimate detail with the trip, because the one thing we 25 had agreed on we were going to try to wind up with the fundraising affair in Austin, Tex. Because of the nature of the State, unless you do have four or five fundraising affairs you cannot choose another city in Texas and have as successful a fund-raising dinner as you can if you have it in Austin. Dallas doesn't want to support Houston; Houston doesn't want to go to Dallas; Dallas won't go to Fort Worth; Fort Worth doesn't want to go to Dallas. None of them will go to San Antonio, but all of them will go to Austin. So we decided that it was the capital, that what the President needed to do was to come to Austin. This was the news center of the State, just like Washington is for the Nation. All the news media were there. We wanted him to meet the members of the legislature because they, in effect, were the thought leaders, the political thought leaders of the Democratic Party throughout the State. We thought that this would be like any politician. Any politician wants to know the President of the United States; he wants to say I know him, I shook his hand, I saw him; he wants to go home and tell his constituents that he saw them. We planned--the one thing we had done, which we had agreed on early, was to have the dinner in Austin--a $100-a-plate affair, because we had to start selling tickets. Then, Nellie and I agreed that probably the best place for a reception was to ask President and Mrs. Kennedy to come to the mansion, and to invite the entire legislature, 150 members of the house, 31 members of the senate, to come to the mansion to meet the President, and at that time we weren't sure Mrs. Kennedy was coming. In my visit with him I had expressed the hope that she would come, and he said well, I am not sure, but I will talk to her about it and I will ask her to come with me. And as I recall, he said, at the time I saw him, I believe he said she was in Europe. He said when she gets back I will ask her if she won't come with me. I told him I thought that in all of these events there were going to be men and women; I thought it would contribute enormously if she came. The women wanted to see her; they read a great deal about her; they want to see her; they want to see what her hairdo looks like and what her clothes look like, and it is important to them. So he said, I agree with you, and I will talk to her about it when she gets back. So in any event, we thought if we could have the President and Mrs. Kennedy at the mansion to meet all of the members of the State party machinery, the representatives and the senators, it would probably be as effective a thing as we could do to help him on his trip. Then from there we would go directly to the dinner at the Coliseum, where we planned to have 3,000 people at $100 a plate. Mr. CORNWELL. What were the other basic elements in your initial proposal to the President as to how the trip should be organized? Mr. CONNALLY. Well, basically, we had to get a nonpolitical sponsorship and a nonpolitical activity in the four other major cities to give him a forum, to attract the type of audience, to give him some identity. 26 As I recall early on, we, in Fort Worth, we considered the idea of having Texas Christian University in Fort Worth confer an honorary degree on him and let him speak on the campus of Texas Christian University. That was thought of early. In Houston, he really came up, I think, or the White House did, with the idea of going to the Albert Thomas dinner and this helped us because we were trying to cram everything into the day of the 22d, on Friday. Well, just before the trip, as I recall, we didn't have but about 48 hours notice, not more than 72, he decided he would go to Houston. So, we restructured the whole thing. I had planned to, or had suggested that we go to San Antonio, Houston, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Austin, all in one day, but then, the Albert Thomas dinner-Albert Thomas was then chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives. He was one of the really powerful members of the Texas delegation. He had been chairman of the Appropriations Committee since 1940. He was extremely well regarded in Houston, Tex. He was one of the strange--not strange--he was one of the unusual and unique politicians. Albert Thomas had the support of all the business community in Houston. He also had all the support of labor and most of the liberals in Houston. He was sick. He had a terminal illness and they were having this appreciation dinner for him the night of the 21st of November. And the President decided that he ought to go there and be there and obviously, Albert Thomas really wanted him to come and really put the arm on him to come. No President, in his right mind, completely disregards the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Since he was ill and since they were good friends, the President, I think, graciously said, "I'd like to come." So, this changed our whole format. Then, we were able to get him for a day and a half. So, we moved the San Antonio affair to Thursday afternoon and then we decided to go on to Fort Worth that night, the night of the 21st, after the Albert Thomas dinner in Houston. In the meantime, in trying to work out the itinerary and talking about an honorary degree from Texas Christian University, frankly, some of the trustees of Texas Christian University took a dim view of it and weren't enthusiastic about it, and we dropped the idea completely because the last thing we wanted to do was to get into any kind of dispute or hassle because we wanted his trip to be smooth; we wanted everything acceptable. I personally went to Dallas. I talked to the leaders of the civic groups in Dallas, Citizens' Council, which is a group that for 40 years dominated the political leadership of Dallas. We got the Assembly, which is a group of young people; we got the Educational Research Center, Science Research Center, we got four or five groups in Dallas to cosponsor this luncheon, again, to give it a nonpolitical flavor so that he could go and make a speech. We had done that in each of the places. The White House came up with the idea, or somebody did, that they would dedicate the Aerospace Medical Center in San Antonio, and it was a nonpolitical affair. The breakfast in Fort Worth was a nonpolitical affair. It was also sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations. 27 But in working it all out, we had a motorcade in San Antonio. Again, over the period of time because the great tragedy occurred in Dallas, everybody talks about the President's trip to Dallas. The President made a trip to Texas. And we had been to San Antonio where we met the President. We had a motorcade through San Antonio and, again, this was an effort to be sure that he wasn't shielded from anybody, that he was out seeing people. We had a motorcade right through the center of San Antonio; the reception was wonderful; the crowds were huge; the response was enthusiastic. We went from there--we spent about 30 minutes or 45 minutes at the Aerospace Medical Center, and he dedicated that building on the site of the old Brooks Army Air Force Base. We left San Antonio, went to Houston, arriving there about 5 o'clock. We planned this simply because, again, we wanted every detail of the trip to be as perfect as we could make it. Mr. CORNWELL. Your basic plan of meeting with various citizens groups and the representatives of the businesss community, did that meet any stiff resistance and, if so, from what area? Mr. CONNALLY. No, I don't think it met any stiff resistance. I think the complaints came, as I said a moment ago, largely voiced by Senator Yarborough and some of the labor groups and some of the liberal groups on the grounds that not enough of their people were being included. Now, the leadership among the labor, among the blacks, everybody else, they were being included in these affairs, even though they were not formally members of these organizations; they were being invited; they were being given tickets, but they were not being invited in mass numbers to the various affairs; they were there at the breakfast; they were there at the Albert Thomas dinner; they were there at the luncheon at the Trade Mart in Dallas; they certainly were there at the affair, or to be there at the affair in Austin that night, the $100-a-plate dinner. As a matter of fact, we sent all of them tickets. We said, "Please help us." Mr. CORNWELL. Who did the conversations occur with where there were disagreements as to, at least, the emphasis that should be placed on various aspects? Mr. CONNALLY. Very few of them with me. I was meeting intermittently with these eight or nine people that I had working on this trip, but- Mr. CORNWELL. Who were your people meeting with? Mr. CONNALLY. They were meeting with Hal [sic] (1) Bruno the President's advance man. We were getting information from all kinds of sources. We were getting direct calls from the top labor leaders in the State, and others. You know, we were getting a considerable feedback and frankly, considerable differences developed between the President's advance men and the people I had working on the trip and to the point where it got a bit testy. Mr. CORNWELL. What were the main areas of disagreement? Mr. CONNALLY. Just minutia details. Inevitably, these things happen about who is going to sit at the table, who's going to do this, who is going to do that. One of the biggest controversies arose ----------------------------- **The Governor later corrected his reference to Mr. Bruno, explaining that it was Jerry Bruno. 28 over whether or not we were going to have a motorcade in Dallas. That was one of the big ones. And we lost that one. Finally, frankly, it got so bad with Hal Bruno and the President's advance people, that real differences developed between the people I had working on the trip and the President's advance people where Hal Bruno, I think, was pulled off, completely off of the trip and Bill Moyers came down as kind of a peacemaker. Mr. CORNWELL. What was your view in opposing the motorcade in Dallas? You said there was a severe disagreement with the advance men on that subject. Mr. CONNALLY. Basically, my reason for opposing the motorcade in Dallas were two. We were working the President very hard, I thought. Most people think that riding in a motorcade is easy. It's not. It's very tiring. It's exhausting. You assume that a person is just riding along so there shouldn't be any difficulty. But nevertheless, in a motorcade, the President of the United States is there, he is tense, he is smiling, he is exuding enthusiasm, he is trying to make, even in a fleeting second, he is trying to make contact with the thousands and tens of thousands of people along this parade route. He is looking one side and then the other. Even if he just catches a human's eye for one fleeting second, there is a communication, and this is why in the car, Nelly and I had very little conversation with the President and Mrs. Kennedy. The conversations were extremely brief and desolatory because he was, in effect, working the crowd from the car and to a lesser extent, so was I. You have to be in one. You have to experience it to understand precisely what I am saying. But I am telling you, it's a strain on him. We had him getting up early in the morning to attend a breakfast in Fort Worth. He made a speech on the parking lot in front of the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth. Then, we flew to Dallas. He had a speech there. We were going to take him to Austin where he had two receptions at the mansion for 181 members of the house and senate. Then, he had a speech that night. We were crowding him into about a 15-hour day. What I wanted him to do--you know--you can work anybody to death. Ask any of these members of this committee. They will tell you when they go into a town or a county, the local campaign chairman--or into a precinct or a ward--he wants to work him from 7 in the morning to midnight. He doesn't care what happens tomorrow because he is going to be gone. This local politician, he will go to sleep, he will sleep all the next day. But, unfortunately, the officeholder has to get up and go again on another 15-hour day. And I was extremely conscious of that because I started in State politics in 1938. I managed President Johnson's campaign in 1941 and 1948 when he ran for 'the Senate, and I had been through enough of this. I had caught enough hell about over scheduling, so I didn't want to do the President that way and I wanted him to be sharp. No human being can be up for 15 hours a day and all we were trying to do was allow him enough time in between events to where when he really got in front of an audience, when the cameras were on him, when the newsmen were watching him, that he 29 could look good, he would look fresh, his voice would be strong, he could really be able to exude warmth and enthusiasm. And, this is the whole reason; now--- There was one other reason, and that was simply that I thought, no more so really in Dallas than most places in Texas, but I thought we ran the risk of having some embarrassing placards or signs or a few pickets along the way. I frankly never had any fear of physical harm or violence. That never entered my mind, but the idea that we probably would encounter a sign or two did enter my mind and the thought we might have some pickets entered my mind because, again, President Johnson and Mrs. Johnson had had the difficulty down in front of the Baker Hotel in the campaign of 1960. Then, as you recounted a moment ago, Ambassador Stevenson, Adlai Stevenson, came to Texas and had been hit over the head with a picket sign about a month before the President's trip. So, these things were not--I was not unconscious of them at the time, and we didn't want any of it. Well, the only thing we saw on any of the trips, Dallas did have one sign, there was a fellow up on an old house, like a turn of the century house, badly needing paint, I recall very well, he had a sign up on this balcony that said, "Kennedy, go home." But, it was on the left side of the car as we were traveling in the motorcade and the President was on the right side in the back seat, and I hoped he didn't see it, but he finally turned to Nelly and me and said, "Did you all see that sign? I said, "Yes, Mr. President, but we were hoping you didn't." He said, "Well, I saw it. Don't you imagine he's a nice fellow?" And, I said, "Yes, I imagine he's a nice fellow." But that was about the only thing we saw, and frankly, there was less of that than I thought. The crowds were larger than I anticipated. They were more enthusiastic than I could even have hoped for. All the way through, in San Antonio, in Houston, in Fort Worth, it was drizzling rain; at 8:30 in the morning when the President went out--approximately 8:30--when he went out on a parking lot there across from the Texas Hotel and spoke to people in the rain, and there was a huge crowd there. So, the trip had been absolutely wonderful, and we were heaving a sigh of relief because once we got through the motorcade at Dallas and through the Dallas luncheon, then everything else was pretty much routine. Mr. CORNWELL. Let me ask you to go through the details of that trip perhaps more precisely. After the elaborate planning and the arguments over the details, I suppose there must have been some relief when the day finally came. Mr. CONNALLY. Oh, yes. Mr. CORNWELL. Let me ask, Mrs. Connally, you had an opportunity to meet the President and his wife at the airport; is that correct? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. Where did you come from just immediately prior to that? Mrs. CONNALLY. I came from Austin to San Antonio. Mr. CORNWELL. What had you been doing in the immediate hours or day or two right before the arrival? 30 Mrs. CONNALLY. Well, the entrance hall in the Governor's mansion had sort of gold carpet, and since this house is open to the public, it gets a lot of traffic. So, I had had the carpet cleaned, but 2 days before the visit, I decided they didn't clean it well enough and I was having it cleaned again. So, I was having a talk with the carpet cleaners and I left the house in Austin and joined them in San Antonio. Mr. CORNWELL. The Governor, as I understand, was in Houston that day and had to fly to San Antonio to meet the President's plane, so you both arrived in advance and were together; is that correct? Mrs. CONNALLY. From different directions. Mr. CORNWELL. Would you describe for us what your feelings were as the event took place and the President arrived into Texas for the first time? Mrs. CONNALLY. Me? Mr. CORNWELL. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. CONNALLY. It was very exciting. It was the first time that we had been host to a President and his lady. Everybody was excited. We were excited and nervous--I tell you, I felt exactly like the mother of everybody. I wanted all the Texans to be so wonderful to them when they came and I wanted them to react in a good way, too. I just was nervous and excited and could hardly wait. Mr. CORNWELL. Were the reactions from the people in Texas as you had hoped? Mrs. CONNALLY. There was a tremendous roar when the plane put down and the door opened and out stepped Mrs. Kennedy, who looked beautiful, just like everybody expected, and then the handsome young President coming out behind her. I get goose pimples now thinking about it. It really was an exciting moment in our life. Mr. CORNWELL. You went from the airport in a motorcade to downtown San Antonio? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. Was the reception there as great? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. Tell them about the reception. Everybody was excited. It just made you feel good. Mr. CONNALLY. You couldn't have asked for more. The crowds were large, they were extremely warm, extremely enthusiastic. Just could not have been better. Mr. CORNWELL. Did the activities in San Antonio, and for the rest of that day, go just as well? Was there anything about them which was disappointing? Mrs. CONNALLY. Nothing that I know. Mr. CONNALLY. NO, it all went extremely well. We left San Antonio and went to Houston--got into Houston right at the-there were several thousand people at the airport to meet us. We went downtown right at the rush-hour traffic. Of course, cars were bumper to bumper almost four lanes wide, and they all stopped for just miles. As they were leaving town, we were going into town. As this motorcade passed, people were out, they were stopped, they were standing up, cardoors open, they were waving--Mrs. CONNALLY. Cheering. Mr. CONNALLY. Cheering. We got to the hotel. The President met that evening with a group of Mexican-American leaders, the 31 LULAC organization was having a big dance in the Rice Hotel where they were staying, and he and Mrs. Kennedy, Vice President and Mrs. Johnson went by there before they went to the Thomas dinner. The Thomas dinner was a complete sellout in the Coliseum. I guess they had 3,500 people there, and I watched because I knew these people and I knew the crowds. Frankly, I don't remember what the President said. I must confess, I didn't listen to him because I was concentrating almost totally on the crowd reaction. I was looking and watching all through the crowd during his entire speech. He was indeed reaching these people; he was communicating with them. It just could not have been a better day in both San Antonio and Houston. Mr. CORNWELL. After the Albert Thomas dinner and the meeting with the Mexican-American leaders had concluded, you flew, again, in Air Force One, this time to Fort Worth; is that correct? Mr. CONNALLY. That's correct. Mr. CORNWELL. Up until this point of the trip, had you had any opportunity, really, to speak to the President and to learn what his reaction was to the reception he had received in Texas? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, don't you remember how excited he was about how everyone--they talked in the airplane, from San Antonio to Houston, and--the President seemed very pleased with how he had been received in San Antonio and said, "Well, that was a good one, John, do you think we will do as well at the next stop?" Mr. CONNALLY. Unlike, I suppose, the often-repeated verbosity of some of us from Texas, the President was not given to extravagant statements, and I think he generally was known for the fairly terse comments of a New Englander and a Bostonian. So, his praise would be couched in a different language then from my own. It is obvious that he was extremely pleased. I think Nelly can probably explain this better than I, but I think one of the significant things that occurred was the change that we saw in Mrs. Kennedy and her reaction to the trip. In San Antonio, she was rather stiff, I thought, rather unused to this. She had not been traveling much and campaigning much with the President and she was not noticeably ill at ease at all, but nevertheless, reserved, quiet and perhaps a little bit--frightened is too strong a word--but apprehensive about this whole thing. Not apprehensive in the sense of being fearful of violence, but just not being used to it. She was a bit concerned about what she did. For instance, one time, in San Antonio, she was worried about her hair and her hat and she traded seats with me. We were all over that car. Normally, the President sits in the right-rear and his wife sits on his left. I was sitting in front of the President most of the time. Nelly was sitting in front of Mrs. Kennedy most of the time. Particularly, in San Antonio, we changed seats because the wind was blowing, we were driving fairly fast at times, 30 and 40 miles an hour. She traded seats and got up on the jumpseat and I sat in the back seat with the President. The two ladies were in front. Mrs. CONNALLY. The back seat was raised, so she would get more wind there. Mr. CONNALLY. The President knew that really wasn't the right way to do it and he made her get back in the back seat, and I got back on the jump seat. 32 Mrs. CONNALLY. Where you belong. Mr. CONNALLY. Where I belong. The next day, it was obvious that after the San Antonio and the Houston motorcades, the next day she was much, much more relaxed, wouldn't you say? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, happily responding to the crowds. Mr. CONNALLY. Marked difference in her reactions and her appearance between the afternoon of the 21st and the day of the 22d. Noticeably in Dallas. Mrs. CONNALLY. And they were enjoying seeing her as much as they were the President. They were calling out their names and I think she really got in the spirit of it. Mr. CORNWELL. You told us about the dispute which was long standing between Senator Yarborough and first Senator Johnson and then continuing into Vice President Johnson. Did that particular dispute come up at all? You said that it wasn't the reason the President came to Texas. Did it come up at all during the trip? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, oh, it was ever with us. It came up, I didn't know it. Everything had gone beautifully. We had gotten into Fort Worth about 11 o'clock at night at Carswell Air Force Base and drove into town in a light drizzle, and the President and Mrs. Kennedy and Vice President and Mrs. Johnson went up to their suites. When they were safely ensconced, I was so relieved that everything had gone well that I went down to the Texas Hotel coffeeshop to have some bacon and eggs and a glass of milk about midnight. That was the first then that I heard they had had quite a hassle in Houston, that Senator Yarborough refused to ride in the car with Vice President Johnson. So, I said well, you know, I don't care who rides in which car. I didn't worry much about it, but nevertheless, it had happened and it was by that time the talk of the motorcade, the talk of the press and so I didn't think any more about it until the next morning. And, the President, when he came back from his speech, the first thing he did when he got up--Mrs. Kennedy was not with him-Jim Wright, Congressman Jim Wright, who is now the majority leader of this Congress of the House, took him across the street from the Texas Hotel into this parking lot where he spoke to the crowds there, and then he came back into the Long Horn Room of the Texas Hotel and sat down and he motioned for me to come over. I went over there and he said, "John, did you know Yarborough refused to ride with Lyndon yesterday?" I said, "Yes, sir; I heard that last night." And he said, "By God, he'll ride with him today or he'll walk." So, I said OK. I did nothing about it. But then later, I saw him talking to Senator Yarborough, and indeed, that day Senator Yarborough rode in the car with Vice President Johnson in the Dallas motorcade. This is one of those things that is really, in the overall planning and the execution of this trip, was of no great consequence. Mr. CORNWELL. So, that was the only part of what we might call the Yarborough-Johnson feud that was even taken up by the President on his trip; is that correct? Mr. CONNALLY. Right. 33 In deference to my old home town of Fort Worth, Mr. Cornwell, and also to set the record straight, at least one publication in Fort Worth talked about a drab, sordid hotel room, the Presidential suite in which the President stayed. Well, it turned out it so happened that the Texas Hotel was, at that point, controlled by the Ammon Carter estate and C.D. Richardson estate. They had gone to great pains to do everything they could, once it was certain he was coming to Fort 'Worth, was going to stay at the Texas Hotel, to refurbish this suite and, as a matter of fact, Mrs. J. Lee Johnson III, Miss Ruth Carter Johnson, Mr. Ammon Carter's daughter had gone to the trouble to go to private homes around town and had borrowed paintings and Nelly helped me, but there was a Picasso in the suite, there was a Monet in the suite, a Van Gogh in the suite, and two or three more, so they probably had a couple million dollars worth of paintings just on the walls and I assure you they had done everything they could--the President was obviously impressed, and so was Mrs. Kennedy. The first thing he did the next day was to call Mrs. Johnson, Mrs. J. Lee Johnson III, who lived in Fort Worth, and thank her for her kindness and for her trouble and for her consideration and to tell her how delighted they were with the accommodations in the hotel, all of which means nothing except to kind of clear the air and set the record straight because things get told and then they get repeated, and I think, in all fairness, we ought not to describe that suite as a rundown, sordid suite. Mrs. CONNALLY. It makes me mad. Mr. CORNWELL. The next morning, the one you have just been describing, of course, was November 22, 1963. The President had a breakfast and then a meeting with the chamber of commerce. Mr. CONNALLY. A what? Mr. CORNWELL. A breakfast scheduled; is that correct? Mr. CoNNALLY. Yes. Mr. CORNWELL. And thereafter, he had a speech in the parking lot; is that correct? Mr. CONNALLY. No, I believe he spoke in the parking lot first and then he came back into the hotel, then, Mrs. Kennedy joined him. She did not go across the street to the parking lot, but she did join him and then they came into the breakfast together. I would guess this is now 9:25, 9:30, something like that. 34 JFK EXHIBIT F-11 Mrs. CONNALLY. He came first and made the statement that Jackie was pulling herself together and then turned to Vice President Johnson and said, "Lyndon, nobody pays any attention to what we wear," which I thought was funny, didn't you? Mr. CORNWELL. The morning, then, I take it, started off well; is that correct? Mr. CONNALLY. Extremely well. Mr. CORNWELL. The weather was somewhat drizzly, but apart from that, the schedule went well, the receptions, again, were as you described them on the previous day. Is that right? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, and there were 2,500 people in the breakfast that morning. So, the idea that he was meeting with a few exclusive, handpicked people is hardly true. That breakfast meeting alone, I think, had 2,500 people there. Mr. CORNWELL. Thereafter, you all again boarded Air Force One and flew to Dallas? Mr. CONNALLY. That's right. Mr. CORNWELL. You told us previously what types of concerns you had had about the motorcade in Dallas, the incident with Adlai Stevenson. Is there anything else that you can recall for us that went through your mind during that period of time as you were approaching Dallas and preparing to enter the motorcade? Mr. CONNALLY. No, not really. There had been an ad, I have forgotten what it said, in the morning paper that morning about the trip. It was a somewhat derogatory ad, but I really was not apprehensive about anything except, as I said, that we might see an embarrassing sign or some rude statement or a few pickets here or there. But I must say, as Air Force One landed at the airport in 35 Dallas, the Sun broke through, it was absolutely marvelous weather, could not have been better. JFK EXHIBIT F-12 The crowd at the airport was several thousand people. It was, again, an extremely receptive group of people who were out there, enthusiastic group of people. I recall that after President and Mrs. Kennedy shook hands with those in the receiving line, they went over and Vice President and Mrs. Johnson accompanied them, and they went over for 5 minutes or so, walked up and down the fence where there were thousands of people gathered and shaking hands and greeting people who came to the airport to see them. Mr. CORNWELL. Tell us then, if you would, in more detail, what happened as you all entered the limousine and began the motorcade. Mr. CONNALLY. Well, as these things are normally done, it was timed fairly well and we immediately got into the cars, the motorcade started. One thing I do recall, I said a moment ago that Mrs. Kennedy appeared to be much more relaxed, much more in the spirit of things. She was smiling more, obviously more at ease, but one little thing, the Sun was bright. It had come out bright and beautiful. The sky was beautiful, the clouds had dispersed and she put on her dark glasses. What did he say? Mrs. CONNALLY. He said, "Take your glasses off, Jackie." 36 JFK EXHIBIT F-13 Mr. CONNALLY. "Take your glasses off, Jackie." She kept them off for awhile and she just unconsciously put them back on. Mrs. CONNALLY. You could hear him again saying, "Take your glasses off, Jackie." Mr. CONNALLY. This happened a third time. Then, I think she finally left them off. But on the way down in the motorcade-again, the crowds were large--were enthusiastic. We stopped two or three times. I remember twice--in particular, there was a little girl, I guess she was 8 years old, who had a placard that said, "President Kennedy," something like, "will you shake hands with me?" and held up this sign. Well, he immediately stopped the car and shook hands with this little girl, and of course, the car was mobbed. The minute the car stopped, here came the Secret Service. They got between the car, the limousine in which he was riding, and the mass of people who immediately surrounded the car. We extricated ourselves from this group and then went on. The other stop, we were halfway downtown, I suppose, when there was a nun, a sister, with a bunch of school children, obviously from a parochial school there, right by the car. And he stopped and spoke to them, and to the sister and to the children. We stopped a third time, I believe, along the route. But, uh---- Mr. CORNWELL. What was the route, incidentally? Will you describe that for us? How did the motorcade go from the airport' to its destination site, which is the Trade Mart? 37 DALLAS, TEXAS Presidential Motorcade Route November 22, 1963 JFK EXHIBIT F-9 Mr. CONNALLY. I think we went down Lemon Avenue to Turtle Creek and from Turtle Creek to Main and from Main to Houston, Houston to Elm, I believe. Mr. CORNWELL. So, at least the idea was it was basically a route which took you down through the heart of downtown Dallas? Mr. CONNALLY. Right through the heart of Dallas; no question about it. The further we got toward town, the denser became the crowds, and when we got down on Main Street, the crowds were extremely thick. They were pushed off of curbs; they were out in the street, and they were backed all the way up against the walls of the buildings. They were just as thick as they could be. I don't know how many. But, there were at least a quarter of a million people on the parade route that day and everywhere the reception was good. I told you a moment ago about the only sign we saw that was in the least bit unpleasant. 38 JFK EXHIBIT F-10A and 10B JFK EXHIBIT F-15 39 Mr. CORNWELL. Mrs. Connally, at any point in the motorcade, did you have a chance to speak to the President? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, we were having such a wonderful reception, and we were all so excited, and we had had through all these other cities, and I had restrained myself up to that point from saying anything, but I could no longer stand it, so I turned around to the President and I said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you." Mr. CORNWELL. And, where was that in the motorcade? At what point? Mrs. CONNALLY. That was just as we were right approaching the book depository. Mr. CONNALLY. Just before we turned. Mrs. CONNALLY. Just before we turned. Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I think I might suggest to you we take a brief break and set up a projector and then show a film of the motorcade, which has been marked "JFK F-8." Chairman STOKES. So ordered. At this time, we will take a brief break to set up the film portion. [A brief recess was taken.] Chairman STOKES. If everyone would take their seats again, the committee is ready to resume its sitting. I also ask that the lights be dimmed at this time. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey for a narration and presentation of the film. Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would note initially that this is a copyrighted film. [At this point, a film began to be shown as Mr. Blakey described the events portrayed in it.] Mr. BLAKEY. November 22, 1963, 11:40 a.m., central standard time. President and Mrs. Kennedy arrive at Love Field, Dallas, on Air Force One after a brief flight from Fort Worth. It is a bright, sunshiny day, though it had been raining earlier. The President and First Lady greet well-wishers at Love Field. Then, they join Gov. John B. Connally of Texas, and his wife Nelly. The Kennedys and Connallys get into the open Presidential limousine for the trip to the city. Plans to have the Presidential party enclosed in the limousine's bubble-top were abandoned when the rain stopped. There is no need for top coats or hats; the temperature is 68ø. Destination the International Trade Mart where the President is to deliver a luncheon address to an audience of businessmen. This is the last leg of the swing through Texas. Yesterday, the Presidential party visited San Antonio and Houston. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson is riding in the limousine behind the President, along with Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough. The motorcade left Love Field shortly after 11:50 a.m. The crowds that line the route get thicker as it reaches the business district of the city. 40 Main Street: The motorcade is approaching Dealey Plaza, an area where open lawns are surrounded by express highways and tall buildings. At the corner of Main and Houston, the motorcade makes a sharp 90ø turn to the right and heads north for one block. The Texas School Book Depository is directly in front of the Presidential limousine. The book depository isn't shown. It is located to the immediate left of the picture. As the limousine approaches the intersection of Houston and Elm Streets, Mrs. Connally, as she indicated, elated by the reception, says, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you." The President replies, "That's obvious." At Elm Street, the limousine makes a hairpin turn to the left and heads west passing the book depository. The film shows police motorcycles leading the limousine as it goes by the depository. The building in the background is the book depository. The window at the extreme right at the top of the picture is the one where earlier investigations have concluded Lee Harvey Oswald is located at this moment. It is about 12:30 p.m. As the President waves to the crowds, shots ring out, the President and Governor Connally are wounded. The President is struck in the head. The limousine speeds up heading for the Stemmons Freeway. Its destination is now Parkland Memorial Hospital. At approximately 1 p.m., the President will be pronounced dead. Chairman STOKES. May we have the lights back, please. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cornwell, counsel for the committee. Mr. CORNWELL. At this point, Mrs. Connally, I would like to ask you some questions about what your memory is of what happened on Elm Street after the limousine passed underneath the Texas School Book Depository. What distance, after turning the corner, do you recall the car going before you noticed something was wrong? Mrs. CONNALLY. Not very far. I don't really know how far. Do you want me to just tell you everything I remember? Mr. CORNWELL. That will be fine. Mrs. CONNALLy. I heard--you know how we were seated in the car, the President and Mrs. Kennedy, John was in front of the President and I was seated in front of Mrs. Kennedy--I heard a noise that I didn't think of as a gunshot. I just heard a disturbing noise and turned to my right from where I thought the noise had come and looked in the back and saw the President clutch his neck with both hands. He said nothing. He just sort of slumped down in the seat. John had turned to his right also when we heard that first noise and shouted, "no, no, no," and in the process of turning back around so that he could look back and see the President--I don't think he could see him when he turned to his right--the second shot was fired and hit him. He was in the process of turning, so it hit him through this shoulder, came out right about here. His hand was either right in front of him or on his knee as he turned to look so that the bullet went through him, crushed his wrist and lodged in 41 his leg. And then he just recoiled and just sort of slumped in his seat. I thought he was dead. When you see a big man totally defenseless like that, then you do whatever you think you can do to help most and the only thing I could think of to do was to pull him down out of the line of fire, or whatever was happening to us and I thought if I could get him down, maybe they wouldn't hurt him anymore. So, I pulled him down in my lap. We learned later--I read a lot of stories that upset me later because they said we slipped down into the floor, that John slid off, fell over into my lap. Those little jump seats were not very big and there was no way that he could have slid to the floor, there is no way either of us could have got to the floor. The only thing I could do was pull him down and by leaning over him, I hoped if anything else happened, they wouldn't hurt him anymore. I never looked back after John was hit. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say, "they have shot my husband." Then, I heard a third shot and felt matter cover us and she said, "They have killed my husband, I have his brains in my hand". I thought was John was dead, and I heard the Secret Service man say, "Let's get out of here quick." So, we pulled out of the motorcade and we must have been a horrible sight flying down that freeway with those dying men in our arms and going to no telling where. We just see the crowds flashing by. John said nothing. I said only to him from the time I saw one little movement, that maybe he is still alive, and, I kept whispering to him, "Be still, it is going to be all right, be still, it is going to be all right." I have read stories where I screamed and he screamed and all these things. There was no screaming in that horrible car. It was just a silent, terrible drive. We got to the hospital, I guess it was the hospital, the car stopped and John was still in my lap, but I knew he was alive and people were swarming all around the car. They were trying to get Mrs. Kennedy to get out so they could get the President out and she didn't seem to want to get out of the car. I sat there for what seemed to me an awfully long time, but probably was just a few minutes, wondering how long I had to sit there with this man dying in my arms before I could ask somebody to do something. At that moment, John just sort of heaved himself up out of my arms and then just kind of collapsed in front of the door. And at that moment, the door opened and somebody picked him up and just ran off down the corridor and I ran along behind them. We got into what later I found was trauma room 1 and trauma room 2. The President was on a stretcher right behind us, I guess. I still had never looked back. John was in the room on the right-well, as we approached, the President was on the right and John was on the left and I stood there, so alone. I never have felt so alone in my life, and there was much commotion racing around us. I saw all sorts of artillery and weapons. I assume it was Secret Service or security, I don't know, racing up and down around the corridor. Finally, somebody brought two chairs and sat them outside these two doors, and I sat in one and Mrs. Kennedy sat in the other. I kept seeing all this commotion in the President's room, and 42 I wondered if--I knew the President was dead, but I wondered if they weren't all over there and nobody taking care of John. The only thing that would calm me a little was I would get up now and then and just push open the door in the room where he was, and if I could see any movement or hear them saying anything, then I was content to wait. They sent me out one cuff link. Then they came out and took him down the corridor to the operating room and I just ran along behind the stretcher, not knowing what I was running to or what I was running from, but run I knew I must. And all during the surgery, which was 3 1/2 hours, I was in some little waiting room and the doctors were just wonderful. They kept sending messages out to me to say John would be alright, that the bullet had missed all the vital organs and where he was in bad shape, he would be all right. What else? Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, very much. Governor, let me ask you the same question. What is your memory of the events? What did you see and hear? What happened after the limousine started down Elm Street and passed underneath the Texas School Book Depository? Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, we had just turned to Elm. We had gone, I suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what I thought was a rifle shot and I thought it came from--I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on them so I was sitting up fairly erect. I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot. I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly reached over and pulled me down into her lap. I was in her lap facing forward when another shot was fired. I only heard two shots. I did not hear the shot that hit me. I wasn't conscious of it. I am sure I heard it, but I was not conscious of it at all. I heard another shot. I heard it hit. It hit with a very pronounced impact, just [slap of hands] almost like that. Almost that loud a sound; it made a very, very strong sound. Immediately, I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue, and there were pieces of brain tissue as big as your little finger. It was something that was unmistakable. There was no question in my mind about what it was. 43 About this moment in time, Roy Kellerman, who was the Secret Service agent sitting in the right-front seat, pushed, apparently was pushing some buttons on the panel, doing what, I don't know. I heard him say, "Let's get out of here fast," and the car lurched forward then. Bill Greer was the driver. He accelerated it tremendously. When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit--no, I guess it was after I was hit--I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no, no, just thinking how tragic it was that we had gone through this 24 hours, it had all been so wonderful and so beautifully executed. The President had been so marvelously received and then here, at the last moment this great tragedy. I just said, "no, no, no, no". Then I said right after I was hit, I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." .... The shots came, in my judgment, the two shots I heard came from the same direction, back over my right shoulder, came from behind us. Very clear to me where they came from. I don't think any shots came from any other direction. I was conscious until we hit the Stemmons Freeway and then I faded into unconsciousness. I revived when the car came to a stop at what was Parkland Hospital. Apparently, the braking of the car--we must have been traveling at an enormous rate of speed--the braking of the car brought me back to consciousness and you know it is strange what thoughts run through your mind. The first thought that occurred to me was that I was in the jump seat, that the right door of the car was opposite my seat and that they couldn't reach the President. Well, I got out of the way and that is when I tried to raise myself up out of Nelly's lap and actually tried to get out of the car myself, so that they could get to him in the back seat. I knew he was hit. I knew their first concern would be for the President. So, that was the reason why I lurched up, or tried to get up out of a reclining position. Of course, I couldn't. I wasn't able to. I got halfway up and just slumped again, as Nelly just told you. Then, someone did pick me up and put me on a stretcher and took me into an emergency room or trauma room, whatever it was. I obviously didn't know what it was. At that point, I felt the first pain, really, that I had experienced and when I was on the stretcher, I was laid out. Then, there was excruciating pain in my chest. At the time I was hit, strangely enough, I felt no sharp pain. It was as if someone had come up behind me with a doubled up fist and just hit me in the back right between the shoulder blades. It was that kind of a sensation. I would have to volunteer the very, very strong opinion, I know much has been written, much has been discussed, I was being a participant, I can only give you my impressions, but I must say you, as I said to the Warren Commission, I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet. I don't believe that. I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and I was not hit with that bullet: Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet that might well, be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet. I felt the second bullet. We obviously weren't hit by 44 the third bullet. I was down reclining in her lap at the time the third bullet hit. Mr. CORNWELL. I am sorry, I didn't understand one statement. You said Mrs. Connally doesn't agree it was the second bullet or the same bullet? Mr. CONNALLY. The second bullet. Mrs. CONNALLY. That what? Mr. CONNALLY. That hit me. That hit him and me-- Mrs. CONNALLY. No; I heard three shots, I had three reactions, three separate reactions. The first shot, then I looked and saw the President, the second shot, John, and third, all this matter all over us. Mr. CORNWELL. So you agree that your recollection is it was the second shot that hit the Governor? Mrs. CONNALLY. I know it was the second shot that hit the Governor. Mr. CORNWELL. And, where you disagree is as to the possibility or the question of whether or not it was the same bullet that hit, is that accurate, in other words, the Governor has no knowledge on that subject matter, would that be accurate, since you didn't turn around to see the President, after the first noise, you don't know whether he was hit and Mrs. Connally's recollection is that she did turn and saw him hold his throat before you were hit, is that accurate? Mrs. CONNALLY. I did. Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. I never saw him. I never saw Mrs. Kennedy after the shots were fired. I never saw either one of them, and I don't know when he was hit. Mr. CORNWELL. And you have testified that of the two shots that you have a memory of hearing, they both, your immediate impression was they came from the right rear? Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. Mr. CORNWELL. And I don't believe we heard what Mrs. Connally's recollection is on that. What was your impression as to the direction from which the three shots you heard came? Mrs. CONNALLY. All from the right rear. Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this time. Chairman STOKES. At this time, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine, for extensive questioning, after which the committee will go under the 5 minute rule for other members of the committee who have questions of the witnesses. Mr. Devine. Mr. DEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor and Mrs. Connally, I know this is very difficult for you to have to relive this situation again and again. I know that you, Governor, testified before the Warren Commission and I am not sure whether you did also. [Mrs. Connally nods affirmatively.] Mr. DEVINE. We appreciate the fact that we are trying to refresh your recollection on something that happened nearly 15 years ago, although it appears to be quite vivid in your mind, and the responsibility of this committee, as you know, on the mandate from the House is to see whether or not there are any unturned stones or 45 any evidence that has not been presented to the Warren Commission or that any different conclusions may result from the testimony of persons on the scene. Relating specifically to your testimony, Mrs. Connally, you heard one shot and you turned to your right and witnessed the President grasping his throat with both hands. Was anything said by anyone at that time? Mrs. CONNALLY. Nothing. Mr. DEVINE. Then what is the next sound you heard? You were still looking back at the President. Did you hear another sound? Mrs. CONNALLY. I heard the second shot; yes. Mr. DEVINE. The second shot. Were you looking back at that time or were you looking forward again? Mrs. CONNALLY. I don't know. Mr. DEVINE. You don't recall. That second shot is the one that you said hit your husband? Mrs. CONNALLY. I was horror stricken when I looked back, and I may have still been just looking. Mr. DEVINE. But at that time you heard the second shot? Mrs. CONNALLY. A difficult thing to believe. Mr. DEVINE. The second shot that you heard is the one that you believe hit Governor Connally? Mrs. CONNALLY. I know it hit Governor Connally. Mr. DEVINE. And then after you knew that he was hit, and you pulled him over in your lap, you then heard the third shot? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. Mr. DEVINE. And again from over your right shoulder? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. Mr. DEVINE. Did you look back at that time? Mrs. CONNALLY. I never looked back after John was hit. Mr. DEVINE. Have you had any experience at all with fire arms--- Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. Mr. DEVINE [continuing]. Over the years? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. Mr. DEVINE. Would you say in your judgement that shot you heard, or the shots that you hear, were from a rifle or hand gun? Mrs. CONNALLY. Oh, no, I am not that much of an--- Mr. DEVINE. You don't know? Mrs. CONNALLY. And, I'm not expert at all. Mr. DEVINE. All right. Mrs. CONNALLY [continuing]. In shooting. Mr. DEVINE. Governor, I think you testified that you heard but two shots and that you don't think that you heard the shot that struck you; is that accurate? Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. Mr. DEVINE. Both of these came from over your right shoulder? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir, from behind me and over my--back behind me over my right shoulder, that is correct. Mr. DEVINE. The first shot that you hear which caused you to look to your right, I think you said you didn't get far enough around to see the President, is that accurate? Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. 46 Mr. DEVINE. Did you recognize any of the sound as being a rifle shot or hand gun shot? Mr. CONNALLY. I thought it was a rifle shot. Mr. DEVINE. Then you turned around and started to turn back around to look over your left shoulder to see what? Mr. CONNALLY. To see if the President was all right, because immediately the thought flashed through my mind that if this was a rifle shot, which I believed it to be, that it was probably an assassination attempt and I was trying to see if anything had happened in the automobile. Mr. DEVINE. Is that the time that you exclaimed, no, no, or was it later? Mr. CONNALLY. No, it was a bit later, because I wasn't sure at that point in time that anything had happened, so it was a bit later when I said oh, no, no, no. This was after I realized I had been hit and, then I said my God, they are going to kill us all. Mr. DEVINE. As you turned from looking over you right shoulder, you are about facing forward, in the process of turning to look over your left shoulder, when you were hit? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVINE. But you heard no shot? Mr. CONNALLY. No, sir, I did not. Mr. DEVINE. That caused you to pitch forward? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVINE. And you said you saw a great deal of blood? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVINE. Were you aware at that time that you were hit in the hand and leg also? Mr. CONNALLY. NO, sir, I was not. Mr. DEVINE. When did you first become aware of that, in the emergency room or elsewhere? Mr. CONNALLY. NO, I became aware of that when I regained consciousness on Sunday, I guess. On Sunday morning I woke up and regained consciousness to see my arm tied up in a sling and leg bandaged and I said what happened to my arm, and that is when I first learned that the bullet had gone through my chest and through my wrist and had broken all the bones in my wrist. Mr. DEVINE. Reflecting back, do you have an opinion that you would have been able to physically remove your body from your position on the jumpseat to a different position in the limousine during the time lapse between the first sound and the impact that hit you? Mr. CONNALLY. I am sorry, Congressman, do you mind-- Mr. DEVINE. To put it this way, I think either you or Ms. Connally said that the jumpseats were so close to the back of the front seat that there was no way that you could have slumped to the floor? Mr. CONNALLY. Right. Mr. DEVINE. And that the only position you could have ultimately moved into was to be over on Mrs. Connally's lap, is that accurate? Mr. CONNALLY. I think that is a correct statement. 47 Mr. DEVINE. I believe you testified in response to Mr. Cornwell that you heard only two shots, they came from behind, there was not any from any other direction, is that accurate? Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. Mr. DEVINE. Mrs. Connally, would you also make the same statement? Mrs. CONNALLY. Except that I heard all three. Mr. DEVINE. Is it possible that there could have been more than three shots, as far as you recollection is concerned? Mrs. CONNALLY. I guess anything is possible, but I heard three shots. Mr. DEVINE. You heard three definitely, no less, and probably no more, is that right? Mrs. CONNALLY. That is all I heard. Mr. DEVINE. Governor Connally, you said you heard two shots? Mr. CONNALLY. That is right. Mr. DEVINE. The one that hit you you apparently did not hear? Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. Mr. DEVINE. I would take it then by negative implication that you heard no shots coming from your right front? Mr. CONNALLY. No, sir, I did not. Mr. DEVINE. In the area that has often been described as the grassy knoll? Mr. CONNALLY. No, sir. And I don't believe any came from there. Mrs. CONNALLY. We responded to all these shots, so if something came from the front we certainly would have responded to it, a noise from the front, I would think. Mr. DEVINE. All right, getting back prior to the time of the actual shooting, I think you indicated earlier, Governor, that you had been in, or your people had been in, somewhat of a dispute with Mr. Bruno and others relative to even having a motorcade? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir. May I, Congressman Devine, at that point ask that the record be corrected. In testifying here you reach for times and events and names and unfortunately I have confused the situation, I suspect, to the bewilderment of one and the embarrassment of the other, and I said Mr. Hal Bruno. Mr. Hal Bruno is with Newsweek and now I understand with ABC, and it wasn't Hal Bruno at all, it was Jerry Bruno, who came down as advance man for President Kennedy, so I would hope the record would be clarified and corrected, because earlier I testified in response to Mr. Cornwell that Mr. Hal Bruno did so and so, it was not Mr. Hal Bruno, it was Mr. Jerry Bruno. Mr. DEVINE. Fine. I am sure the record will be so corrected. Governor, I think you testified earlier that you thought perhaps it would be well to avoid the motorcade because of the very trying day that the President was going through, the number of appearances he had to make, the number of speeches he had to make, and the pressures. Did you have any reason to believe that there might have been some incident on a motorcade route? Mr. CONNALLY. None at all, Congressman Devine. Mr. DEVINE. You had no prior information that would suggest that there may have been problems? Mr. CONNALLY. None at all. 48 Mr. DEVINE. I think there was some testimony that there were, I don't think they used the word kooks, but some extremist that might display signs or make remarks that might be embarrassing to the President. Mr. CONNALLY. When I said not at all, I was speaking in terms I had no indication, no knowledge, no reason to suspect that there would be any acts of violence. I assumed from the very beginning when the President came that somewhere along the route, San Antonio, Houston, Fort Worth, Dallas, Austin, somewhere that there might be pickets, there might be some embarrassing signs or something of that kind. Yes; I did assume we would encounter that and frankly we encountered only one that I remember, and that is far less than I anticipated. Mr. DEVINE. I suppose you were also, at least in the back of your mind, aware of the incidents that had occurred to Ambassador Stevenson as well as General Walker? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVINE. And these were matters of concern to you, but you still had no anticipation that anything of violence might occur, is that correct? Mr. CONNALLY. NO, sir, and my objection to the motorcade really was not based on any apprehension of violence, Congressman Devine, it was as I have testified earlier, in order to try to save the President the wear and tear of a motorcade and to basically conserve time. Mr. DEVINE. At any juncture during the planning and scheduling did you specifically discuss with the Secret Service what possible harm might come to the President, and, if so, from what source? Either you or your people? Mr. CONNALLY. Congressman, I don't think so. Some of our people might have raised that point with the Secret Service but I doubt it, because in none of our discussions or planning sessions did we dwell on that subject or make any point of it. It really was not a matter that we were fearful of, frankly. Mr. DEVINE. But if you had had your way there would have been no motorcade through the downtown area, you would have gone directly to the--- Mr. CONNALLY. Trade Mart. Mr. DEVINE. Trade Mart, right. Mr. CONNALLY. Yes. As a matter of fact, it was quite a point of dispute, as I say, and we never did agree to it, and finally they not only said we are going to have a motorcade but we are going to publish the route of it, and I said, well, that is crazy, I said, because here again I was thinking only in terms of pickets or embarrasing signs or things of that sort, but indeed they did, they ran a map of the parade route 3 or 4 days, I think it was Tuesday before the Friday, in the Dallas papers. Full route of the motorcade. Mr. DEVINE. Did the newspaper publish the exact route of the motorcade? Mr. CONNALLY. I think it did. They might have altered the route a bit from that published map but I think it was a map, precise map of the motorcade. 49 Mr. DEVINE. That was published in sufficient time for someone with perhaps a sinister motive to have placed themselves in the book depository or elsewhere? Is that so? Mr. CONNALLY. I think it was published on Tuesday and, of course, the event occurred on Friday, so they had that much time. Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Cornwell has pretty well covered all other elements of the situation, Governor, and I again thank you for your cooperation, and you, Mrs. Connally, for being here. Mr. CONNALLY. Thank you, Congressman. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally, I know, as Mr. Devine said, that reliving this experience must be an emotional matter for you and all who have watched you cannot help but admire your courage in the way you have done that. I don't know what the stories are that you refer to, Mrs. Connally, about your conduct after this, but anyone who heard you today certainly could have no questions about your courage and the character with which you faced this. I also think you brought back to us in a dramatic way the warmth and excitement of the Dallas reception, something that we have lost sight of through the years because of the way it ended in tragedy. I only had one question following up what Mr. Devine asked, and it is along the line of what information and how early the information would have been known as to the President's route. Lee Harvey Oswald went to work for the Dallas Book Depository on October 15, 1963. How soon after that, if you recall, Governor Connally, would he have known that the President was coming to Dallas? Mr. CONNALLY. He could have known it before that time, I suspect. I believe the time of the publication of the Baskin story in the Dallas paper was September 26, when the story first appeared that November 21-22 had been chosen as the dates of the President's visit. Mr. PREYER. So he would have known he was coming to Dallas perhaps even earlier than his employment date, but he would not have known the parade route until Tuesday? Mr. CONNALLY. I don't think he could have, Congressman Preyer, because up until the very last, frankly, of that week, we were still arguing about it. We were still arguing, one, whether or not there would be a motorcade at all, two, if there was a motorcade, whether or not the route of the motorcade would be published. And frankly, those who were proponents of the motorcade and of the route wanted to get the maximum public exposure for the President, and that was the basic reason for the motorcade, but that issue was not settled until that week, the week of the visit, so I am sure he couldn't have known precisely prior to that time because I don't think anyone knew. Mr. PREYER. Well, from your experience in Texas and national politics wasn't that the normal parade route through Dallas that was taken? Have you been involved in other parades? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, it is a normal and logical route to take, down Lemon to Turtle Creek. You can go down either Main or 50 Commerce depending on what your ultimate destination was. But since we were going to the Trade Mart, it was a logical way to go, although we could have chosen one of the other streets that runs parallel to Main and Commerce just as well, but probably we saw more people on the streets that we traveled. Mr. PREYER. Thank you once again for your testimony. Mr. CONNALLY. Thank you, Congressman Preyer. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you also, Governor and Mrs. Connally. We do appreciate you recalling the events in Dallas with such great detail. I simply have a couple of questions dealing with the timing of the publication of the trip: Who knew what and when. I wonder, Governor Connally, can you tell us who could have been aware of your talks with the President on June 5 in El Paso? Mr. CONNALLY. Well, namely, I would say there were only four of us, maybe five. The President, the Vice President, was there as I recall, well, I am sure Kenny O'Donnell was there, I was there. After that time, I am sure they talked about it, the White House, I am sure the Vice President talked to members of his staff about it. I certainly went home and talked to various members of my staff and the State Democratic Party machinery, because we were at that point in effect committed to a Presidential visit some time that fall, but the details certainly were not known then. Mr. FAUNTROY. Do you recall whether you released publicity at that time about the President's desire to come to Texas? Mr. CONNALLY. I don't believe there was any but I could be wrong about that, I don't recall any. Mr. FAUNTROY. You set no tentative schedule at that time? Mr. CONNALLY. No. Mr. FAUNTROY. Was there any information at that time that a motorcade would or would not be used? Mr. CONNALLY. No, I don't think so, Congressman; no. Mr. FAUNTROY. Was Dallas listed as one of the cities that might be visited? Mr. CONNALLY. I think from the very outset, from the time of the first announcement, which I don't think occurred that early, I think Dallas was listed as one of the cities; yes, as probably one of the cities that would be visited. Mr. FAUNTROY. You had a visit to the White House on October 4? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir. Mr. FAUNTROY. Do you recall now how much information had been disclosed to the public by that time? Mr. CONNALLY. I think very little because it hadn't jelled really at that point, the details had not been worked out at that point. Mr. FAUNTROY. On October 3 you met with members of the Texas delegation to the Congress here--and, do you recall what details about the Presidential visit were discussed with them? Mr. CONNALLY. No, I don't, but I suspect no details other than the fact that there probably was going to be a Presidential visit, because when I went in on October 4, really the President was still 51 talking about the four or five fundraising dinners and we really had not made the ultimate decision about the visit. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and Mrs. Connally, and I will yield back the balance of my time at this time. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. McKinney. Mr. MCKINNEY. Governor, nice to see you again. I want to thank both you and Mrs. Connally for coming and helping us. When was the final decision made or when did you finally get your way that the speech would be made at the Trade Mart instead of the Women's Building? Mr. CONNALLY. I don't remember, Congressman, the precise date, but I would guess it was a couple of weeks before the visit. Mr. MCKINNEY. Basically, that was a decision on your part so that the President could appeal to the conservative faction of the party in Texas? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, well basically, the Women's Building is in the fairground part of the city. The Trade Mart at that time was a new, exciting building, out on the Stemmons Freeway, it is a magnificent facility, it is a beautiful facility. I thought it was the type of thing that particularly reflected the flare and the style of both President and Mrs. Kennedy. It was a new building, it is a tremendous thing with an enormous vaulted ceiling. The Secret Service had some doubts about it because it had balconies around, but we filled all those balconies with tables. And it was just a better facility, better parking, easier to get to for everyone, because you get to it off the Stemmons Freeway, and I thought it just frankly was a much better facility in order to accommodate the crowd that we wanted to have, 1,800, 2,000 people there, to hear the President. I didn't know at the time there was a big argument about whether we go to the Women's Building or the Trade Mart. I didn't go to either of them at the time. Most of these arguments arose at the staff level and those that they couldn't settle I would finally hear about and get a hold of and sometimes I would just make a decision we are going to do thus and so and sometimes I would call somebody at the White House and get it worked out, but this went on constantly. Mr. McKINNEY. In any event, at either building, the motorcade would have had to go through some part of Dealey Plaza? Mr. CONNALLY. Well, in any event the motorcade certainly would have gone through downtown. It would not necessarily have had to go through Dealey Plaza, no, sir. If the Women's Building had been chosen, it could have gone another route, and probably would have gone another route. Mr. McKINNEY. I see. If you had gone through Dealey Plaza to the Women's Building, Mrs. Kennedy would have been literally in the line of fire, rather than the President. Is that correct? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, if you had gone by the school book depository, that is correct. Mr. McKINNEY. Thank you very much. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. 52 The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor and Mrs. Connally, to repeat what my colleagues have said, we do appreciate your being here this morning, particularly in recounting what must have been one of the most agonizing if not the most agonizing moments of your lives. I would like to just go back over, if I could, those seconds at the time that the shots rang out. Let me try and repeat what I understood to be your testimony, you correct me if I am wrong anywhere in terms of my understanding of the sequence of events as they occurred. First, you, Mrs. Connally, because there is a bit of a difference as I heard both of your responses. You heard a shot, what appeared or sounded like a shot, a sharp noise, to you? You turned to your left or your right? Mrs. CONNALLY. My right. Mr. DODD. You turned to your right. As you turned around and saw the President, you saw him clutching his throat? Mrs. CONNALLY. I saw him reach up to his throat. Mr. DODD. Both hands were on his throat? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, sir. Mr. DODD. Did you see any blood at all? Mrs. CONNALLY. No. Mr. DODD. Then did you turn back or did you hear the second shot? Mrs. CONNALLY. See, I don't know, I don't know. Mr. DODD. You don't know which you did first? Mrs. CONNALLY. What do you mean? Mr. DODD. Well, you saw him clutch. Mrs. CONNALLY. I looked back and I guess I just stayed looking back until I heard the second shot. Mr. DODD. So, you are still looking at the President and it is your recollection that you then heard what sounded like a second shot? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. Mr. DODD. Is that correct? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. What was a second shot. Mr. DODD. At that point your husband, Governor Connally, slumped over in your direction? Mrs. CONNALLY. No, he lunged forward and then just kind of collapsed Mr. DODD. And, then collapsed. Mrs. CONNALLY. But not just straight up. Mr. DODD. And then you heard a third shot or what appeared to be a third shot? Mrs. CONNALLY. After I pulled him down. Mr. DODD. You did hear-- Mrs. CONNALLY. I did hear a third shot. Mr. DODD. At that point you then noticed the material? Mrs. CONNALLY. All over. Mr. DODD. The blood and so forth? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. Mr. DODD. When you turned and saw the President holding his throat, as I understood your testimony, the President didn't utter any sound or any word at all, to your recollection? 53 Mrs. CONNALLY. Nothing. Mr. DODD. Now. Governor, as I understood it from what your testimony was, you heard what sounded like a shot? Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. Mr. DODD. And you turned to your right? Mr. CONNALLY. Right. Mr. DODD. But you did not see the President when you turned around? Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct, I didn't turn all the way around, I was sitting, basically facing forward. I heard the shot, I looked over my right shoulder, I did not see the President out of the corner of my eye, and I mentally said I will turn to my left and see if I can see him, and I never made that full turn, I got halfway back facing forward when I was hit. Mr. DODD. And did I understand your testimony correctly when you stated that you didn't actually hear a second shot but rather you felt the impact as if someone had punched you almost in the back, a sharp blow to your back? Mr. CONNALLY. That is absolutely correct. Mr. DODD. But you did not hear that? Mr. CONNALLY. I was not conscious of hearing the second shot. Mr. DODD. Did you hear what could have been a second or a third shot? That was the only shot you heard, was the one that caused you to turn to your right? Mr. CONNALLY. No, I heard another shot which was the shot that was fired after Nellie had pulled me down into her lap. It was the second shot I heard, the third shot she heard. The second shot I heard was the one that hit the President in the head. Mr. DODD. OK. You did not immediately go unconscious? Mr. CONNALLY. No, I did not. I knew exactly what was happening in the car and I didn't testify to a moment ago but I should because I remember precisely what my wife remembers. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say "they have killed my husband," and then she said, in just an incredulous voice, I have got his brains in my hand. I heard that. I was still conscious. I heard Roy Kellerman say to Bill Green, the driver, and perhaps to others, get out of here fast. Those things, that is all that was said in that car. Mr. DODD. Recognizing, of course, we are now asking you to recall something that occurred this many years ago, but if I could ask you to quantify in a frame of time, how long a period would it have been between the time you heard that first noise, that sounded to you as if it were a shot, you turned right, and the period in which you felt the impact in your back? Mr. CONNALLY. Congressman, you know, I think it is impossible for me to say with precision, but obviously a very short period of time, a matter of seconds, because it was, you know, I think undoubtedly a fairly fluid movement. I heard the shot, I reacted by looking, I saw nothing, and I was in the process of turning when I felt the impact. I guess 6, 8, or 10 seconds, in that range, but I certainly couldn't be more precise than that, but it wasn't long. Mr. DODD. Could it have been a second? What you are telling me it is more like 2, 3, 4 seconds. It wasn't something that happened almost instantaneously? 54 Mr. CONNALLY. No, it was not. It could not have been 1 second. Mr. DODD. Thank you both. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor and Mrs. Connally, welcome; under the circumstances, we deeply appreciate your help. Governor, the two shots you heard, did they sound exactly alike, as nearly as you can remember? Mr. CONNALLY. Did they sound exactly-- Mr. FITHIAN. Exactly alike? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes. I found, I remember no distinction, Congressman Fithian, between the two shots. Mr. FITHIAN. And the shot that struck you, just in that split second, before you heard that or felt that impact, did you hear any other impact like the third shot made? Was there any sound in the split second before impact somewhere else before it hit you? Mr. CONNALLY. No. Mr. FITHIAN. Now, if I understand your summary, Mrs. Connally, the first shot would have come through the President's throat, and that was, you said--- Mrs. CONNALLY. I assumed when I saw him. Mr. FITHIAN. And it was the second shot that hit the Governor? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. Mr. FITHIAN. And it wasn't until after the third shot that you saw the brain matter, and so forth? Mrs. CONNALLY. Instantly, the shot, the car was covered, it was like buckshot falling all over us. Mr. FITHIAN. So your clear recollection is that you can account for something happening with each of the three shots that you heard fired? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, sir. Mr. FITHIAN. Governor, you testified earlier, I believe, that you thought that both shots fired were rifle shots. You feel that you are able to distinguish between a rifle and pistol shot? Mr. CONNALLY. I guess you could simulate circumstances under which I would probably fail the test, Congressman, but I think I can distinguish the difference. At least at that point in time I thought it was a rifle shot to me, and I haven't in all the intervening years, have not run any tests, I have not listened to any tests, but to me a pistol shot has a flatter, louder kind of a bang type of sound to it. A rifle shot has a rather singing crack to it. It is more like a crack and then you get a kind of singing sound with a rifle shot, and it is an entirely different sound from a pistol, from a shotgun, from a rifle. Mr. FITHIAN. One last question, Mr. Chairman. When you heard any of the two shots that you heard, Governor, or any of the three that you heard, Mrs. Connally, was there any echo; did you hear any echo from the building, or was there any sort of a sound effect along with it? Mrs. CONNALLY. No. 55 Mr. CONNALLY. Congressman, I wasn't conscious of any echoes. I am sure there probably were some but I certainly was not aware of them. Mr. FITHIAN. What you heard was a very clear distinct shot, period; that is your recollection? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir, absolutely. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer. Mr. SAWYER. Governor and Mrs. Connally I recognize that you probably don't view yourselves as a ballistics expert, by any means, but I assume you have done some hunting and you are familiar with firearms, from the way you talk? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, I have done a great deal. Mr. SAWYER. So we are not talking to someone totally inexperienced when we are talking about whether or not you can identify a rifle shot? Mr. CONNALLY. No, sir, I have shot a rifle all my life and have done a great deal of hunting. Mr. SAWYER. I suppose, too, that--I have just been thinking since I heard your testimony and I am sure you have thought about it, many, many more times, and without either being a medical expert or a ballistic expert, I presume it is reasonable to assume that with a Mannlicher/Carcano traveling at least twice the speed of sound, the projectile must be 2,200 feet per second, or more, I assume, that the bullet would reach you before the sound would reach you, and with that kind of an impact on your nervous system, whether conscious or not, you probably wouldn't have registered the sound, if there was one, of the bullet that hit you? Mrs. CONNALLY. I think that is precisely what happened, Congressman, no question about it. That is why I don't think there is anyway the first bullet hit me. I heard that sound. And I had not been hit, I heard the first rifle shot, and I did not hear, was not conscious of the shot that hit me, and obviously the bullet reached me before the sound did. So the shock of the hit that I took, I was just totally unconscious of the sound, yet by the third shot, when Mrs. Connally pulled me down in her lap, I was awake, my eyes were open, I heard the shot fired, I heard it hit, and I saw the results, very clearly and you know--you have a lot of expert testimony, and I am delighted with the work of this committee, because hopefully we can clear up some of the speculation and the questions that have been asked over the years, but let me assure you that we may be wrong in what we say, we may be wrong in our impression, we may be wrong when asked precise questions about time, whether it is 2 seconds or 10 seconds under those circumstances I can't say with certainty the precise second that things happen, but the things that we do remember, and the things that we are testifying to here today, Congressman, are as indelibly etched in our minds as anything could ever be, and I will merely ask you to give yourselves the test, ask any adult person, over the age of 30, in this country, or over the age of 35 we will say, where they were when they first heard the news of the assassination. They can tell you where they were, what they were doing, and who they were with. I have not asked one human being in the world, 56 not anywhere in the world, that hasn't been able to tell me where they were, what they were doing, and who they were with at the time they first heard the news. The only point I am making is that there are certain impacts on human consciousness, on the human mind, that are indelibly etched there, now, and these things are engraved in our minds, beyond any doubt. I can't, I am not going to argue with a ballistic expert or acoustics expert about the precise time or the frame of the Zapruder films, I can't tell you precisely whether it is frame 231 or 234, when the first evidence shows that I am reacting to the shot, but what we are saying to you, the things that we say to you with certain definiteness, it is because we are absolutely sure, at least in our own minds, that that is what happened and that is what we remember. Mr. SAWYER. I want to join the rest of my colleagues in expressing our appreciation to you, Governor and Mrs. Connally, for coming up, and I want to compliment you on the obvious frankness touched with a little humor, as best you can in this kind of situation, and your warmth coming across, I appreciate it very much. It kind of gave me a perspective on this that somebody there can only give. You got across as good a communication of it, at least to me, as I have heard. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you, Governor and Mrs. Connally. I, too, want to welcome you here and to compliment you on your frankness in sharing your firsthand knowledge of this tragic event. I just have two lines of questioning, which will be very brief. I noted in the schedule that on November 21 there was a motorcade through Houston; is that correct? Mr. CONNALLY. Well, there was a motorcade; yes, in a sense. We went from the airport, Havre Airport, where the plane landed, down the Gulf Freeway to downtown Houston and we had, as I say, we rather planned it this way because it was a way to automatically assure yourself of a crowd. Mr. EDGAR. Were the crowds similar in Houston as they were in Dallas? Mr. CONNALLY. No; they were not because it was not the same type of event. We didn't plan a motorcade of that type. What occurred in Houston was we were going against the grain of the traffic, the Gulf Freeway was four lanes wide bumper to bumper leaving Houston going out past Havre Airport. We were going into town so there were literally thousands of cars on the freeway and all the traffic just stopped when they saw the motorcade, they knew who it was, they knew the President was coming. So people were standing on their fenders, if they had fenders, if not, they opened the door, stood inside the car, they were in the pickups, shouting and waving and that sort of thing. There was not the mass number of people that we saw at either San Antonio or Dallas. Mr. EDGAR. And the speed of the motorcade was different? Mr. CONNALLY. Was entirely different. I would say in Houston we were traveling at least probably 50 miles an hour. 57 Mr. EDGAR. The motorcade in Dallas on the 22d was for a slightly different purpose, it was not just to arouse the crowds but was in fact to be worked by the President in a slow moving motorcade? Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. Mr. EDGAR. Were the automobiles in both motorcades identical? Mr. CONNALLY. I think so. I think the President's car was flown from one place to another. I think we were riding in the same car. Mr. EDGAR. Do you know if the President's car was equipped with any kind of facility to have visual sighting of the President even with the top down? Mr. CONNALLY. Yes; I think we had a bubble top but it was never used. Mr. EDGAR. Do you know whose decision it was not to use the bubble top? Mr. CONNALLY. No, sir. Mr. EDGAR. And the bubble top was not used in Houston either? Mr. CONNALLY. No, sir. Mr. EDGAR. Were there any different security procedures that you know of for the Dallas motorcade? Mr. CONNALLY. I don't think so, Congressman. If there were any there were probably more people involved simply because of the nature of the visit to Dallas, we were going to have the motorcade, it was going to be a motorcade where we were traveling at 25 miles an hour, as opposed to 50 miles an hour on the Gulf Freeway in Houston, for instance, so I think there were a great many more security people involved up and down the parade route in Dallas than there were in Houston. That was a normal thing, I don't think it was unusual because of any anticipated difficulties. Mr. EDGAR. But you were not approached by the Secret Service to do anything special? Mr. CONNALLY. No, the Secret Service were working with department of public safety and the Dallas Police Department and I don't recall any real difficulties with respect to security. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you. Just one final question. I was wondering about the injuries that you have received, the shot through the right shoulder and the wrist injury and the leg injury, are they recurring problems for you at this time? Mr. CONNALLY. No, sir. The shoulder injury, the back injury, was healed fairly well. The bullet split my right lung and as I recall, the doctor told me it was like it had been cut with a knife, they took out, I believe, the fifth and sixth ribs, but I learned something new, the ribs grew back, which I didn't realize they would do. So the only thing I have had over the years, and that is my fault, not any medical problem, my right shoulder and arm have been a bit weaker than the left simply because I think I didn't do enough exercising with it after the injury to rebuild the muscles and at least one muscle was cut in the process by either the shot or the operation. The wrist is fine. Dr. Gregory, when he set the wrist, told me that he thought it would not heal properly because he had no bone to tie to, and he would do his best, that we would probably have to rebreak the wrist and reset it after some of the bones healed because it broke every bone in the wrist, but after about 90 days, 58 when they finally took the cast off, the wrist had healed sufficiently to where we weren't about to break that wrist, and I have substantially all the use of it, the only thing I can't do is to turn my wrist over. Mrs. CONNALLY. He can't take change but I can pick it up for him. Mr. CONNALLY. It is strange, little things like that. This is where you recognize it. To take change I have to do this kind of thing, to flatten my hand, because normally you can hold your elbow on the table and flip your hand over. I can't do it. There is a stiffness in the wrist but there is no pain associated with it, no disability at all, and the leg has caused me no trouble. So I am in fine shape. Mr. EDGAR. There is absolutely no doubt in your mind that all of the injuries that occurred to you occurred by one bullet passing through your body.? Mr. CONNALLY. I think beyond any question it did. Congressman, probably I should add in response to your question that one of the reasons I may have had the wrist injury, I had a hat that day, and sometimes I had the hat on and sometimes I didn't, and when I didn't have it on I was holding the thing, and, of course, the President never wore one. When I held it, I normally held it in pretty much this position. I held it in front of me and I suspect that one of two things happened, and I don't remember precisely, that I was either holding my hat, so that when that bullet came out of my chest right here and went right into my arm and down into my leg, or that is one explanation of why my wrist was broken, or in the process of turning perhaps I had put my right arm on my left leg to make it turn to my left, as I testified, I would not have done that to look over my right shoulder, it would have been the reverse type of movement, my right arm would have been to my right, looking over my right shoulder, but in the process of turning to look over my left shoulder, it is a logical thing to move your arm, and maybe I put it on my wrist, and maybe I had my hat in my hand, but in any event, the wrist happened to be right in front of the place where the bullet came out. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy, for additional questions. Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes sir, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just have one question on the firing. Governor, and Mrs. Connally, both of you are familiar with the single bullet theory, are you not? My question, Governor Connally, is, given Mrs. Connally's recollection that there were three shots: The first of which hit the President, the second of which hit you, and the third of which hit the President; I wonder if it is your impression that the first shot that you heard missed, or whether it is your impression that the first shot which you heard was the first shot which Mrs. Connally heard, which in her view caused the President to grab his throat? Mr. CONNALLY. Do you want to answer that? Mrs. CONNALLY. No. 59 Mr. CONNALLY. I will answer it. I don't know what the first shot did. All I know, all I am certain of in my own mind is that the first shot did not hit me. Now, according to Mrs. Connally's testimony, the first shot did hit the President and that is when she turned around and saw him grasp his throat. Mrs. CONNALLY. And later, the doctors said that there was a bullet that went through the fleshy part of his neck, that would not have killed the President, had that been the only shot he took. So obviously that is why he was reaching up for his throat. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. FITHIAN. One quick followup question. When you turned, Mrs. Connally, and saw the President, do you remember seeing the Governor, seeing where he was looking? Mrs. CONNALLY. No; I heard the noise, I turned in the direction of the noise, and I observed the President and I was horrified. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Cornwell, anything further? Mr. CORNWELL. NO, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally, under the rules of our committee, any witness appearing before our committee giving testimony is to be extended 5 minutes at the conclusion of their testimony, for the purpose of explaining or in any way amplifying or expanding upon their testimony before the committee. I wish to extend to both of you at this time 5 minutes in order to make any further comments that you so desire? Mrs. CONNALLY. I have nothing. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Chairman, let me, for both of us, express our gratitude to you, Chairman Stokes, and to all the members of the committee, to the staff of the committee, for what has been an obvious workman-like approach that staff has used in trying to develop all of the facts relating to this tragic event in the life of this Nation. Unfortunately, I think for the peace of mind of a great many people, much speculation has arisen, many rumors have flowed, many theories have been advanced. This committee is going to be faced, I think, with the same task that the Warren Commission was faced with; namely, how do you prove a negative, how do you prove there was no conspiracy? I think that is the task that you have. You have assembled a staff of obviously competent people with a determination to try to adduce all of the evidence that is available in the world, to properly analyze it and to properly present it, and to that extent I think the committee is undertaking a task which I am fearful will not answer all of the problems but, nevertheless, your report will undoubtedly shed a great deal of light on the tragedy that this Nation had and that this Nation will live with. I wish I could believe that all of the speculation will end, that all the answers will be given, all the rumors dispelled, all the theories dissipated, but I don't believe that, and it won t be the fault of the staff nor the fault of this committee, I think it will be a mere result of circumstances that are incapable of proof. 60 But for your effort and for your time, for your obvious dedication, we are grateful because we have obviously been a part of this event and we will always be a part of it, and so the more that the American people can understand I think the better the Nation is. I would make one other comment, Mr. Chairman, that is a gratuitous comment, that I hope is not inappropriate at this moment. Part of your task is to analyze the effectiveness of the Secret Service, the FBI, the other police agencies in the furtherance of their duties with respect to this tragic occurence. As Secretary of the Treasury, as you know, I had jurisdiction over the Secret Service. On many occasions, I talked to them about the problem of personal security of a President, of visiting dignitaries, and others. I happen to be of the view very much as your chief counsel, Mr. Blakey, said of President Kennedy, if there is a determined assassin, that beyond any question he can be successful. I don't think there is enough protection that any man in public life is going to surround himself with that will preclude a determined assassin from carrying out his mission. I can only say to you that I think the Secret Service was determined and dedicated to protect the life of the President, and unfortunately they failed. Senator Kennedy had security but they were unable to cope with his assassin. President Ford, if you will recall, also had security, a great amount of security, but they probably would have failed, too, if the young lady had known how to use a gun. So, that finally, I am simply saying to you I don't know that any political figure in this country can be spared an assassin's bullet if indeed there is a dedicated assassin. So I would hope that the American people would understand that the mere fact that the Secret Service failed was not a failure of desire, not a failure of dedication, not a failure of talent, but rather a failure of an evitable circumstance. Finally, again, let me express for Mrs. Connally and myself our appreciation for your kindness and for your courtesy and for the tremendous task that you have undertaken. Chairman STOKES. Governor, if I can just say to both you and Mrs. Connally on behalf of this committee, and the House of Representatives, we are indeed grateful to you for having appeared here today. Both of you in a very articulate way have made a contribution to our work, for which we are indeed grateful, and we thank you for having been here. Thank you very much. Mrs. CONNALLY. Thank you, sir. Chairman STOKES. Our hearing is now recessed until 2 p.m. this afternoon. [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the afternoon of the same day.] AFTERNOON SESSION Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order. The Chair, at this time, recognizes Professor Blakey. 61 NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Warren Commission, for the most part, conducted its investigation in executive sessions, just as this committee has. But unlike this committee is doing today, the Warren Commission did not hold extensive public hearings. It published an account of its findings and how they were arrived at in a report, with 26 volumes of backup material. The Commission then went out of existence, and it has remained officially silent since. In the 14 years that have followed, the investigation of the Kennedy assassination has become the subject of literally thousands of works of critical commentary. No official response has been forthcoming, since the Commission was no longer in being. For these reasons as much as any, the American public has found it difficult to credit the conclusions of the Commission. Indeed, the select committee probably owes its very existence to the process by which the critics raised issues by questioning the work of the Commission. The critical community is composed of writers and researchers, who, for years, have been examining the Warren Commission's work, perceiving some important issues that either were not addressed or were resolved, in the researchers judgment, inadequately. Some of the critics have acted reasonably and responsibly, motivated by an honest desire to find facts; others seem to have been impelled by a desire to capitalize on a sensational event, the murder of a President. The select committee has attempted to derive maximum benefit from the work of all of the critics. In September 1977, several of them were invited to a conference in Washington to present to the committee their opinions of what issues should be addressed in the investigation. The committee profited greatly from their views. Robert Groden, a photo-optical technician, has been one of the most active Kennedy assassination researchers. For the past 13 years, he has been analyzing the photographic evidence, and the results of his study played no small part in convincing many Members of the Congress that the Kennedy case should be reopened. Since the committee was established, Mr. Groden has served as a consultant to it, advising the committee on issues raised by the photographic evidence. Groden, 32, has given numerous lectures on his photo analyses, and his enhanced version of the Zapruder film, in part, witnessed this morning, has been widely shown publicly, including on ABC network. He is the author of "JFK: The Case for Conspiracy." He lives in New Jersey with his wife and two children. Mr. Groden is in a unique position to present to the committee the state of the knowledge of the critical community prior to the work of the committee and to articulate for it and the American people the crucial issues raised by the critical community, particularly as they were rooted in the photos available of the assassination. Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate now to call Mr. Groden. Chairman STOKES. The committee now calls Mr. Groden. 62 Sir, will you stand and raise your right hand to be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. GRODEN. I do. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT GRODEN Chairman STOKES. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mickey Goldsmith, counsel for the committee. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, would you please state your name and occupation for the record? Mr. GRODEN. Robert Groden, photo-optics technician. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, would you move the mike closer to you. Thank you. Now, Mr. Groden, in your capacity as a consultant to this committee, what has been your major responsibility? Mr. GRODEN. My major responsibility was to present to the committee those issues dealing with photographic evidence that it was felt could be scientifically addressed, perhaps improved upon as the knowledge of the critics has lasted through these years and perhaps give new information relating to those particular photographs and films. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, to what extent, if any, has the information you have been giving to this committee been limited to those issues that you personally thought to have merit? Mr. GRODEN. No, all of the issues to which I felt there was merit, I was given freedom to address, but also, additional issues which, perhaps, were not of my belief but certainly were raised by credible critics as well. Mr. GOLDSMITH. So basically, then, you saw your responsibilities as a consultant to advise the committee generally, and not just with regard to those issues with which you had worked; is that correct? Mr. GRODEN. That's correct, sir. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had an opportunity to express your opinion about these issues to the committee? Mr. GRODEN. Very freely, yes. Mr. GOLDSMITH. In what way did you express these opinions, sir? Mr. GRODEN. I have been invited down to address the scientific panels of the committee, the staff members, the committee itself on at least a dozen or more occasions. Mr. GOLDSMITH. And specifically, have you had contact with the committee's photography panel and medical panel? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, I have. Mr. GOLDSMITH. During the course of your contact with these scientific panels and with the committee staff, have the opinions that you had previously concerning the issues raised by the photographic evidence changed in any manner? Mr. GRODEN. In various issues, they have changed quite drastically and in others, they have remained unchanged through the entire course. 63 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Has the committee asked you to present today your opinions about the issues raised by the photographic evidence? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, they have. Mr. GOLDSMITH. It is my understanding, Mr. Groden, that the committee has invited you here today to testify about the issues in general without specifically referring to your own personal opinion; is that correct? Mr. GRODEN. That is correct. Mr. GOLDSMITH. So, to emphasize that point for purposes of clarification, you will be testifying about the issues generally as they existed prior to the formation of this committee? Mr. GRODEN. That is true. Any change of opinion that I have will not be reflected at this time. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, what general types of issues raised by the photographic evidence have been presented to the committee's scientific panels? Mr. GRODEN. Again, the issues that were presented by myself to the panels were those which I felt could be addressed scientifically that perhaps further enhancement or research or anything of that nature might be able to give us a broader view or a more realistic view other than the limited resources we had at the time. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had occasion to discuss with the committee questions concerning the number, timing, and direction of the shots fired at the President? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, I have. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you also discussed with the committee staff issues raised by the photographic evidence pertaining to crowd photographs? Mr. GRODEN. I have, as well; yes, Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have questions pertaining to authentication of photographs been raised with the committee's scientific panels? Mr. GRODEN. It has been a primary issue, yes. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Turning now to the first of these areas, specifically the number, timing, and direction of the shots fired at the President, would you please state for the record your knowledge as to the Warren Commission's conclusions concerning the number, timing and direction of the shots? Mr. GRODEN. The Warren Commission conclusions reflected three shots being fired; the timing being somewhere between 4,8 and 7.9 seconds, depending on which of the three shots missed. They concluded that three were fired, only two hit. If the first and third hit, then the total time-span would have been approximately 5.6 seconds. If either the first or the third missed, then the time would be conceivably greater, as long as perhaps 7.9 or greater than that. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Am I correct in summarizing your testimony to be that the Warren Commission's conclusion was that the timing range of the shots was between 4.8 and 7.9 seconds, depending upon which shot missed? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, sir; that's true. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Now, what technical basis did the Warren Commission have for being able to determine the timing of the shots? Mr. GRODEN. They used the Zapruder film which we are going to see in a little while, as a clock. The film was tested and the camera 64 was tested, and it was found it ran at an average running speed of 18.3 frames per second. Assuming that all of the shots came from behind, as the Commission did, and using this as a clock, it was determined this was the most accurate way to reconstruct the assassination. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Fine. Now, you have indicated that the Warren Commission was unable to determine exactly the timing sequence of the shots and that was because the Warren Commission was unable to conclude which shot actually missed. In the Zapruder film itself, what is the time that elapses from the moment the President is first showing a reaction until the head shot? Mr. GRODEN. The first noticeable reaction on the film occurs at the first frame where he reappears from behind the road sign which is Zapruder frame number 225. The head shot occurs at 313. The difference between the two frames would give the time-span of which the Warren Commission claimed it happened, which would be, indeed, 5.6 seconds. Mr. GOLDSMITH. It is on that basis that the Warren Commission said that if either the first shot or the third shot missed, you would add approximately 2.3 seconds to the overall range; is that correct? Mr. GRODEN. This is correct, because the mechanical minimum operating time for the rifle alleged to be used during the assassination was an absolute minimum of 2.3 seconds to fire a shot, cycle the rifle, that is pull back the bolt, automatically reinserting another bullet, closing the bolt and pulling the trigger again, without taking aim or anything else, the minimum firing time of 2.3 seconds, that's how they arrived at that figure. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Fine. Now, Mr. Groden, what wounds, to your knowledge, did the Warren Commission attribute to the two bullets that hit the occupants of the limousine? Mr. GRODEN. The second of the two bullets, which it was felt hit occupants of the limousine, was, of course, the fatal moment when the President's head explodes. The earlier shot striking anyone in the car, according to the Commission, first hit the President in the back passing through his body, exiting from his chest or the lower part of his neck. The bullet then went on to hit Governor Connally in the right shoulder, exiting the right side of his chest, entering and exiting his right wrist and eventually burying itself in his left thigh. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Is this the bullet that has become the source of what has been referred to as the "single bullet theory?" Mr. GRODEN. Yes; indeed, it has. Mr. GOLDSMITH. In other words, one bullet passing through both the President and Governor Connally? Mr. GRODEN. That is correct. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to refer to JFK exhibit F-273. It has been marked as an exhibit and I would like to have it offered into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it will be entered into the record at this point. [The above referred to exhibit follows:] 65 JFK EXHIBIT F-273 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Prior to proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate for the record that the young lady sitting to Mr. Groden's left is Mrs. Chris Groden. Chairman SToKEs-The record may so show. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, examining exhibit F--273, would you please identify that for the record? Mr. GRODEN This is a chart depicting the relative positions of men, Governor Connally and President Kennedy at approximately the time where the Warren Commission established, in all probability, the first bullet struck. It was drawn by a Warren Commission critic. And to the best of my knowledge, it is quite accurate, Mr. GOLDSMITH. That chart, then, is based upon photographic evidence? Mr. GRODEN. Indeed, it is. The Zapruder film, basically, except for the moment behind the road sign, showed the postion of the two men through the entire shooting sequence. Mr. GOLDSMITH. What was the Warren Commission's conclusion? Did the first bullet struck President Kennedy? Mr. GRODEN. They concluded, because of a large tree, a live oak tree growing between the window Oswald was alleged to have fired from and the point the President was in the car during the motorcade route, that no shot would have been fired before frame because the view is obstructed by the tree. It can be seen very clearly from the Zapruder film that, by the time the President reemerges behind the sign at 224 to 225, that indeed he has already been hit and he is responding to the wound in a clutching motion. 66 Therefore, they deduced the first bullet hit between frames 210 and 224. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, what question about the single bullet theory is raised by this chart? Mr. GRODEN. The basic problem with what the chart represents is the alinement of the two men, both on a horizontal and a vertical plane. If, indeed, the bullet--I am sorry, did I answer the question? Mr. GOLDSMITH. That is fine. Mr. GRODEN. I was going to suggest, the single-bullet theory that one bullet went on through both men would have to follow a flight path from that particular window, if Oswald was the assassin. Therefore, the bullet coming down, hitting the President in the back, exiting his throat, would have to have made some alteration in its flight path in order to hit Governor Connally at the angle in which it did indeed strike him. And it would seem the bullet would have had to make somewhat of a zig-zag type of situation; that is, the bullet going through the President perhaps doing something, illogically as it sounds, stopping in mid-air or being deflected somewhere along its route, hitting Governor Connally, going through his body, making a slight right-hand turn to hit him in the right wrist and then being deflected off the wrist almost 90 degrees to bury itself in his left thigh. This is the single-bullet theory, not as presented, but at the time the shot was supposed to happen, from that entire sequence from 210 to 224, for that bullet to have done this particular amount of damage, it must have taken a similar flight path to what I just described. Mr. GOLDSMITH. In summary, then you are suggesting according to this chart, which is based upon photographic evidence, the relative alinement of the two men in the vehicle was not consistent with the flight path of a single bullet? Mr. GRODEN. It would seem so, yes, sir. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Going beyond this chart, what questions, if any, about the single-bullet theory have been raised by the Zapruder film? Mr. GRODEN. Outside of the alinement of the two men, basically, it is the timing of the shots or the reactions of the two men. As mentioned before, when the President reemerges from behind the road sign, he does show definite signs of responding to a shot. Visually, at least, the Zapruder film shows no such evidence where Governor Connally is concerned. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Can you explain at this time in what way the single-bullet theory is relevant to the Warren Commission's conclusion that the President was shot by a single gunman? Mr. GRODEN. Very simply, I would say it is this: If the President were hit between 210 and 224, it was requiring a minimum firing time of 2.3 seconds or I believe it is 43 frames. That is, if the President were hit, let's say, at frame 210, Governor Connally could not have been hit by a separate bullet until 253. Also, if the President were not hit until 224, we would have to add 43 frames to that to the point where Governor Connally would be hit. 67 However, the Governor shows a very marked reaction by frame 237 to 238, which is only 1.8 seconds away, too soon for another shot to have been fired. Mr. GOLDSMITH. To clarify your testimony, I believe you said that if the President had been hit by frame 210 and based upon the 18.3 seconds standard, or 18.3 frames per second standard, and the fact that the rifle needed 2.3 seconds to be discharged, according to your testimony, you said the Governor could not have been hit by a separate bullet until frame.... Mr. GRODEN. 253 Mr. GOLDSMITH. 253. But really, what you meant, I think, is he couldn't have been hit by a separate bullet fired by the same gunman. Mr. GRODEN. That is correct. I am sorry I didn't make that clear. Assuming a single gunman using that particular weapon, the one attributed to belong to Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Now we are about to view the Zapruder film. I would like you to explain to the committee whether any special techniques have been applied to this film for the purpose of improving its quality. Mr. GRODEN. Two techniques have been involved. The first that you will see is merely a straight runthrough of the film. No special techniques have been involved in this except to color-corrected slightly. Right after that we will be viewing a special version of the which has been slowed down and it has been subjected to a technique called rotoscoping. That is, each frame is shot individually, repositioning the men in the car to eliminate the shakiness of the hand-held camera. This is done by using an optical printer, centering the point of interest, in this particular case the President and Governor Connally, so that they fill the frame eliminating all of the excess material on the film so we can simply follow their movements, their reaction times in relationship to each other and the car and the surrounding scenery. Mr. GOLDSMITH. As we view this film, what particular points should we be looking for? Mr. GRODEN. In the first run through, we will be getting a logical look at the film, It will be going slower than live speed so it is easier for anyone viewing it to, indeed, get the feeling and the visual response that was on the film, During the second run through, we will see various aspects of the film in highlighted detail. What we should be looking for is as the President reemerges from behind the sign, that immediately upon reemergence, his arms go up in a clutching, protective motion toward his throat; not, actually grabbing his throat, but much of a defensive-type attitude. Then, momentarily after that, there is a slight forward motion and push to the President downward and forward and then a few frames after that, we will see Governor Connally's right shoulder buckle sharply, his cheeks will puff out and his hair will become immediately dissheveled, all in one frame, I believe we will be showing that twice, one after the other, so that if it goes by too quickly the first time, it will be seen again. 68 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Fine, now before the film is viewed, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state for the record that this film is copyrighted. The copyright date is 1967 and the owner of the copyright is LMH, Inc. The film has been marked for identification as JFK F-148. I have also been requested to state that the film does show the head wound to the President very vividly and for this reason, viewing is not advised for persons who will be particularly sensitive to this type of violence. Can we please show the film at this time. Mr. GRODEN. May I also, before we do show it, suggest that the TV cameras who will be filming it allow a black border at the bottom because a great deal of the action happens at the extreme bottom of the frame and much of it might be lost. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you, Mr. Groden. [Showing of Zapruder film.] Mr. GOLDSMITH. Lights, please. Mr. Chairman, may we have JFK exhibits F-209 through F-247, F-249 through F-265, F-272, and F-274, which are enlargements of selected frames of the film just shown, entered into the record? Mr. PREYER. Without objection, they may be entered. [The exhibits referred to follow:] 69 JFK EXHIBIT F-209 JFK EXHIBIT F-210 70 JFK EXHIBIT F-212 JFK EXHIBIT F-213 71 JFK EXHIBIT F-211 JFK EXHIBIT F-214 72 JFK EXHIBIT F-215 JFK EXHIBIT F-216 73 JFK EXHIBIT F-217 JFK EXHIBIT F-218 74 JFK EXHIBIT F-219 JFK EXHIBIT F-220 75 JFK EXHIBIT F-221 JFK EXHIBIT F-222 76 JFK EXHIBIT F-223 JFK EXHIBIT F-224 77 JFK EXHIBIT F-225 JFK EXHIBlT F-226 78 JFK EXHIBIT F-227 JFK EXHIBIT F-228 79 JFK EXHIBIT F-229 JFK EXHIBIT F-230 80 JFK EXHIBIT F-231 JFK EXHIBIT F-232 81 JFK EXHIBIT F-233 JFK EXHIBIT F-234 82 JFK EXHIBIT F-235 JFK EXHIBIT F-236 83 JFK EXHIBIT F-237 JFK EXHIBIT F-238 84 JFK EXHIBIT F-239 JFK EXHIBIT F-240 85 JFK EXHIBIT F-241 JFK EXHIBIT F-242 86 JFK EXHIBIT F-243 JFK EXHIBIT F-272 87 JFK EXHIBIT F-244 JFK EXHIBIT F-245 88 JFK EXHIBIT F-246 JFK EXHIBIT F-247 89 JFK EXHIBIT F-249 JFK EXHIBIT F-250 90 JFK EXHIBIT F-251 JFK EXHIBIT F-252 91 JFK EXHIBIT F-253 JFK EXHIBIT F-254 92 JFK EXHIBIT F-255 JFK EXHIBIT F-256 93 JFK EXHIBIT F-257 JFK EXHIBIT F-258 94 JFK EXHIBIT F-259 JFK EXHIBIT F-260 95 JFK EXHIBIT F-261 JFK EXHIBIT F-262 96 JFK EXHIBIT F-263 JFK EXHIBIT F-264 97 JFK EXHIBIT F-265 JFK EXHIBIT F-274 98 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, has this film been the subject of extensive photo analysis by the committee's scientific panels? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, it has. Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would like, at this time, to refer to what have been marked as JFK exhibits F-244, 245, 246, 247, and F-249. They correspond with selected frames from the Zapruder motion picture. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, would you please identify each of these exhibits? Mr. GRODEN. From the left, the first exhibit is Zapruder frame 225. Do you want me to describe them or do you want me to identify them first? Mr. GOLDSMITH. Please identify them first. Mr. GRODEN. It will be 225, 230, 237, 238, and 274. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Before you proceed, how were the frames numbered? In other words, the numbering sequence, what is it based upon? Mr. GRODEN. The sequence that is commonly used in dealing with the frames of this film relate to a count that was done on the original film for the Warren Commission and for the FBI analysis, starting with the first frame in which any of the motorcade appears. There is a segment of film before the President's car appears which is frame 1, that's where that begins. The first frame showing the President is frame 133. The last one is frame 486. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Referring to each of these exhibits, would you please indicate what points each one raises about the single bullet theory? Mr. GRODEN. From the left at frame 225, this is the first frame where we see the President reemerging from behind the road sign. His left hand is clutching his lapel, his right hand is starting up toward his neck, toward his throat. Governor Connally appears to show no signs of distress at this point. The next is frame 230 in which Governor Connally is holding a Texas-style Stetson hat in his hand. That wrist again is the wrist that was shattered during the assassination sequence. The President, at this time, has his arms up in this protective motion I described before toward his throat. In the next one, frame 237, we see Governor Connally responding, or so it appears visually anyway, to the sound of the first shot. He does show some signs of distress. His shoulder, at this point, appears quite flat in relationship to the ground. His cheeks are of a normal attitude, although his mouth is open, and his hair is still down and flat. One-eighteenth of a second later, or frame 238, his shoulder has buckled violently downward, his checks have now puffed out, his mouth is closed and his hair has become disheveled. This is the only such detectible rapid change in the Governor in this entire sequence of the film that I was able to detect, perhaps indicating that this may be the moment when he was struck. The last of the five frames we are looking at here, the one of the right is frame 274 and in this, we are about to lose much of the President and Governor Connally's body to the lower frame line of the film, but we can see Governor Connally's right wrist, the one that was shattered, the distal radius bone, which was shattered. 99 We see the white cuff of the sleeve and we see that he is indeed still holding the rim of the hat in his hand. Again, this is about 2 1/2 seconds after the point the President has first shown his reaction in frame 225. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you, Mr. Groden. Turning now to the question of the direction of the bullets, what questions does the Zapruder film raise about the Warren Commission's conclusion that all three shots were fired at the President from behind? Mr. GRODEN. Dealing with various interpretations of the film, there is very little raised as to the direction in most portions of the film, except that at the moment of the head shot. At the moment of the head shot, we see the President thrown violently backward to the rear and to his left which would seemingly indicate a shot from the right front, from the area of the grassy knoll. The grassy knoll is mentioned here because a great many witnesses felt that at least one of the shots came from that area. The film shows the President going to the rear and the left on a direct axis from this point, therefore, many people have concluded that what we may be seeing is the result of a shot from the right front, striking the President in the head. Mr. GOLDSMITH. We are about to review the film a second time. At what point in the film specifically should the viewer be looking for the backward motion to the left by the President? Mr. GRODEN. It is in the later portion of the film. The President and the Governor will have received their nonfatal wounds, all of the nonfatal wounds inflicted that day. There will be a traveling time which will run, considering the slow-down speed that we will see here, of about 8 seconds. In actual time, it is 5.6 seconds in actual running time. The President will have just passed a light pole and then several witnesses, including a lady in a red dress--I am sorry, a red coat. Her name is Jean Hill. She is a witness an she was standing there. As soon as we see the red coat go by, we will count maybe two seconds or a second and a half in actual running time. The President's head will seemingly explode and then we will see the violent reaction of the President being thrown to the rear. It will be on the left side of the screen. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, this time when we show the film, I would like to ask you if you would be so kind as to narrate the film for the committee. Mr. GRODEN. I shall indeed. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you. Can we have the lights, please. [Showing of film.] Mr. GRODEN. This is the lead portion of the film. The President waving to the crowd and we see the road sign as he approaches it; disappears behind the sign and upon reemergence, we see his response and then Governor Connally's shoulder buckling. There's the light pole, the witnesses, and then the fatal shots now throwing him to the rear, or at least to the time when he moves toward the rear. Mrs. Kennedy, in a shock reaction, climbing out on the rear deck of the car and the car now begins to speed up and heads down to 100 the triple underpass on the Stemmons Freeway and to Parkland Hospital in an attempt to save the President's life. We are going to view the rotoscope version at this point, which will steady the image that we almost lost before. The President wiping a lock of hair off his forehead; he turns from his left to his right, looking toward us and Governor Connally turns as well. The President waves; the road sign; reemergence from the sign the President, now the shoulder buckle of Governor Connally, and we notice his wrist and then we lose them at the bottom frame line and the fatal head shots at the moment throwing the President to the rear. I should describe that perhaps not as the fatal head shot or shots, but rather, the impact on the President's head would probably be a more accurate statement at this point. We will view it one more time. The President is looking to his left and he turns to his right, looking toward us, then will begin to wave; the road sign; reemergence from the sign, and we see the President thrown slightly forward; Governor Connally still holding the hat in his hand and now the fatal head shot or the impact on the President's head throwing him to the rear; and Mrs. Kennedy's response, climbing on the rear deck lid of the car. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you. Can we have the lights now? Mr. Groden, was the President's backward motion apparent from the reprint of the frames from the Zapruder film in the Warren Commission report? Mr. GRODEN. No; it wasn't apparent at all from the reprint. Mr. GOLDSMITH. What is the reason for that, sir? Mr. GRODEN. The reason for that is in volume 18 of the Warren Commission appendix volumes, on pages 70 and 71, the frames, including the head shot and immediately following, are printed; they are labeled top to bottom and then left to right, 313, 314, 315, and 316. This is not, in fact, what we have here. We have 313, 315, 314, then 316. A reversal of the two frames following the shot to the President's head. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Do you know when this reversal was first discovered? Mr. GRODEN. It was discovered sometime after the Warren volumes were printed and it was not an issue for the Warren Commission, itself. It was discovered by a critic of the Warren report. And I believe the comment was made officially and the answer was that it was an inadvertent reversal of frames. The effect of this reversal of frames, however, would make it appear as though the President was thrown forward for two frames after the shot, quite markedly forward when, in fact, the reverse was the case. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, do you know whether there is any photographic evidence that bears upon the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired at the President from the Texas School Book Depository? Mr. GRODEN. I am sorry, could you repeat the question? Mr. GOLDSMITH. Certainly. Is there any photographic evidence that touches upon the Warren Commission's conclusion that 101 Oswald fired at the President from the school book depository building? Mr. GRODEN. There are various photographs taken of the depository at the time of the shooting just before and just after. Some showing the doorway of the depository, others showing the windows, some showing the whole face of the depository. Some of these were among the issues that were raised for the scientific panels. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to refer to what has been marked as JFK exhibits F-121, F-122, and F-123. They are blowups of photographs taken by photographers in Dealey Plaza and I move they be admitted into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record. [The above referred to exhibits follow:] 102 JFK EXHIBIT F-121 103 JFK EXHIBIT F-122 104 JFK EXHIBIT F-123 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you. Mr. Groden, would you please identify each of these exhibits? Mr. GRODEN. The exhibit on the left, on the top part of the left photograph, is a motion picture frame, one single frame taken from the film by Robert Hughes. Just as the President's car was about to turn off of Houston Street on to Elm. On the bottom is a blowup of the window which was supposed to have been the window used by the assassin during the shooting which will begin within seconds of this frame being taken. 105 The photograph in the center was taken by a man named Tom Dillard, who is a professional photographer; it is a newspaper photograph and it shows the entire wall of the depository; this section which we see here is somewhat cropped to highlight the window, again, the same window the assassin was supposed to have used. It was taken an estimated 3 seconds after the final shot was fired, but that is probably a loose figure. Within seconds would be a more accurate statement. The final photograph, the one on the right, on the bottom, was a very similar photograph taken by an Army intelligence man by the name of Powell, who was standing diagonally across the corners of Houston and Elm looking up. He took this photograph somewhere between 30 seconds and several minutes after the assassination. I am not clear as to the actual time. On the top, we see a blowup of the window in question, which is the easternmost window on the south wall of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, do any of these exhibits show a clear image of Lee Harvey Oswald in the sixth floor window? Mr. GRODEN. They do not. The photographs, as we see them here, do not show a clear image of anybody. Mr. GOLDSMITH. For what purpose did you bring these photographs to the attention of the committee? Mr. GRODEN. In the case of the Hughes film on the left, when the film is viewed in motion, it is clearly evident that at least the appearance of movement is within the window which Oswald is said to have used. There is also movement in the next set of windows. I felt that perhaps enhancement of this particular film and relevant frames of this entire sequence might show a comparison indicating movement within both windows and perhaps that it could be clarified enough or enhanced enough, we might be able to pick out something such as the color of a shirt or clothing. I would not think that it would be clear enough to show anything in the way of features of an individual's face. The one in the middle, the other photograph, could conceivably, since it was taken seconds after the shot was fired, could conceivably, from this angle, show some detail of someone still in that window in what was described as the sniper's nest, if, indeed, that's what it was. Again, I felt, given scientific analysis which had not been done before, to my knowledge, that if there were an image back there in the shadows, it could be enhanced to the degree of bringing out such an image and it might show, due to the clarity of this particular photograph, if it was or was not Lee Harvey Oswald. In the final photograph, the one on the right, it had been charged that that shape, that whitish shape we see in the window, could very well be the face and/or head or portion of the body of the assassin. Therefore, I felt that with what was available to the public at that time, which was a very fuzzy black and white still, we might be able to determine whether that shape was or was not an assassin or someone in that window. 106 Mr. GOLDSMITH. To your knowledge, Mr. Groden, did the Warren Commission ever have the opportunity to do any sophisticated photoenhancement work on these materials? Mr. GRODEN. I would say they did not. There is absolutely nothing in the record indicating that they did on these specific photographs. Chairman STOKES. Excuse me just a moment. I understand members of the committee are having some difficulty understanding you. Since your head is sort of turned away from your mike, could you pull your mike up closer? Mr. GRODEN. Is that better? Chairman STOKES. That is much better. Thank you. Mr. GRODEN. Do you want me to repeat what I just said? Chairman STOKES. Would you, please? Mr. GRODEN. Certainly. The question--would you repeat the question? Mr. GOLDSMITH. My question was whether the Warren Commission had occasion to conduct any photoenhancement work on these materials. Mr. GRODEN. And my answer to the question was, to the best of my knowledge, they did not and there is no indication in the record, they ever did. Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would like, at this point, Mr. Groden, to turn to another area of Dealey Plaza, other than the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to ask you whether there is any photographic evidence that bears upon the Warren Commission's conclusion that there were no other gunmen in Dealey Plaza other than Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. GRODEN. Do you have a specific exhibit? Mr. GOLDSMITH. Certainly. I will be glad to show you some exhibits. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to refer to what has been marked as JFK exhibits F-126, F-128, F-129, F-155, F-267, and F-274. We are going to be looking at exhibits F-126 and F-128 right now. I ask that all of the exhibits that I just referred to be admitted into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record. [JFK exhibit F-274 was entered previously.] [The above referred to exhibits follow:] 107 JFK EXHIBIT F-126 108 JFK EXHIBIT F-128 109 JFK EXHIBIT F-129 JFK EXHIBIT F-155 110 JFK EXHIBIT F-267 Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would also like to indicate for the record that Mr. Groden is going to be asked to discuss a series of exhibits. However, they are only a sample of the photographs that have been made available to this committee. Mr. Groden, would you please identify these two exhibits? Mr. GRODEN. These two exhibits are photographs taken from the same negative. A professional photographer for the Associated Press, James Altgens, took a series of five photographs, numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. There were seven photographs, I believe. This is negative No. 6, or the fifth in the sequence. On the photograph we see the entire photograph, including the sprocket holes of the film, and the borders of the entire image; and on the right, we see an extreme blowup of an area that includes the fire escape on what at the time was known as the Dallas Textile Building, and it shows a fire escape, and there is a man sitting on the fire escape, it is a black man with a white shirt on and dark trousers, and directly below him is an open window of a broom closet. There is a shape coming out of the bottom of that window diagonally, from upper right to bottom left. It is difficult. A little bit further down, down and a little to the left, down a little farther. There we go. That is the image, and the question that has been raised by various critics of the Warren report was this a rifle or some weapon being projected through the window, and one of the reasons for asking this question is the shape does not appear later on in other photographs and the man who is sitting on the fire escape appears to be in some form of distress in relationship to other photographs which show him sitting on that fire escape just moments earlier. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you. 111 At this time, I would like to have the witness make reference to JFK exhibits F-129 and F-155. Mr. Groden, would you identify these exhibits and then indicate what issues they posed to the committee's photographic evidence panel? Mr. GRODEN. The photograph on the left is a print from a polaroid photograph taken by a witness named Mary Moorman. This is the second of two photographs which she took that day. It was taken the moment of the explosion of the President's head, or a fraction of a second after that. In the foreground, we see the Presidential limousine, Mrs. Kennedy is the lightish area there, and the President is right next to her. In the foreground on the right we see part of the image of the flanking motorcycles. In the background, we see the area that has become known as the grassy knoll. On the left, at the top of the grassy knoll over three bystanders we see the stockade fence, on the top of the knoll which borders a parking lot, and on the left, from the center to the left we see, a little more to the right, there we go, from here to the right edge of the particular print we see a cement retaining wall, which is the front border of a set of steps. The three witnesses in the background, Emmett Hudson, and two others, that are on the left, are standing on the steps that lead up behind that wall. On the right, we see a photograph taken by Phillip Willis, it is his fifth photograph, and it was taken at about the time of the first shot, and in the background we see the same information that we see in the other photograph, the Moorman photograph on the left. Of course, here we see more of the limousine and more of Dealey Plaza in general. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Now, specifically, what issue is raised by these photographs? Mr. GRODEN. Behind the corner of that retaining wall, a little bit more to the left, there we go, at this point on the Moorman photograph, and at the end of the wall in the same position, right there, in the Willis photograph, there is a figure. This figure was standing in line almost to the degree in relationship to the rearward motion of the President's head. The figure is on the grassy knoll, has never been identified, at least to my knowledge, as to identity of this figure, and after the assassination, there is some testimony in the record as to this figure running away to the west or to the north and being chased by other witnesses. The possibility that this could be a gunman on the grassy knoll is the reason why I raised the issue in the first place. There is somebody there. The question is, who was he and what was he doing there, and I felt that sufficient photoanalysis of these and other photographs of the same person on the knoll, there are some half dozen, at least, might give some clue as to his identity so he could be questioned in this matter. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you. At this time, I would like to make reference to JFK exhibits F-267 and F-274. Again, Mr. Groden, I would ask you to identify these photographs and indicate what issues they raise. Mr. GRODEN. The photograph on the right is the 413th frame of the Zapruder film. It may be difficult to see because the bottom of 112 the easel is covering up part of it. But in the foreground of this photograph is a head, the head of somebody. This photograph, what we are seeing here, is a cropping of the fullframe. At the bottom of the frame we see branches of a tree, and leaves of a tree. Through the tree and 54 feet away from Zapruder camera is this head shape at the bottom of the photograph. The man is not in or anywhere near the tree. I would like to state that for the record. That at the end of the retaining wall, 54 feet away, I believe this to be the same man who appeared in the Moorman and Willis photographs that we just viewed a few moments ago. Coming from the figure of the head, there appears to be a straight object, from the lower right, by the head, heading upward and to the left to about that point, not quite that far, a little bit farther down, down--right there no down along that line on the same axis. There seems to be a shape that resembles a rifle. It could be a rifle, it could be a branch of a tree, it could be a broomstick handle, it is unclear as to what it is. And I felt that perhaps enhancement of this photograph might give some clue as to whether or not there is someone there with a rifle. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, before you proceed, can you explain what effect there is in the quality of the photograph when it is enlarged from a standard size to the size of an exhibit? Mr. GRODEN. Well, the first obvious thing that happens is the grain of the film is enlarged along with the image and, therefore, it gets fuzzier and fuzzier. It also tends to build up contrast with generations, and the liner areas tend to either overshadow or be washed out. For instance, at the diagonal shape going upward to the left, at the tip of it there is a somewhat larger appendage, just above that line, yet it seems to close in around it. The skin tones of the bottom of the neck and the ear of this man tend to change slightly in enlargement. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Does enlarging a photograph make it easier or more difficult to look for detail? Mr. GRODEN. Far more difficult. This is just representative of the fact there was an issue raised in relationship to this specific frame, which is one of 18 consecutive frames. It is the clearest of the 18 consecutive frames showing this figure or the back of a man's head. Mr. GOLDSMITH. I understand. Would you now refer to the exhibit on the left, and again Mr. Groden, I would ask you to speak up somewhat. Mr. GRODEN. OK. This is a frame from the film taken by Orville Nix. It corresponds to the 313th frame of the Zapruder film, or the moment of impact on the President's head. In the background, in the center, we see Abraham Zapruder and his Secretary, Marian Sitzman, as they are taking the film from the other side of the street, and on the extreme left, by the cement wall of a structure which we call a cupola, is what appears to be a man in a classic military firing position. The film itself is of poor quality, the camera was not an expensive one, and the lens was not particularly sharp. The figure is there, does appear to be in motion, and in a later sequence of the 113 film seems to have disappeared. I felt that perhaps the allegation of whether this is or is not a gunman on the grassy knoll might be addressed scientifically by the photographic panel. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you. Again, Mr. Groden, I would like to ask you, have any of the exhibits which have just been reviewed, to your knowledge, been subjected to sophisticated photo-enhancement techniques? Mr. GRODEN. Prior to this time, I do not believe so, at least to the best of my knowledge. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, what issues presented to the committee's scientific panels have been raised by the various photographs depicting the crowd in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination and shortly thereafter? Mr. GRODEN. Basically, the two major issues deal with possible co-conspirators or other unidentified witnesses that may be identified now, that is No. 1, and No. 2 is a possible alibi for Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. GOLDSMITH. I am sorry, I did not hear your second answer. Mr. GRODEN. A possible alibi for Lee Harvey Oswald, that is, if he were viewed on the first floor, or in a crowd downstairs at the time of the shooting, he could not have been upstairs on the sixth floor firing at the same time. Mr. GOLDSMITH. I understand, and we will get into that in more detail in a moment. You made reference a moment ago to questions pertaining to conspiracy. What types of questions related to conspiracy were raised by the photographic evidence? Mr. GRODEN. Well, the two major issues were relating to a man who has become known as the umbrella man, and one dealing with a character by the name of, or I should say a person by the name of Joseph Milteer. Photographic evidence has been presented in the past, through the last few years, dealing with these individuals asking questions but giving no answers, and I felt that perhaps enhancement of these photographs for anthropological examination or just photo-enhancement itself might give us a clue, positive or negative, relating to these individuals and a few others. Mr. GOLDSMITH. At this time I would ask that what has been marked as JFK F-130 be shown to the witness, and, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this exhibit be entered into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection it may be entered into the record. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you. [The above referred to exhibit JFK F-130, follows:] 114 JFK EXHIBIT F-130 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, I would ask you to identify this exhibit and then to indicate what questions this exhibit raises about the individual whom you refer to as the umbrella man? Mr. GRODEN. Basically, I would say there are two issues raised here. No. 1 is what he was doing during the assassination, and another one being what he did immediately following the assassination. The lower left hand area is a frame from the Zapruder film, and that area which is highlighted in red but has the arrow pointing to it is the open umbrella of the umbrella man, which is why he has been called that. He was an unidentified witness. At the time of the assassination that man and the man that we see on the right hand side of the same photograph with his arm raised in a wave, the same photograph, on the lower left. There we go. The man raising his hand who appears to have been with the umbrella man, they were standing next to each other and as the President's car went by, the man we call the umbrella man opened his umbrella and raised it as the President went by, pumped it in the air and turned it in a clockwise manner. This is very evident in the Zapruder film. The photographs on the top indicate that immediately following the assassination, within seconds of the assassination, he closed up the umbrella and while other people were running away or dropping to the ground or paying attention to the motorcade his reac- 115 tion always seemed to be quite contrary to the others. While others were dropping to the ground or running away he stood there quite at peace with himself, or at least photographically it appears that way, and he stood there. He stayed there for quite some time and eventually sat down on the curb as we see in the lower right hand portion of the exhibit, and he is sitting down. You can't see it now, there is a photographer in the way, but there is a man sitting next to him With white socks on. This is the same man who is waving in the Zapruder frame. They sat there for some time talking to each other with the umbrella on the sidewalk next to the umbrella man. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Was the Warren Commission, Mr. Groden, ever able to identify this individual? Mr. GRODEN. This man and the information around him was not made an issue until several years after the Warren Commission report was issued. They had no reason to look into this particular area. Mr. GOLDSMITH. You made reference earlier to an individual named Milteer who you said may have been a co-conspirator. Would you explain to the committee who this individual Milteer was and what basis there was for regarding him as a possible conspirator against JFK? Mr. GRODEN. Joseph Adams Milteer was an ultra right winger, a member of the National States Rights Party, Ku Klux Klan, and various other right wing organizations. Some 2 weeks before the assassination of President Kennedy an undercover agent, undercover informant for the FBI and Miami police named William Somerset, tape recorded a conversation between himself and Milteer. In this conversation, Milteer said the plans were in the works for the assassination of President Kennedy. It would be done using a high-powered rifle from an office building, the rifle would be broken down, taken into the building, used for the assassination, broken down and removed from the building, and that a patsy would be picked up by the police very soon after the fact to throw the police off and satisfy the public. Now this was 2 weeks before the assassination of President Kennedy. The tapes were made available to law enforcement organizations, including the Miami police and FBI, so the verification that it was a genuine tape before the fact can be proven. The day of the assassination Milteer made a long distance phone call from Dallas to the same informant, who by the way obviously he didn't know was an informant, but who had been a boyhood friend, Somerset. He called him and said you won't see your friend Kennedy in Miami again, and ended the conversation quite abruptly, and, of course, the President was shot in Dallas that day. The day following the assassination, in Miami, no, I believe it was Jacksonville, in Florida, Milteer met with Somerset and said, see, it went according to plan. I have the exact testimony. I don't think it is necessary at this point. Mr. GOLDSMITH. No, it is not necessary for you to summarize the exact testimony. Mr. GRODEN. He said it happened just as I said it would, I wasn't doing any guessing. 116 If, indeed, the whole story is true, and much of the evidence might tend to show that it is--if indeed Milteer was in Dallas, it could be assumed that he was in Dealey Plaza that day, viewing the assassination. A photograph taken by James Altgens, the man who took the photographs we saw before showing the first escape, the photograph before that one shows the crowd lining the east side of Houston Street, and in that crowd is a man who bears a very, very close resemblance to Joseph Milteer. Mr. GOLDSMITH. We are going to take a look at that photograph, Mr. Groden. At this time I would like to refer to JFK exhibits F-124 and F-125. Mr. Chairman, I ask that these exhibits be entered into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-124 and F-125 follow:] JFK EXHIBIT F-124 117 JFK EXHIBIT F-125 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Before I ask you to discuss these photographs, Mr. Groden, I would like to clarify something. You made reference to one tape recorded statement made by Milteer and to two other conversations as well. In total, how many of the conversations were tape recorded, to your knowledge? Mr. GRODEN. To my knowledge, only the initial conversation that included the threat was actually tape recorded, the rest was the testimony or the reports, FBI or Miami police reports, of William Somerset relating to his subsequent meetings with Milteer. 118 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Fine, I would like you now, if you would, to examine these exhibits, identify them, rather, and explain how they pertain to Milteer. Mr. GRODEN. As I described before, the photograph on the left, as we view it, is the No. 5 negative or the fourth in the series taken by James Altgens. It shows, among other things, the fire escape that we saw before in the background on the left, which will indicate again it is a cross reference to the other man, but in the crowds lining the County Records Building, which is the white building in the center right there, in the crowd is this man who bears a remarkable resemblance to Joseph Milteer. The photograph on the right, on the bottom, is a blowup of that section of the particular photograph, and on the top is a blowup of a photograph taken in a photo booth, where you go and put in your quarter and get four pictures. This is one of those frames and it shows Milteer. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, to your knowledge, do you know whether the Warren Commission dealt with this issue? Mr. GRODEN. The Warren Commission received the evidence, dealing with Milteer during the closing days of its deliberations. They did not act on the information about Milteer and the file was put in the National Archives. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Do you know whether the photographs showing the man in the crowd and the photograph of Milteer were ever studied by forensic anthropologists? Mr. GRODEN. To the best of my knowledge, up to this point in time, or until the life of this committee, they had not been so subjected. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to have the witness examine what have been marked as JFK exhibits F-131, F-173, and F-174. I move that they be introduced into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-131, F-173 and F-174 follows:] 119 JFK EXHIBIT F-131 JFK EXHIBIT F-173 120 JFK EXHIBIT F-174 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, would you please identify these exhibits and explain what issues they raise? Mr. GRODEN. The four photographs in the exhibit on the left are four of seven photographs depicting the arrest or detainment of three individuals which have become known as in quote "the tramps." They were arrested very soon after the assassination, behind the depository on a railroad boxcar. They were taken across in front of the depository, diagonally across Elm and Houston, toward Main and the jail. These people have become a tremendous issue in the last couple of years because there is no record of the arrest. They 121 were picked up in relationship to the assassination but no records were kept of the arrests. There were no official photographs of them, no fingerprints or identification were ever taken or made. The two exhibits, the one in the center and the one on the right, I believe would represent attempts to identify these people. The allegations were made sometime around 1976 that the taller of the three tramps could very well be Frank Sturgis of Watergate fame and that the shorter of the three, the shortest of the three, might be E. Howard Hunt, again of Watergate fame. This opinion was certainly not shared by all of the critics but the issue was put forward, thereby creating the need to try to identify these people, which probably should have been done anyway, and it had not been. The man on the left in the center exhibit is Frank Sturgis. The man on the right is the tall tramp. In the photograph, the exhibit on the right, the short tramp is at the top. E. Howard Hunt is on the left and the man on the bottom is a man named Fred Lee Crissman, who is another ultra right winger, a member of the Minuteman. He has become a prime suspect for critics of the report as a candidate to be the short tramp. I might also add this brings up a point which I didn't mention before, and I probably should have. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Please do. Mr. GRODEN. Mr. Milteer, the man we have just mentioned, died in 1974 at the age of 72, after a freak accident, where a Coleman heating stove exploded. He was hospitalized for a while and then some weeks afterward dies, and the explosion of the stove was given to be the cause of death. Crissman died prior to this point in time. I am unclear as to when, but he is no longer alive either. Chairman STOKES. We are still having some difficulty hearing you, if you will pull that mike up a little closer. Mr. MCKINNEY. I couldn't hear about the explosion. Mr. GRODEN. I am sorry. The issue that I was speaking about at the time was the death of Milteer. He had a Coleman heating stove and there was an explosion and he suffered burns on his legs, and this was attributed to be the cause of death. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, you made reference earlier to photographic evidence that you indicated gave rise to the possibility of an alibi defense for Lee Harvey Oswald. Which photograph were you referring to? Mr. GRODEN. For that we have to go back to the exhibit we had before, the No. 6 negative of the Altgens series. Mr. GOLDSMITH. At this time I would request that the witness be given an opportunity to take a look at JFK exhibit F-126 and what has been marked as JFK F-127. JFK F-126 has already been admitted into the record. Mr. Chairman, I request that JFK F-127 now be admitted into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-127 follows:] 122 JFK EXHIBIT F-127 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, referring to these exhibits, would you identify what they are and discuss how they relate to a possible alibi defense for Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. GRODEN. The exhibit on the left is again the full frame photograph taken by James Altgens. It shows in the foreground the Presidential limousine, Secret Service followup car, and the flanking motorcycles that were just to the rear, to the right and the left of the President's limousine. In the background is the front and top and bottom two stories of the Texas School Book Depository, including the doorway. Within that doorway is the figure of a man, which is the second figure from the left in the exhibit on the right. A great deal of the issue as to whether Oswald was involved in a consipiracy or whether he was involved at all to kill the President, or if indeed as a lone assassin whether he pulled the trigger, has related to this particular photograph. The man in the photograph bears a striking resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald. Again, that would be the second from the left. Lee Harvey Oswald, of course, is the man on the extreme left. The two photographs on the right are Billy Nolan Lovelady, a coworker in the depository, who bore a very, very strong resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald. Very soon after the actual assassination of the President, this photograph was discovered and the man in the doorway was seen, and the question that was initially raised, was this Lee Harvey Oswald? If it was him on the first floor, it could not be him firing from the sixth floor. The FBI went back and investigated and established this was Billy Nolan Lovelady. The question still persisted, however, 123 through the years because the clothing on the photograph as we view it does not match the clothing that the FBI said Lovelady was wearing that day, which would be a short sleeved broad red and white striped shirt. The man in the doorway appears to be wearing a tweed or plaid type of design which more closely resembles the over shirt worn by Oswald that day. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, taking a look at the exhibit on the left, is it possible to correlate that with the Zapruder film? Mr. GRODEN. This photograph was taken at the approximate midline of the shooting sequence about frame 255 of the Zapruder film, give or take a few frames. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Excuse me, I am sorry, is the President showing a reaction? Mr. GRODEN. The President has been struck, his arms are already in the clutching motion, Mrs. Kennedy's left white gloved hand is attempting to aid her husband. By now she must be aware something is wrong and she is trying to assist and see what is happening or grasp the situation. I would assume that is about what we are seeing. Governor Connally had turned back into his wife's arms and is now looking over his shoulder after he has turned. So the two men by this point have been struck. Mr. GOLDSMITH. To your knowledge, Mr. Groden, prior to 1978, have these photographs and others showing Oswald and Lovelady, been examined by any forensic anthropologists? Mr. GRODEN. To the best of my knowledge; they have not. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, have you had an opportunity to examine the pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald that were taken from his home in Dallas that show him holding a rifle in one hand and a socialist newspaper in another hand? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, I have. I have examined them quite closely. Mr. GOLDSMITH. At this time I would ask that the witness be given an opportunity to examine JFK exhibit F-179. Mr. Chairman, I move that this exhibit be entered into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-179 follows:] 124 JFK EXHIBIT F-179 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden. Would you please identify this exhibit? Mr. GRODEN. This exhibit displays two photographs found in Oswald's garage, the garage owned by Mrs. Ruth Paine, where Mrs. Oswald was staying in Irving, Tex. They were found after the assassination, and they depict a man holding a rifle, wearing a pistol on his right hip, and holding two Socialist newspapers, the Militant and the Daily Worker. The face on the photograph would seem to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. GOLDSMITH. What question has been raised about these particular photographs? Mr. GRODEN. The first question raised about one of these photographs, the photograph on the left, which is indentified as 133-A, were shown to Lee Harvey Oswald the afternoon of the assassination. Or let me clarify that. It may be the afternoon of the assassination or it may have been the next day. For the moment I am not clear on that. He was shown the photograph and he said this photograph is a fake. He said I know how this is done, it is my face but not my body, I could show you how it is done. He never got the opportunity to do so. But the issue was raised at that point were these photographs genuine or not. Mr. GOLDSMITH. How did the Warren Commission deal with this issue. Mr. GRODEN. The Warren Commission had their investigative arm, the FBI, examine the photographs and run some tests on them, including testing the camera to which these photographs were supposed to have been taken. The conclusion was that the 125 photograph was almost definitely taken with Oswald's camera, an Imperial Reflex, and that although they could not prove that the photographs were genuine, it seemed to them in all likelihood that they were indeed genuine. In other words, they could find no definite signs of fakery in the photographs. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Fine. At this point, I would ask that the witness be given an opportunity to refer to what has been marked as JFK exhibit F-270. Mr. GRODEN. I might also add that the Dallas police at the time of the discovery of these two photographs, also found one negative. The one that would belong or coincide with F-133-B. Mr. GOLDSMITH. This negative was examined by the FBI? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, it was. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I request that JFK exhibit F-270 be entered into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [The above referred JFK exhibit F-270 follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-270 Mr. GOLDSMITH. And, Mr. Groden, referring to both of these exhibits, I would ask you at this point to explain on what basis the Warren Commission's conclusion regarding the exhibit on the left, specifically the conclusion that the photographs are authentic has been criticized? Mr. GRODEN. There have been a lot of issues raised about these photographs through the years by the critics of the Warren report. 126 For instance, among them, the most credible of the arguments are the size ratio between the length of the rifle, which is now in the Archives and in relationship to the height of the man in the photographs. Indeed, the height of the man in one photograph in relationship to one in the other, there seems to be a 4 or 5 inch disparity in height between the two photographs. A different falling of shadows, for instance. In one photograph the head tilts to a different angle yet the relationship of the shadow under the nose to the mouth does not change with the shadows in the rest of the picture, as it should, but rather stays in relationship to the angle of the face. More than any other issues, I think, however, relate to what Oswald had said, that is, that his face had been pasted on another person's body, and through the years much study has indicated that there is evidence of a line, a crop or paste line through the center of Oswald's chin, occurring at that point. It starts at one edge of the head, of the neck, and goes on to the other, and there seems to be a slight misalinement of the neckline as it travels downward from the head toward the shoulders on both sides of the head. This occurs only on F-133A, as viewed here. On F-133B, it is not sufficiently sharp to see this type of a line. There again seem to be problems with that photograph as well, but the main issue that we are dealing with here is what appears to be a paste line through Oswald's chin. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have any other questions been raised about the chin itself? Mr. GRODEN. This is very well demonstrated by the exhibit on the right. Oswald in the arrest photograph that we see on the left had a pointed chin with a cleft in it, and a not particularly muscular neck. The man on the right however, seems to have a squarish chin, without a cleft, and a slightly more muscular neck. Even taking into consideration the difference in the angle the photograph may have been taken, there does seem to be quite a difference in the two chins. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Turning to another aspect of this photograph, Mr. Groden, what finding, if any, did the Warren Commission make concerning the rifle that Oswald is shown holding in these picture? Mr. GRODEN. Although they could not verify completely or be 100 percent sure the rifle in that photograph was the one that was found in the depository, they did use it as part of their conclusion that Oswald did indeed own that rifle. They said in all likelihood it was the same, it bore the same general configuration, but there were no sufficient identifying marks that would be peculiar to that particular rifle over any other of the same product run. Mr. GOLDSMITH. So are you saying then that the Warren Commission was unable to make a positive identification of the rifle but, nevertheless, concluded generally that this was the rifle that Oswald used for the assassination? Mr. GRODEN. That is correct. Mr. GOLDSMITH. At this time I would request that the witness be given an opportunity to examine JFK F-208. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this exhibit be introduced into the record. 127 Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-208 follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-208 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, referring to this exhibit, would you explain on what basis the Warren Commission's conclusion concerning the rifle has been questioned? Mr. GRODEN. The major question relating to this rifle starts with a fact that there were several reports of different rifles being found and the comparison, the photographic comparison of the various 128 photographs of the rifle which is in question, the Mannlicher Carcano C-2766, starting with the photograph on top, which is one of the backyard photographs, as we see here, 133-A, going through various other photographs and stages of photography dealing with that particular rifle, down to the bottom, which is the rifle as it appears in the Archives today, the issue raised here is that when you line up given points on the rifle, for instance, the metal parts of the rifle, the tip of the sight or the end of the barrel, the tip of the receiver, the trigger housing, or the trigger itself, when all of those line up, then the butt, the length of the butt or the edge of the butt seems to line up in different points to different measurements. Conversely, if you line up both tips of the rifle, that is, the end of the barrel and the end of the stock, then the metal parts do not align exactly either, which gives rise to the question, are we looking at the same rifle or various different rifles of a similar type. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Groden, perhaps I should ask you to indicate who prepared this exhibit or who prepared the photograph that was the basis for this exhibit? Mr. GRODEN. This particular exhibit I believe was prepared by Jack White who is one of the critics of the Warren report. Mr. GOLDSMITH. In other words, it was prepared by a Warren Commission critic? Mr. GRODEN. It was indeed prepared by a Warren Commission critic. Mr. GOLDSMITH. If I may summarize your testimony, please correct me if I am wrong, you are indicating, I believe, that according to this exhibit, the rifle at the top, which is the rifle Oswald is shown holding in the backyard photograph, does not line up with the rifle in the bottom, which is the photograph of the rifle that appears in the Archives, is that correct? Mr. GRODEN. That is the specific argument here, I believe. Mr. GOLDSMITH. What issue is raised by the other photographs or by the other rifles that appear in that exhibit? Mr. GRODEN. Simply that the different points on the rifle do not line up with either one or the other. There are three or four specific points that don't line up, which if it is the same rifle, really should. Mr. GOLDSMITH. How many other photographs were taken of this rifle and when were they taken, if you know? Mr. GRODEN. I am not clear as to all of them. I know that the one on top is the backyard photograph. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Excuse me, Mr. Groden, I am not going to ask you to try to explain the source of each particular photograph that served as the basis for this exhibit. I am simply asking how many photographs of the rifle were taken after the assassination? Mr. GRODEN. I would say countless, countless photographs. I don't know exactly how many. Mr. GOLDSMITH. And were some of those photographs used as the basis for this exhibit? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, they were. I see some as the rifle was removed from the depository, which were some of the first photographs we saw of them, or that we have of them, some of the earliest ones, 129 some in the police station, probably, but it is during various stages and from different sources. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Now, examining the exhibit, is your testimony that the rifle as shown there also fails to line up consistently? Mr. GRODEN. Quite frankly they do seem to have a problem lining up. They don't seem to line up exactly. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Was there ever any question about how many rifles were discovered in Dealey Plaza? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, there was. Initially, the first report was that-- one of the first reports was that a rifle was found on the roof and the specific rifle we are talking about now was originally described as a Mauser of a different caliber. That is what gave rise to the question initially and then there is the question of the length of the rifle that Oswald was supposed to have ordered and the length of the one that is in the Archives at this point. So the question has been raised several times for various different reasons, and for that reason, I think that this is a very valid test to check the analysis out. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Fine, now other than the backyard photographs of Oswald, to your knowledge, what other photographs pertaining to this case itself, to the Kennedy assassination case, have been questioned with regard to their authenticity? Mr. GRODEN. Some of the photographs dealing with Lee Harvey Oswald earlier on in his life have become recently under fire as to whether or not they are genuine or not. An issue has been raised whether the Lee Harvey Oswald that was alleged to have shot the President and was arrested in Dallas was eventually shot by Jack Ruby was the Lee Harvey Oswald of history, the one who had been Lee Harvey Oswald up until going to the Soviet Union. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Has any question been raised about the Kennedy autopsy photographs? Mr. GRODEN. The autopsy photographs also came into a great deal of challenge by the Warren commission critics in that the reports dealing with the autopsy photographs from different groups going into the Archives to view them gave such markedly different results, at least verbal results, as described in relationship to each other and to the medical personnel at Parkland Hospital who seem to describe totally different wounds than those seen in the photo- graphs described. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Fine. Now, we do not have the autospy photographs available for us to examine, Mr. Groden, at least not today. You have made refer- ence earlier to photographs of Oswald taken of him while he was in the Soviet Union, and at this time I would like you to refer to what has been marked as JFK exhibits F-132 and F-166. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that these exhibits be entered into the record. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-132 and F-166 follow:] 130 JFK EXHIBIT F-132 131 JFK EXHIBIT F-166 Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would you identify these exhibits and explain what issue they raise? Mr. GRODEN. The exhibit on the left shows three separate photographs taken at different times of either a or the Lee Harvey Oswald. The photograph on the right, the exhibit on the right, represents the Marine photograph showing Oswald and allegedly his height. Mr. GOLDSMITH. What issue is raised by that photograph, Mr. Groden? 132 Mr. GRODEN. Well, the question as to the identity of the man who was alleged to have shot the President has been raised over a period of time and the issue of his height came into being. The man who enlisted in the Marines was described as being 5 feet 11 inches. The man whose autopsy was performed in Texas after the assassination was described as being 5 feet 9 inches. The charge has been raised that this Marine Corps photograph of Oswald has been doctored to show that this man was indeed 5 feet 9 inches and not 5 feet 11 inches, and one of the main reasons why this has been raised is that it seems to show a man with a 13-inch head from top to bottom, which would seem disproportionately large for a man of Oswald's height. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Fine. Now, referring to the exhibit on the left, what types of questions have been raised about these photographs? Mr. GRODEN. Again, the same initial question as to the identity of Oswald, was it the real Harvey Oswald or was it another Lee Harvey Oswald or someone impersonating him? The angles of the face do seem to change from time to time, in some cases a little wider and in some cases a little taller. Of course, these are taken at different stages in his life. But, that is what the issue appears to be. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Is it fair to say that these photographs all pertain to what has become known as the second Oswald theory? Mr. GRODEN. I would say that it reflects on one of the second Oswald theories, there being basically two. That is, the idea of the switched identity or an imposter Oswald, in that case, and the other issue would relate to various incidents around Dallas, Oklahoma, Mexico, various portions of the United States, which would tend to show a Lee Harvey Oswald when the Lee Harvey Oswald as we know him would appear to have been at another point or doing something else at the same specific time. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Fine. Again, I would like to ask, Mr. Groden, to your knowledge, prior to 1978, have any of these photographs of Oswald been studied by forensic anthropologists? Mr. GRODEN. To the best of my knowledge, no; I know of no such study. Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this time. I would like to thank Mr. Groden for summarizing the issues raised by the photographic evidence that have been presented to this committee's scientific panels. Chairman STOKES. I am sorry. Mr. GOLDSMITH. I simply indicated, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this time. Chairman STOKES. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I gather, Mr. Groden, that what you have been doing for us is outlining issues which have been raised in the critical community by various photographs? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, sir, indeed those which could be addressed by the medical or photographic panels. Mr. PREYER. And you are not attempting to answer those for us this afternoon? Mr. GRODEN. Not this afternoon; no, sir. 133 Mr. PREYER. So this is a stay tuned next week pan of the program today. I won't go into the answers to those tantilizing questions but will await further news on that. I did just want to ask you one question. From the Zapruder film and your analysis of that, is it your opinion that the first shot that hit President Kennedy also hit Governor Connally? I wasn't quite clear on your description of that. Mr. GRODEN. It would appear photographically that analysis of the film would show that the two men were struck by at least two if not more separate nonfatal shots prior to the head shot. Mr. PREYER. Would you say that again, each man was hit by at least two shots? Mr. GRODEN. No, more than the single bullet was involved in the actual nonfatal wounding of both men. It would, at least my analysis of the film through the years would tend to show that. Mr. PREYER. But you are not giving your opinion as to whether the shot which hit President Kennedy in the throat, the first shot, whether that was the shot that hit Governor Connally or not? Mr. GRODEN. I do not believe that they are the same bullet. I severely question that particular conclusion. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Groden, in your photographic analysis of the Zapruder film--let me backtrack a moment--were you here in the room this morning when Governor Connally testified? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, sir, I was. Mr. DEVINE. My recollection of the Governor's testimony was that when he heard the first of what he described as two shots fired, that he turned slightly to his right to glance but did not observe the President, he turned back at which time when he attempted to turn to the left, at which time he didn't hear the shot but was hit by a bullet. Now, if I correctly witnessed the Zapruder film a moment ago, I believe it showed Governor Connally turned to his right and was virtually facing the President after the first shot. Would you say that is a correct analysis or incorrect? Mr. GRODEN. I would say, sir, that it is very definitely accurate analysis and you have seen something that is extremely important; yes, it is true. Mr. DEVINE. My next question would be this. As Governor Connally turned back toward the front, do you recall from you photographic analysis at what position his head was at the time he was struck by a bullet when, I think you said, his cheeks and his hair indicated he was being hit? Was he faced forward or more to the left or do you recall? Mr. GRODEN. Well sir, to answer that question I would like to go back very quickly to Governor Connally's testimony before. the Warren Commission, which was that he had turned to the right, could not see far enough to see the President, started to turn back toward the left, to turn to the left, which is I believe what he repeated this morning, and as he, according to the Warren Commission testimony, he turned a little bit left, as he got a little bit 134 left of center, that was the point where he was struck by the bullet, which would line up with about 236 to 238, which is what we saw just now with the exhibits. Mr. DEVINE. Was that confirmed by your analysis of the Zapruder film? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, it was, sir. Mr. DEVINE. When Governor Connally's recollection is that he heard one shot fired, turned back, did not hear the shot that hit him, but heard a third shot, is that consistent with your analysis of the Zapruder film? Of course, there is not a sound track. Mr. GRODEN. No, there isn't. As to whether that is consistent or not would be a matter of interpretation and a little bit of guesswork. The only thing I could say is that, where the guesswork is concerned is if Governor Connally, upon being hit, went into an immediate state of shock, where for the moment he did not hear the sound of the bullet that hit him, this could account for him not hearing the second shot. Again, this is purely interpretive. I certainly don't want to present that as fact, but it could possibly be a reason why he didn't hear the second shot. Mr. DEVINE. I am totally confident that Governor Connally's testimony was based on his best recollection of the situation as it occurred nearly 15 years ago. Thank you, sir. Mr. GRODEN. Thank you, sir. Chairman STOKES. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the' District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Groden, I would just like to ask a couple of questions based on your knowledge as a photo-optical technician. The first relates to the photographs of the book depository, alleged to have been taken around the time the shots were fired. Would a camera pick up a smoke puff from a rifle? Mr. GRODEN. It could, sir, if the light hit it a specific way, where the light was reflecting off of the smoke; yes. If it were coming so that the light were passing through it it might not. It is conceivable that it would show. I can cause as a definite type of perhaps future exhibit to answer that question. During the 1967 CBS reconstruction of the crime, which there are an awful lot of problems with, as far as the critics are concerned, but when they showed the rifle, a Carcano rifle being fired from the depository window, there was a great deal of smoke in evidence on the film. If you would want to see the degree to which smoke could be photographed in this specific sense, that might be a very good place to go to to view such an exhibit. Mr. FAUNTROY. I guess then my question is, why, on the photographs which we saw, was there no smoke, if in fact the pictures were taken at about the time the firing began? Mr. GRODEN. Well, sir, I can only answer that by saying in two of the photographs there appear to be smoke and in one there almost definitely is. The Moorman photograph that we viewed, the enlargement from the Polaroid there is, what definitely appears to be smoke within second after the President's been struck in the head. There does appear to be such evidence 135 Mr. FAUNTROY. Are you familiar with the picture that suggests a puff of smoke from the grassy knoll? Mr. GRODEN. This is what I was referring to. Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes. Give us an explanation of how that could be photographed and how, at least, I could not see any puffs around the window? Mr. GRODEN. OK. If I may, just to digress for a moment. The first question of the puff of smoke came from the witnesses on the overpass that looked in that direction, the area of the grassy knoll as the shots were being fired and saw what appeared to them to be a puff of smoke. The reason why you could not see it here is this was a somewhat wide angle situation. I am preparing, if I may get back to what Mr. Preyer said a moment ago about possibly a future appearance--I am preparing an exhibit dealing with a very clear enlargement of the specific area where this man who appears in the Zapruder film, the Willis film and the Moorman photographic film, where he was standing, where there does appear to be a very clear puff of smoke. Now, it may not be a puff of smoke. It may be an illusion. But, it does appear to be such a puff of smoke. Mr. FAUNTROY. Given the angle from which the Zapruder film was taken and the suggestion that perhaps it was a figure of a man. as the camera panned past what seemed to be some shrubbery? Mr. GRODEN. Yes, sir. Mr. FAUNTROY. Where would that man have been standing? Mr. GRODEN. That man would have been standing in the same position where the man was in the Willis photograph and Moorman photograph, within the crux of the concrete retaining wall, that low retaining wall. Is it appropriate to recall an exhibit? Chairman STOKES. Sure. Mr. GRODEN. The Willis photograph. Mr. GOLDSMITH. That is numbers F-155 and F-129, Willis and Moorman, and number F-274. Mr. GRODEN. In fairness to the Warren Commission report dealing with this specific figure that we are talking about here, the issue was never raised to them. This is a figure which did appear, we knew it appeared in Willis and Moorman and the rest, and the question was did he appear in any of the motion pictures, and the question became, does he appear in the Zapruder film and another researcher of the assassination and myself both spent a great deal of time searching and scanning the film to try to find if there was anybody there, and it became very, very time consuming because we didn't know exactly what we were looking for. The direction is not particularly clear in the Zapruder film, initially because there are no specific reference points except for in the background that pole behind the running man that we viewed on the right. The man at the end of the retaining wall on the Willis photograph, right there, and right there at the end, a little bit smaller than that, than was just indicated in that area there, the same man in the same position, you can see Zapruder on the Willis photograph standing at that point. Directly in front of him and slightly lower in the tree in question, it is a pyracantha and 54 feet away and through we pick up 136 the image at the end of the wall of the man who does appear in the Zapruder film. At least this is my analysis of it. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Groden, I really don't have any specific questions for you other than to thank you for your help and to, as I understand it, reiterate what I understood your testimony is this afternoon. You are identifying through photographic evidence those areas of controversy that have been raised by critics of the Warren Commission report. Is that a fair assessment of what you are doing here? Mr. GRODEN. I would say that is a very fair assessment of it, those which I felt could be addressed. There are other questions about this, but they could not be rectified or enlightened upon, in my opinion. I was able--I must say I was not restrained by the committee and I was able to express all of my opinions from the very beginning on through. Mr. DODD. I only ask this because I am curious, I am not sure myself, not being that familiar with your background. You are a photooptical technician. I presume you have studied that or do you have a degree, or is there some formal course work or is that something you acquired through normal work? Mr. GRODEN. Basically it starts as on the job type of training. It is something that someone who goes to school to learn to try to do, say, through RIT or the Kodak Institute or any specific--- Mr. DODD. What I was getting at here is, as part of that training, you don't have any specific expertise in ballistics, fire arms, or forensic pathology? Mr. GRODEN. No, sir, not at all. Mr. DODD. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. I would just like to say for the benefit of both the members of the committee and the audience or the viewers, that the gentleman who appears here today, Mr. Groden, appears here in his capacity is to raise the various issues that have been raised relative to photographs by the various critics of the critical community. In subsequent days in these hearings, this committee will produce the technical experts who will answer the types of questions that have been raised here today through one of the members of the critical community. So, I caution that his testimony is to be received for that purpose only. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. McKinney. Mr. MCKINNEY. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to thank the witness for putting forth, as clearly as he has, the critical questions that have been raised over the years. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Ford. Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of what you said, I have only one question. When Mrs. Kennedy crawled out of the limousine on the back of the trunk, do we have a photo of what she picked up at that time? Have you seen a photo of what she picked up from the trunk of the car? Mr. GRODEN. This is a very, very touchy issue, sir. You are one of the few people who, viewing this--I assume this is not the first time you have seen this film, but, very few people catch the fact she does indeed appear to be picking something up. I specifically did not mention what I thought that to be, but from her testimony, which includes the fact she has no recollection of ever climbing out on the trunk in the first place, it would appear that she picked up a piece of skull that had been blown to the rear or a piece of brain matter, or something that had been blown backward from the impact of the shot. She does appear to reach out, brace herself with her left hand, reach out with her right hand, pick something up and take it back into the car. One of the initial interpretations of the film was that the Secret Service agent, Clint Hill, reached her and pushed her back into the car. He doesn't do that. She climbs back by herself He barely touches her forearm. So, it would seem as though she had some specific purpose to climb out, pick something up and bring it back, which may be relevant to dealing with the direction from which the shot may have come. Mr. FORD. Do you recall a photograph of her picking anything up off the trunk? Mr. GRODEN. There is one. The No. 7 Altgens photograph, No. 7, which is the sixth one of the series. I state it that way because the numbers on the individual negatives, there is no No. 1, so I state it that way for clarity, shows her picking something up cupped in her hand, but what it is, we cannot see from the photograph. Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. I only have one question, Mr. Groden. This morning Mrs. Connally was very clear in her testimony about what she perceived each of the three shots as having done; the first one going through the President's neck, the second one hitting Governor Connally, and the third one exploding the President's head. In your hours of analyzing photographs, do you have photographic evidence to either corroborate or refute that? Mr. GRODEN. In my opinion, I would state that I find that to be a more accurate description of what the photographic evidence would tend to show happened than what has become known as the singlebullet theory. Again, I want to express this is my opinion on it and it is subject to change. I do believe that the President was, in all probability, was struck by an earlier bullet. From Governor Connally's very definite testimony as having heard the first shot, and had the reaction time to turn around and then turn back, that whether the President was hit by an earlier bullet or not, that there was one bullet fired before Governor Connally was hit. I think there is very little question about that. Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. 137 In light of what you said, I have only one question. When Mrs. Kennedy crawled out of the limousine on the back of the trunk, do we have a photo of what she picked up at that time? Have you seen a photo of what she picked up at that time? Have you seen a photo of what she picked up from the trunk of the car? Mr. GRODEN. This is a very, very touchy issue, sir. You are one of the few people who, viewing this---I assume this is not the first time you have seen this film, but very few people catch the fact she does indeed appear to be picking something up. I specifically did not mention what I thought that to be, but from her testimony, which includes the fact she has no recollection of ever climbing out on the trunk in the first place, it would appear that she picked up a piece of skull that had been blown backward from the impact of the shot. She does appear to reach out, brace herself with her left hand, reach out with her right hand, pick something up and take it back into the car. One of the initial interpretations of the film was that the Secret Service agent, Clint Hill, reached her and pushed her back into the car. He doesn't do that. She climbs back by herself. He barely touches her forearm. So, it would seem as though she had some specific purpose to climb out, pick something up and bring it back, which may be relevant to dealing with the direction from which the shot may have come. Mr. FORD. Do you recall a photograph of her picking anything up off the trunk? Mr. GRODEN. There is one. The No. 7 Altgens photograph, No. 7, which is the sixth one of the series. I state it that way because the numbers on the individual negatives, there is no No. 1, so I state it that way for clarity, shows her picking something up cupped in her hand, but what it is, we cannot see from the photograph. Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian. Mr. FITHIAN. I only have one question, Mr. Groden. This morning Mrs. Connally was very clear in her testimony about what she perceived each of the three shots as having done; the first one going through the President's neck, the second one hitting Governor Connally, and the third one exploding the President's head. In your hours of analyzing photographs, do you have photographic evidence to either corroborate of refute that? Mr. GRODEN. In my opinion, I would state that I find that to be a more accurate description of what the photographic evidence would tend to show happened than what has become known as the single-bullet theory. Again, I want to express this is my opinion on it and it is subject to change. I do believe that the President was, in all probability, was struck by an earlier bullet or not, that there was one bullet fired before Governor Connally was hit. I think there is very little question about that Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. 138 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer. Mr. SAWYER. Yes, I only have one question. There has been a lot of testimony that we have heard, not just from you, but earlier in other sessions, about puffs of smoke, and I don't have any expertise in knowing what the photographic sensitivity of film is, but I do a lot of hunting myself, and I have seen a lot of guns fired with smokeless powder loads, and there is no discernible smoke to the human eye when you are watching one fired. I wonder, have you ever done anything along that line to try to get pictures of smoke coming out of a modern rifle? Mr. GRODEN. The only way I can answer that, and I think it is an excellent question, the only way I can answer that question is to say that I initially thought the idea of smoke on the knoll could not have happened for that very same argument, a modern rifle simply does not smoke. However, the CBS report, although they didn't catch it themselves, shows the rifle being fired, as I recall, several dozen times, and every single time, there is a rather large puff of white smoke. Mr. SAWYER. Yes, I don't know how they did that, but when you are firing a muzzle-loader or black powder rifle, which they haven't put out for a long, long time, way before the period of time we are talking about, the modern mode and smokeless loads, at least when you watch them fired, you can't see any smoke come out of them. Mr. GRODEN. Again, that was my argument originally, too. I thought that there was no chance of it. Yet, this specific visual testing showed in every single case, not just an occasional case, that there was a tremendous amount of smoke. As a possible explanation, I certainly do not want to represent myself as anything close to an expert on it, is that it is my recollection that the ammunition made for that specific weapon ceased sometime around the late 1940's. I could be wrong about that. So, it would not be "modern ammunition" per se, unless they were handloaded. I would have no knowledge of this. Mr. SAWYER. I am sure way before that, they stopped using black powder even in Carcanos. Mr. GRODEN. I am sure, too. The only answer I can give to you, the only time I have seen a Carcano fired physically was in a CBS`testing and it did, indeed, show a great deal of smoke. Mr. SAWYER. I have nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. Mr. EDGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any specific questions of the witness today. As I listened this afternoon and looked at the pictures and photographic evidence, there were number of issues that were raised in my mind. It occurred to me some people listening and watching and perhaps some here today, will get a little bit confused about what we have seen and witnessed this afternoon. I think that it would be accurately described as a shopping list of issues and that in the next few days and weeks, I hope that we can 139 examine the issues relating to the autopsy and the acoustics and the trajectory and the other issues which I know are going to be laid out and give us an opportunity to accurately come back to each of these photographs and each of the exhibits that have been introduced today, and come up with some resolution to some of the theories and issues which have been raised. I appreciate our witness coming and sharing the shopping list. I don't think that we have resolved many of the issues or should we take the time at this time, in my opinion, to go into all of the analysis of each of these pictures. Chairman STOKES. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. EDGAR. I yield to the chairman. Chairman STOKES. I think that the gentleman precisely states the case. As I attempted to say earlier, so that those who are following the evidence being produced to our committee might better understand it, we are merely, at this time, trying to lay the groundwork so that when the other technical experts testify, they will be in a much better position to be able to understand their testimony having had the critical issues pointed up at this time. Mr. EDGAR. I withhold my questions until that time. Chairman STOKES. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Goldsmith, do you have anything further? Mr. GOLDSMITH. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Groden, under the rules of our committee, every witness testifying before this committee at the conclusion of his testimony is to be given 5 minutes in which he may make any statement, either explaining or amplifying or in any way, expanding upon the testimony he has given before this committee. On behalf of the committee, I extend to you, at this time, that period of time in the event that you so desire. Mr. GRODEN. Thank you, sir. May I have one moment, please? Chairman STOKES. Certainly. Mr. GRODEN. Mr. Stokes, everybody present, the first thing I want to do is to thank you for the opportunity for my being here to present some of the issues as I see them, those specific issues which we felt could be best addressed by the scientific panels. Mr. Preyer before suggested that perhaps I might be coming back in the future to raise other issues or present further viewpoints. I would hope so and request so. Back in January 1975 when my wife Chris and I decided that we would release the films and visuals dealing with the assassination to the public, they came to the attention of Congressman Thomas Downing of Virginia, now retired, who felt there were enough questions here to warrant such a committee and the legislation was initially introduced, and I commend him for his foresight. What I have done here is present some of the issues as they were and as I felt about them when this all began. Some of these issues, in my mind, have changed. Some of the case which I presented here, I never felt were issues in the first place, but other credible critics did believe so. Some of them, which I believed at the time, I no longer believe, and I would request at the committee's convenience, if the time is going to be available, to come back and discuss the new findings 140 and the feelings as they are today and the additional issues which were not raised before the panels to be dealt with scientifically. Other than that, again, I thank you and wish you well with the investigation. Chairman STOKES. Mr. Groden, we certainly want to thank you for your appearance here today and for the very articulate way in which you have pointed up some of the issues that have been raised in the critical community. You certainly have been of value to this committee over a period of time. We want to thank you for your appearance here today. Thank you very much. Mr. GRODEN. Thank you. Chairman STOKES. There being nothing further, the committee is adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. [Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Thursday, September 7, 1978.] 141 INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 9:09 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Louis Stokes (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Stokes, Preyer, Fauntroy, Dodd, Fithian, Edgar, Ford, Devine, McKinney, and Sawyer. Staff present: Clifford A. Fenton, Jr., chief investigator; Kenneth D. Klein, assistant deputy chief counsel; G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel; Donald A. Purdy, Jr., staff counsel; and Elizabeth Berning, chief clerk. Chairman STOKES. A quorum being present, the committee will now come to order. The Chair recognizes the chief counsel, Professor Blakey. NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. John F. Kennedy was the fourth American President to be asssassinated, the first in 60 years. It is somewhat remarkable, therefore, that despite major advances in medical technology, his autopsy created the most controversy, though in two earlier murders there was a dispute over the fine points of the post mortem examination. In Lincoln's case in 1865, the autopsy surgeons disagreed over the path of the bullet through the President's head. X-ray techniques that could have settled the question had not yet been invented. Ironically, when William McKinley was shot in 1901, his wife ordered the autopsy terminated before the fatal bullet could be located, and although X-ray equipment was available--Thomas Edison had sent his newly invented machine to the pathologists--it wasn't used. The one assassination not to raise an autopsy controversy was that of James Garfield in 1881. The handling of President Kennedy's treatment and autopsy-first in Texas and then in Washington--by the doctors, the Warren Commission, asked by the President's family, has given rise to more his assassination than any other single questions touching on aspect of the investigation. The facts of what happened and the 142 questions that have arisen out of those facts merit the closest attention. The first doctors to attend the President at Parkland Hospital were Malcolm Perry and Charles J. Carrico. According to each, they observed a massive head wound and a small, circular wound in the neck just below the Adam's apple. Later, they referred to it as an "entry wound." Dr. Perry performed a tracheotomy to help the President breathe. The incision was made at the throat wound, making it subsequently difficult to determine the nature of the wound or even to notice its existence. Other Parkland doctors have differed dramatically in their descriptions of the head wound. Dr. Robert McClelland, in a written report dated November 22, 1963, described it as "a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Dr. William Kemp Clark said he observed a large gaping hole in the rear of the President's head. The Parkland doctors worked on the President for about 20 minutes. They did not examine his back, so they could not have been aware of a wound there. The only head wound they say they saw was the massive one they described. Their job, of course, was to administer emergency treatment, not to measure the location of wounds or to determine that all wounds had been accounted for. The Parkland doctors' duties extended only up until the time of the death of the President. Efforts to save the President were futile; Dr. Clark pronounced him dead at 1 p.m., central standard time. It was a formality. The President was beyond help before he arrived at the hospital. The doctors who examined Governor Connally were Robert Shaw, Charles Gregory, and George Shires. They described the wounds to his back, chest, wrist, and thigh. The Governor, at first listed as critical, fully recovered. After the President was declared dead, his body was taken to Air Force One for the flight back to Washington. On the return flight, Mrs. Kennedy decided to have the autopsy performed at Bethesda Naval Hospital, since the President had served in the Navy. Comdr. James J. Humes was appointed chief autopsy surgeon. He, in turn, chose Drs. J. Thornton Boswell and Pierre A. Finck to assist him. The autopsy began at 8 p.m. eastern standard time. Other doctors, laboratory technicians, Secret Service and FBI agents and military personnel were in attendance. Members of the Kennedy family and friends remained in the tower suite of the hospital. Preliminary X-rays failed to detect the presence of a missile in the President's body. Commander Humes was then given authority to conduct a full autopsy by Adm. Calvin B. Galloway and Dr. George Burkley, the White House physician. Dr. Humes first determined that a missile had entered the rear of the head and exited at the top right side of the skull, resulting in a large exit wound and leaving tiny metallic particles throughout the brain. Next, he found a wound he determined had entered the upper back. Pathologists tried to probe this wound, but they could only detect a pathway that extended a few inches. They could not find a 143 point of exit. Despite the uncertainty over the missile track, Dr. Humes decided not to dissect the track through the neck. At about this time, Dr. Humes was informed by FBI agents that a bullet had been discovered on a stretcher in the emergency room at Parkland. He and the other pathologists tentatively decided the bullet had penetrated a few inches into the President's back and had been dislodged during emergency treatment at the hospital. During the autopsy, pieces of bone discovered in the Presidential limousine were brought to Bethesda, where they were determined to have been part of the President's skull. Dr. Humes made note of the tracheotomy incision. The pathologists examined most major organs of the President's body. X-rays and photographs were taken. The brain was retained for future examination; slides were extracted from tissue organs and sections. The autopsy ended at about 11 p.m. eastern standard time. On the morning of Saturday, November 23, Dr. Humes spoke by telephone with Dr. Perry in Dallas, who explained that he had made the tracheotomy incision through a small, circular throat wound. Dr. Humes then theorized it was an exit corresponding to the entry wound in the upper back, and he reflected this belief in his autopsy report filed November 24. All participants in the autopsy were under naval orders--not lifted until the select committee began its investigation--to be silent as to its results, but rumors began to fly anyway, and confusing news accounts soon began to appear. The effect of these erroneous news accounts on public perceptions is important to emphasize. Here is a sampling from the New York Times: November 23: The President suffered an entrance wound in the Adam's apple and a massive head wound in the head. December 17: The FBI had concluded one bullet had struck the President in the right temple and another had hit where the right shoulder joins the neck. December 19: The pathologists had determined a bullet had lodged in the back, a second had struck the right rear of the head. J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, submitted the Bureau's report of the assassination to the Warren Commission on December 9, and a supplement to it was filed on January 13, 1964. They reflected the preliminary observations of the FBI agents, who had attended the autopsy. By early February, the theory that one bullet had traversed President Kennedy s back and throat wounds and caused Governor Connally's wounds--the so-called single bullet theory--began to emerge. At this time, and for several months to come, members of the Warren Commission and its staff were taking testimony from the doctors who had attended the President and who had participated in the autopsy. The Warren Commission and its staff had also viewed the Zapruder film. As far as is known, however, no member of the Commission, or its staff, ever carefully examined the autopsy X-rays or photos, although Chief Justice Warren is reported to have seem them. In September 1964, the Warren Commission issued its report, in which it concluded the President had been struck by two bullets, one in the back and one in the rear of the skull, as the autopsy report had indicated. Although it used carefully guarded language, 144 the Commission concluded that the bullet that exited the President's throat also caused all of Governor Connally's wounds. Finally, the Commission said the bullet that was found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital was the one that hit both the President and Governor Connally. This bullet, known by its exhibit number, CE-399, has come to be known as the pristine bullet. Not long after publication of the Warren report, criticisms of its findings began to appear. In 1966, Edward Jay Epstein, in Inquest, revealed that the FBI report of December 9, 1963, stated that the missile that entered the President's back did not exit--this, in spite of the fact that the FBI had access to Dr. Humes' written report indicating otherwise. In addition, in 1966, Mark Lane published his "Rush to Judgment." He quoted the early comments of several doctors at Parkland, in which they described the throat wound "as one of entry." Lane then argued that if the President was hit both from the front and back, there had to be more than one assassin. Lane also criticized the "single bullet" theory, suggesting that it had been devised by the Warren Commission to explain how one assassin could have inflicted all the wounds in the requisite time period. As the "single bullet" theory fell, so, argued Lane, the specter of two gunmen rose. In 1967, Josiah Thompson, in "Six Seconds in Dallas," proposed that the President had been struck simultaneously by two shots, one from the rear and one from the front. In October 1966, the autopsy materials, which had been, up until that time, retained by the Kennedy family, were transferred to the custody of the National Archives under a restrictive deed of gift that sharply limited public access to them. In November 1966, the autopsy pathologists were asked by the Department of Justice to review the X-rays and photographs. This was the first time they had ever reviewed the photographs. Nevertheless, they concluded they were consistent with their original autopsy findings. In 1968, Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark convened a panel of medical experts for the purpose of making an independent review of the X-rays and photos. The panel confirmed the autopsy findings as to the number of wounds and the general direction from which the shots came, but it differed with the pathologists at Bethesda on one important point: it said that the wound in the rear or the President's head was 10 centimeters above where it had been placed by the autopsy. In 1975, the Rockefeller Commission asked still another panel of experts to review the photographic evidence. The findings concurred with those of the panel appointed by Clark. In 1976, the select committee was, of course, charged by the House of Representatives to undertake its investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy. The committee recognized that it, too, was obligated to examine all of the medical issues that had arisen over the years. They include: (1) The number of bullets that struck President Kennedy and Governor Connally; (2) the number of wounds each man received, their locations and whether they were wounds of entry of exit; (3) the 10-centimeter discrepancy in the location of the wound to the rear of the President's head; (4) the course of the 145 so-called pristine bullet through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally; (5) the apparent backward motion of the President's head, as shown in the Zapruder film, as he is hit by the fatal bullet; (6) the possibility that the President was struck in both the rear and the front of the head; (7) the statements of the Parkland doctors concerning President Kennedy's wounds; (8) the authenticity of the autopsy X-rays and photographs; (9) the competence and the validity of the autopsy, including an allegation that the pathologists were ordered to perform an incomplete examination. The committee has convened a panal of forensic pathologists to evaluate and interpret the medical evidence. It consists of two groups of doctors--one that had previously reviewed the autopsy photographs and X-rays and one that had not. Panel members who had previously reviewed the evidence are: Dr. Werner Spitz, medical examiner of Detroit, Mich., Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, coroner of Allegheny County, Pa. Dr. James T. Weston, chief medical investigator, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, N. Mex. Panel members who had not previously reviewed the evidence are: Dr. John I. Coe, chief medical examiner of Hennepin County, Minn. Dr. Joseph H. Davis, chief medical examiner of Dade County, Fla. Dr. Joseph S. Loquvam, director of the Institute of Forensic Sciences, Oakland, Calif. Dr. Charles S. Petty, chief medical examiner, Dallas County, Tex. Dr. Earl Rose, professor of pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. The moderator of the panel is Dr. Michael M. Baden, chief medical examiner of New York City. The panel was asked by the committee to undertake four fundamental assignments: One, to determine whether there are basic conclusions in the field of forensic pathology on which most, or all, of the panel members could agree. Two, to perform a detailed critique of the autopsy of President Kennedy. Three, to write a report of its findings. Four, to make recommendations for pursuing matters outside the expertise of forensic pathologists. The committee has arranged to have the two groups of medical experts express their views in a single report with the stipulation that, should any member hold a dissenting opinion, it would be stated in the body of the report. The committee has also conducted a comprehensive investigation in an attempt to locate missing materials, that is, materials missing from the National Archives, including a steel container alleged to have contained the President's brain which was removed during the autopsy. All persons, either directly or indirectly, involved in the chain of custody of the autopsy materials have been either interviewed or deposed. The total number of persons interviewed or deposed exceeds 30. The committee has also contacted the Kennedy family. 146 Despite these efforts, the committee has not been able to determine what precisely happened to the missing materials. A family spokesman, however, did indicate that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy expressed concern that these materials could conceivably be placed on public display many years from then and that he wished to prevent it. The spokesman indicated that in his judgment, the materials were destroyed and cannot be recovered. The committee has determined that the materials were not buried with the body of the President at reinterment. The committee has not obtained any other relevant information on this issue. To illustrate the location of the wounds in the President, the committee has engaged Ms. Ida Dox, an experienced medical illustrator, to render drawings. Ms. Dox graduated from the Johns Hopkins Medical School, Department of Art as applied to Medicine. Presently, she is the medical illustrator for the Department of Medical-Dental Communication at the Georgetown University Schools of Medicine and Dentistry. Mr. Chairman, it will be appropriate now to call Ms. Dox. Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Ms. Dox as a witness. Would you stand, please, and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Ms. DOX. I do. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes staff counsel, Donald A. Purdy, Jr. for questioning of the witness. TESTIMONY OF IDA DOX, PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ILLUSTRATOR Mr. PURDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dox, please state your full name. Ms. DOX. Ida Dox. Mr. PURDY. What is your occupation? Ms. DOX. I am a professional medical illustrator. Mr. PURDY. How did you come to work for the select committee? Ms. DOX. The committee contacted the medical school, the Georgetown Medical School, and I was recommended. Mr. PURDY. How did you determine what to illustrate for the select committee? Ms. DOX. This was done by consultation, the staff of the committee, the medical panel, and myself, and it was decided that the photographs taken at autopsy should be copied to illustrate the position of the wounds. The photographs that were selected were the ones that best showed the injuries. Also, a series of illustrations was needed that would illustrate the findings of the medical panel. Mr. PURDY. What photographs did you attempt to copy? Ms. DOX. Four photographs. One shows the back of the head, another one shows the upper back, then the side of the head, and the front of the neck. Mr. PURDY. How did you copy the autopsy photographs? 147 Ms. DOX. The autopsy photographs were copied by placing a piece of tracing paper directly on the photograph, then all the details were very carefully traced. Later on, while working on the final drawing, I had to have the photograph in front of me at all times. In this way I could be constantly comparing and looking back and forth at the drawing and the photograph so that no detail could be overlooked or omitted or altered in any way. That is the way the copies were made and the tracings were made from the originals. Mr. PURDY. Where did you get access to the original autopsy photographs? Ms. DOX. At the National Archives. Mr. PURDY. How often did you have access to the original photographs? Ms. DOX. A great number of times. I don't remember exactly how many times because I had to use them a great number of times and then the staff of the National Archives was very cooperative and they let me use them as many times as I needed. So I really don't remember how many times. Mr. PURDY. Was a member of the staff of the Archives present when you reviewed the autopsy materials? Ms. DOX. Yes. Mr. PURDY. Did you also review the autopsy X-rays? Ms. Dox. Yes, I did. Mr. PURDY. Did you have access to a set of duplicates of the original autopsy material? Ms. DOX. Yes, I did. I used these at the offices of the committee. Mr. PURDY. Why was it necessary to use duplicates? Ms. DOX. Well, this was because, as I said, a member of the Archives staff had to be present at all times when I was using the original material, and so that I would not use their time unnecessarily, while there I concentrated on working in all the minute details and finishing them up and then for other items in the photograph like, well, the gloved hands of the physician, or the ruler that was placed on the surface of the body. These things reproduced very faithfully on the duplicate photographs. So to finish these up I could easily use the duplicates at the committee offices. Mr. PURDY. You stated that you copied four autopsy photographs. How did you make the other drawings to illustrate the conclusions of the forensic pathology panel? Ms. DOX. This was a series of composite reconstructions which means several sources were used to arrive at the final product. This was also done, of course, in very close consultation with the medical panel, especially Dr. Michael Baden, and the sources that were used were, for instance, the photographs and X-rays of the President taken at autopsy and others that were taken when he was alive. These were superimposed and compared so that the right proportions would be arrived at. The findings were several--so then different drawings had to be used to illustrate these. In another instance, one of the frames of the film taken during the motorcade was photographed and the outline of the President's head was used so that the drawing would 148 have the head of the President in the position that the medical panel decided was necessary. At other times a skull was used that had the dimensions of the President's and the photographs of the retrieved bone fragments were traced to get the outline. This paper was cut out along the outline and taped on the skull in the position that the X-rays indicated there was bone missing, and from this paper and skull reconstruction I made my drawing. Another example of reconstruction would be the way the fractures on the skull were placed, by studying very carefully the X-rays, and as I said before, in close consultation with the medical panel, particularly Dr. Baden. Mr. PURDY. Ms. Dox, prior to today, did you have the opportunity to review the enlargements of your drawings to insure that they are accurate? Ms. Dox. Yes, I did. I looked at them very, very carefully and they are my drawings except that they are photographically enlarged. They haven't been altered in any way. Mr. PURDY. Thank you, Ms. Dox. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Chairman STOKES. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. I am sorry, Ms. Dox, you are excused. Thank you very much. NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee also asked Dr. Lowell Levine to determine whether the autopsy X-rays were, in fact, those of President Kennedy. Dr. Levine received his DDS degree from the New York University College of Dentistry in 1963. Dr. Levine has been in charge of identification of a large number of mass disasters, both in the United States and abroad. He has published innumerable professional papers. In addition to Dr. Levine, the committee asked Mr. Calvin S. McCamy to determine whether the autopsy photographs are, in fact, the original, unmodified autopsy photographs of President Kennedy. Mr. McCamy received a BS degree in chemical engineering and an MS degree in physics from the University of Minnesota. Mr. McCamy is a fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers and the Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers. It would now be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to call both Dr. Levine and Mr. McCamy to testify as a panel on the authenticity of the X-ray and the photographs. Chairman STOKES. At this time, then, the committee calls Dr. Levine and Mr. McCamy as witnesses. Gentlemen, would you stand and raise your right hands and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. McCAMY. I do. Dr. LEVINE. Yes sir; I do. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes staff counsel, Mr. Donald A Purdy, Jr. 149 Mr. PURDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I will begin the questioning with Dr. Levine. TESTIMONY OF DR. LOWELL LEVINE, CONSULTANT TO THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER, NEW YORK CITY, AND CALVIN S. McCAMY, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS WORKING GROUP ON PRINT QUALITY FOR OPTICAL CHARACTER RECOGNITION Mr. PURDY. Mr. McCamy, if you have any comments during the questions directed to Dr. Levine, please feel free to add them. Dr. Levine, what is your occupation? Dr. LEVINE. I am a dentist. Mr. PURDY. How does the process of dental identification work? Dr. LEVINE. The forensic odontologist or forensic dentist will examine a particular piece of dental evidence and attempt to find all the particular unique and individual characteristics in that piece of evidence. He will then attempt to secure a prior record which contains those same characteristics. Mr. PURDY. In the case of the X-rays of President Kennedy, what was your task? Dr. LEVINE. My task basically was to examine the films taken during the course of the autopsy of President Kennedy and to determine if in fact the person who was X-ray was the late President. Mr. PURDY. To what extent are X-rays considered adequate for identification purposes? Dr. LEVINE. X-rays are excellent dental evidence for identification purposes. They contain the positions of the teeth in relation to each other. They contain the shapes and sizes of the fillings and the lining or basing materials that the teeth contain. We can find anomalous or bizarre situations, pathology such as cysts, roots, and consequently there are a myriad of areas for comparison in X-ray film. Mr. PURDY. Do X-rays exist showing the teeth and jaws of Presi- dent Kennedy taken prior to the autopsy X-ray? Dr. LEVINE. Yes sir, they do. Mr. PURDY. Where are they? Dr. LEVINE. There were 22 such films in the custody of the National Archives. Mr. PURDY. Generally, what do these films show? Dr. LEVINE. Thirteen of the films are dental X-ray type films. The other nine are marked JFK sinus. The X-ray films show teeth, jaws, dental restorations, bony patterns, and the like. The sinus films are both anterior, posterior, front to back, and lateral skull films taken side to side. Mr. PURDY. What is the basis for your opinion as to whether or not the autopsy X-rays were actually made on President Kennedy? Dr. LEVINE. Well, the first thing that I did was to compare each of the photographs in the National Archives with each other and I was very readily able to determine that all the films were taken on the same person, President Kennedy. There are four sources of the films, including a Captain Petter of the U.S. Navy Dental Corps, and a Dr. Robert Morris of New York City. 150 The sinus films were taken by Dr. Stephen White of New York City, and by Drs. Groover, Christie, and Merit in Washington, D.C., through the years 1960 to 1962. These names appear either on the films themselves or on the film mounts, which is normal procedure. Mr. PURDY. Dr. Levine, will you please examine these items marked JFK exhibits F-295 and F-296 and tell us what they represent? Dr. LEVINE. May I walk over there, Mr. Counsel? Mr. PURDY. Yes. Dr. LEVINE. F-295 is a composite of certain of the films in the National Archives, and autopsy films 1 and 2. I have in fact examined autopsy films 1, 2, and 3 and was able to authenticate all of those, but at the time I had my permission to do the photography work it was my understanding that I was not to photograph injury pattern and in order to authenticate film No. 1 that would have showed injury pattern in that the frontal sinuses were used to authenticate autopsy film 1. Mr. PURDY. Dr. Levine, what do the autopsy Nos. 1, 2, and 3 represent, what views of the President? Dr. LEVINE. They are all skull films. Autopsy 1 is a front to back and back to front--an AP-type film. Nos. 2 and 3 represent lateral films taken from side to side, so to speak. Mr. PURDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have these exhibits, marked JFK F-295 and F-296, introduced into the record at this time. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record at this time. [The above-referred-to JFK exhibits F-295 and F-296 follow:] JFK EXHIBIT F-295 151 JFK EXHIBIT F-296 Mr. PURDY. Could you please demonstrate the areas of comparison in the exhibits? Dr. LEVINE. Yes, sir. The four films on top in F-295--and these in F-296--are actually duplicates of each other with certain of the areas of comparison color coded in red. The four films on top were taken by Dr. Robert Morris in New York City I believe on January 18, 1962, right side and left side. The film in the lower corner on both the exhibits on the "J" side is the Stephen White film taken on August 14 of 1960, and the film on the left side is the Drs. Groover, Christy, and Meritt film taken in Washington, D.C., and this is of a lateral skull film on August 17, 1960. This is the dentition and supporting structures on both autopsy 2 and autopsy 3. We can see some very distinctive areas that makes comparison not too difficult. But one thing we must understand, the dental films are taken by placing the piece of film in the mouth, and so you get the one tooth. The lateral skull films are taken by passing the X-rays, so to speak, through the skull to the film on the other side, so that we get a composite very often, or the teeth of both sides superimposed upon each other, which has happened in the four films here. We have elements then of both the right and left sides in autopsy 2 and autopsy 3. Autopsy 3 is very evident from the very distinctive shapes of the fillings. For example, in the upper second molar we see a "W" shape filling and we can follow them as we go forward. So that there is absolutely no difficulty in authenticating that. 152 One of the elements that has stayed throughout is a kidney-shaped area of cement base in the lower left second molar, and this shows very readily in this area here, in the 60 film, in both autopsy films. There are others, too, just to point out--- Mr. PURDY. Dr. Levine, I appreciate your pointing out a couple of those areas. Based on the comparison X-rays that you have used, are you able to state a firm opinion as to whether or not the three skull X-rays you viewed from the autopsy materials are in fact X-rays taken of President Kennedy? Dr. LEVINE. Yes, sir, there is absolutely no question of that. Mr. PURDY. Mr. Levine, will you please examine this item marked "JFK exhibit F-323" and identify this report you have submitted to us. If the clerk will give the report. [Document handed to the witness by the clerk.] Mr. PURDY. Dr. Levine, is this the report you submitted to the staff of this committee? Dr. LEVINE. Yes, it is. Mr. PURDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like this report marked "JFK exhibit F-323" and have it entered into the record at this time. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this time. [The above-referred-to JFK exhibit F-323 follows:] 153 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 154 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 155 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 156 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 157 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 158 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 159 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 160 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 161 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 162 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 163 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 164 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 165 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 166 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 167 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 168 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 169 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 170 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 171 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 172 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 173 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 174 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 175 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. 176 JFK EXHIBIT F-323 cont. Mr. PURDY. I have no further questions for Dr. Levine. I will move on to Mr. McCamy. What is your occupation? Mr. McCAMY. I am a scientist specializing in photography and the measurement of color. Mr. PURDY. Have you examined the photographs said to be taken of President Kennedy at the time of the autopsy? Mr. McCAMY. Yes, I have. Mr. PURDY. Did anyone else on the photographic panel examine these materials? Mr. McCAMY. Yes; they were examined in great detail by Frank Scott, by David Eisendrath, by Bennett Sherman, and by one of the professors from RIT. Mr. PURDY. Did you observe anything of interest in the photographs which is relevant to the issue of the authenticity of the autopsy photographs? Mr. McCAMY. Yes; there were numbers embossed on the edges of the color films. These numbers indicate the batch numbers of emulsions. Sometimes but not always, a manufacturer of the film can date the film knowing these numbers. David Eisendrath copied down two of these numbers from the color film and he prepared a letter to the manufacturer, Eastman Kodak, asking about the date of the films. As it happened, he had some old boxes of film on which the dates were known. He took the numbers of some of those films and submitted them at the same time just as a control procedure. Mr. PURDY. Did you notice anything else on the autopsy photographs relevant to the issue of authenticity? Mr. McCAMY. Might I remark that the Eastman Kodak Co. did respond. They were able to date David Eisendrath's films and they were able to date the films that were taken at the time of the autopsy and they said the films were manufactured in 1963, which is an appropriate finding. Mr. PURDY. Thank you. As I was saying, Mr. McCamy, is there anything else you observed on the autopsy photographs relevant to the issue of authenticity? Mr. McCAMY. Yes. Of course we examined the films in great detail to see whether or not there were any indications, any evidence whatsoever, of falsification of the photographs. We found no 177 disturbing of the surface of the film. We found nothing taken away from the film or added to the film, no evidence of any cutting or pasting or construction of a montage, in short, found no evidence whatsoever of any such faking. Mr. PURDY. You mentioned earlier to members of the staff that you were able to view some of the photographs stereoscopically. Could you briefly state what it means to view photographs stereoscopically and why you believe this is evidence of authencity? Mr. McCAMY. Yes. We have an exhibit. The human eyes are located a short distance apart. Mr. PURDY. Mr. Chairman, could we examine this item and mark it as JFK exhibit F-294 and enter it into the record at this time. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this time. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-294 was marked erroneously and should have been marked JFK exhibit F-203.] 178 JFK EXHIBIT F-203 Mr. McCAMY. As you can see on the diagram, if a person looks at a small square peg in front of him, the right eye may see the front and part of the side of the peg. The left eye can see the front and part of the left side of the peg. This is a disparity, a difference in the two views that the two eyes see. Another fact is observed. For the right eye, the peg lines up with the left hand spot in that diagram in the background where, for the left eye, the peg lines up with the right hand spot, so we have what is called parallax, that is, a difference of a linement in the photograph. 179 Mr. PURDY. Mr. McCamy, were there autopsy photographs in which you were able to observe parallax? Mr. McCAMY. Yes, sir. Mr. PURDY. Which autopsy photographs were those? Mr. McCAMY. They were photographs of the back of the head, of the top of the head, the front of the body showing the neck wound, the back showing the back wound. Mr. PURDY. Mr. McCamy, based on your viewing of these photographs and your determination that parallax was evident in them, to what extent are you able to say that these photographs were unaltered? Mr. McCAMY. I would say on the basis of the examination of these photographs, stereoscopically, it is highly unlikely that they were altered in any way. Mr. PURDY. Why do you have this opinion based on viewing them stereoscopically? Mr. McCAMY. Let me take four cases because-- Mr. PURDY. Mr. McCamy, if we could deal with the general principle of stereoscopic vision, could you tell us why your ability to view them steroscopically permits you to say they are authentic. Mr. McCAMY. Yes. Suppose, first, we take the possibility that someone substituted a body and that it was not the body of the President. Viewing these photographs stereoscopically provides the best kind of view because you can observe not only lateral dimensions but dimensions in depth, so it provides the best kind of view for identification. In this case, we must remember we are looking at professional photographs taken at short range, not distant photographs, so there is very little difficulty in identifying the person and the things seen. The fact that it is in stereo gives the observer full advantage of the information available to him. Mr. PURDY. Mr. McCamy, then it is your opinion that based on your examination of these stereo pairs that you are able to conclude that it is very unlikely these photographs are altered? Mr. McCAMY. Yes, extremely unlikely. We have considered the possibilities of various photographic techniques that could have been used in a train of events to produce these photographs. Some of them are virtually impossible because of the stereoviewing. Others would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. Mr. PURDY. Thank you, Mr. McCamy. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Counsel. Dr. Levine, Mr. McCamy, thank you both for your testimony here this morning and you are now excused. [Witnesses excused.] The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey. Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, of those doctors involved in either the original autopsy or subsequent reviews of it, the committee has available to it today or tomorrow Dr. Baden, Captain Humes, Dr. Wecht, and Dr. Petty. Dr. Baden re- ceived an M.D. degree from New York University School of Medicine in 1959 and completed his residency in pathology at Bellevue Hospital in 1964. He is, of 180 course, the chairman of the committee's panel reviewing the autopsy. It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Dr. Baden. Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Dr. Baden. Dr. Baden, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Dr. BADEN. I do. Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. Before I recognize counsel. Dr. Baden, I understand you will be giving testimony relative to illustrated photographs. TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL BADEN, PATHOLOGIST AND CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK Dr. BADEN. Taken at the autopsy, yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. I guess it is important at this point that the record reflect the fact that the photographs which are sealed in the National Archives have been made available to the appropriate members of this committee staff and to the members of this committee. The committee has viewed those photographs as late as this past evening. The committee feels it would be in extremely poor taste for this committee to submit those photographs to public view. It also, in our opinion, would be an invasion of the privacy of the President's family. It is for that reason that these photographs will remain sealed and will not be displayed during the course of these hearings. The committee, at this time, will recognize counsel Kenneth Klein. Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, what is your current position? Dr. BADEN. I am Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York. Mr. KLEIN. What are your duties as chief medical examiner of the city of New York? Dr. BADEN. My duties include supervision and responsibility for the functioning of the Office of Chief Medical Examiner of New York City, which has responsibility to investigate all sudden, suspicious, and unnatural deaths that occur in the five boroughs of New York City. Mr. KLEIN. During the course of your duties as Chief Medical Examiner, do you perform autopsies? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Mr. KLEIN. What is an autopsy? Dr. BADEN. An autopsy is a systematic external and internal examination of the dead body to determine any abnormalities that might be present to assist in determining cause of death. Mr. KLEIN. What is your specialty as a medical doctor? Dr. BADEN. My specialty is pathology and within that area, forensic pathology. Mr. KLEIN. What is forensic pathology? Dr. BADEN. Pathology is that area of medicine concerned with the investigation and evaluation of natural disease and other abnormalities in the human body; and forensic pathology specifically 181 refers and relates to investigation of unnatural death and to areas of pathology and medicine that are concerned with legal aspects of death and injury, and ability to present these materials in courts and other jurisdictions. Mr. KLEIN. Prior to serving on the panel, did you have any contact with the Kennedy case? Dr. BADEN. No, I had not. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this document marked JFK F-19 be received as a committee exhibit and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be received as a committee exhibit and entered into the record at this point. [The above-referred-to exhibit, JFK F-19, follows:] 182 JFK EXHIBIT F-19 LISTING OF MATERIALS PROVIDED TO THE PATHOLOGY PANEL BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE - JOHN F. KENNEDY 1. AUTOPSY AND RELATED MATERIALS Autopsy Protocol 11-22-63 Supplementary Autopsy Report 12-6-63 Notes of Dr. James J. Humes 11-23-63 Autopsy Descriptive Sheet 11-22-63 Death Certificate 11-22-63 Authorization for Post-Mortem Examination Report of Inquest 12-6-63 Original autopsy photographs Original autopsy X-rays Comparison X-rays 1960-63 11-22-63 Clothing worn at time of assassination LogaTronic X-ray enhancements of original X-rays Aerospace Corporation computer enhancements of original X-rays and photographs 1966 Index by Drs. Humes, Boswell, Ebersole and Stringer 1967 Report by Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck Dr. Finck's notes Dr. Finck's 1965 report Dr. Finck's 1967 Review Dr. Finck's Testimony - State of Louisiana v. Clay L. Shaw 2. WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY Dr. James J. Humes Dr. Pierre A. Finck Dr. Thornton Boswell Dr. Malcolm O. Perry Dr. Martin G. White Dr. Paul C. Peters Dr. Adolph A. Giesecke, Jr. Dr. William K. Clark Dr. Don T. Curtis Dr. Fuoad A. Bashour Dr. Gene C. Atkin Dr. Charles J. Carrico Dr. Charles R. Baxter Rufus W. Youngblood Clinton Hill Roy H. Kellerman William. Greet Listing of Materials Provided to the Pathology Panel by The Select Committee - John F. Kennedy 3. STAFF INTERVIEWS Dr. Norman Chase Dr. William Seaman Dr. Malcolm O. Perry Dr. C. James Carrico Dr. Marion T. Jenkins Admiral George Burkley, M.D. Dr. John Lattimer 4. BALLISTICS MATERIALS Bullets and bullet fragments Rifle Cartridges 5. SECRET SERVICE REPORT Bullet trajectories 6. FBI REPORTS Harper skull fragment Examination of clothing Autopsy 183 JFK EXHIBIT F-19 cont. 7. REPORTS Dr. David O. Davis Dr. Gerald M. McDonnel Dr. John Nichols Soft X-ray and Energy Dispersive X-ray Analysis of Clothing prepared by Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences at Dallas J. Lawrence Angel - October 24, 1977 Clark Panel - 1968 Rockefeller Panel - 1975 Parkland medical reports 8. ARTICLES BY: Dr. Cyril H. Wecht Dr. John K. Lattimer 9. MOTION PICTURE FILMS AND SLIDES Zapruder film Nix film Single frame pictures of Zapruder film Film and slide presentation given by Robert Groden Harper fragment 184 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that document? Dr. BADEN. Yes, I do. Mr. KLEIN. What is that? Dr. BADEN. It is a listing, three pages, of various medical and other materiels provided to members of the medical panel in evaluating the cause of death of President Kennedy. Mr. KLEIN. Using that document, would you tell the committee how the panel went about its examination of the evidence in this case? Dr. BADEN. The panel initially consisted of a group of forensic pathologists who had previously seen the archival materiels and a group that had not. Prior to the meeting of each panel separately, the doctors were provided with various printed materials including copies of the autopsy report, and medical findings and evidence relating to the death of President Kennedy from Parkland Hospital, Warren Commission testimony, and from the Clark and Rockefeller panels. Each member of the panel reviewed these materials, then met individually and collectively at the National Archives where each member reviewed all of the photographic illustrations taken prior to and during the autopsy of the President, all X-rays taken prior to and during the autopsy of the President, the clothing that the President wore at the time of the shooting, various related ballistics material, including a rifle, cartridge shell casings and bullets, and bullet fragments preserved at the Archives. These are some of the material, listed in these three pages that each member reviewed. Mr. KLEIN. After meeting at the Archives, did other material become available to the panel? Dr. BADEN. Yes, in the course of their discussions various panel members suggested additional materials and studies to assist and aid in clarifications of issues and questions that arose after examining the materials provided. And in this regard, various types of expertise were made available to the panel members, much relating to interpretation of the Xrays taken of the President at the time of the autopsy. The X-rays were subjected to various techniques that clarified images. The panel members had opportunity to consult with and read reports from various radiologists who are physicians who specialize in taking and interpreting X-rays. The panel did have opportunity to view closely the Zapruder film and sections from the Zapruder film. Studies were requested of soft X-rays and authentication and other studies were performed to assist the panel members in gathering whatever data could be gathered to arrive at conclusions as to the medical aspects of the death. Mr. KLEIN. Are the members of the panel experienced in evaluating such materials to determine such things as cause of death, number and location of wounds and bullet tracts? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. The full-time occupation of each panel member has been or is investigation of deaths, particularly unnatural deaths, to determine cause of death, every day in the various jurisdictions that the panel members represent. This is something that is the normal working procedure of each of the doctors assembled. 185 Mr. KLEIN. Can you give us an approximation of how many autopsies the various members of the panel collectively have performed or been responsible for? Dr. BADEN. In reviewing the jurisdictions and the length of service of the doctors on the panel, I would estimate that well more than 100,000 medico legal autopsies have been performed or supervised by the panel members collectively in the course of their official capacities. Mr. KLEIN. What, if any, relevant materials could not be made available to the panel? Dr. BADEN. The specific relevant materials not available to the panel have already been mentioned by Professor Blakey pertaining to further examination of brain tissue and microscopic slides. However, the doctors who performed the autopsy were made available for interview to the panel members and responded on short notice at the very initial meeting of the first panel so that Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, subsequently Dr. Ebersole and Dr. Finck were interviewed by the panel members; transcripts were made of the interviews and made available to all the members, especially the interview with Drs. Humes and Boswell at which the second panel members were not present. Mr. KLEIN. Despite the absence of the brain and the fact that the panel doctors were not present at the autopsy, were the panel members able to reach conclusions with respect to the cause of death, the number of wounds, the location of the wounds, and the path of the bullets through the body? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Mr. KLEIN. Are you testifying today as a representative of the entire panel of forensic pathologists? Dr. BADEN. Yes, I am. Mr. KLEIN. Did any members of the panel disagree with the conclusions reached by the panel? Dr. BADEN. The essential conclusions were unanimously agreed to by eight of the panel members. One panel member, Dr. Wecht, did dissent in some important aspects of the conclusions. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, since Dr. Wecht will be testifying before the committee today, I will ask you from this point on to confine your testimony to the conclusions reached by the other members of the panel. Dr. BADEN. Yes. Mr. KLEIN. What was the cause of death of President John F. Kennedy? Dr. BADEN. President Kennedy died as a result of two gunshot wounds of the head, brain, back and neck areas of the body. Mr. KLEIN. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the drawing marked JFK F-20 be received as a committee exhibit and shown to the witness. Mr. DoDD [presiding]. Without objection, so ordered. [The above-referred-to document, JFK exhibit F-20, follows:] 186 JFK EXHIBIT F-20 Mr. KLEIN. I would also ask at this point that Dr. Baden be allowed to move over to the 'area where the exhibits are shown because a good number of the exhibits will be drawings and diagrams. Mr. DODD. Dr. Baden, there is a microphone over there for you as well, if you could put that on your tie. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that drawing? Dr. BADEN. Yes, I do. Mr. KLEIN. What is that drawing of? Dr. BADEN. This a drawing done by Miss Dox of one of the autopsy photographs taken just prior to the autopsy of President Kennedy. Mr. KLEIN. What does that particular drawing portray? Dr. BADEN. This particular drawing shows the back of the President and the head where I am pointing to, and a perforation of the skin of the right upper back with, a centimeter ruler alongside. 187 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, does this diagram fairly and accurately repre- sent the location of the wound in the President's upper right back? Dr. BADEN. Yes, it does. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that this photograph marked JFK F-21 and the blown up photograph marked JFK F-22 be received as committee exhibits. Mr. DODD. Without objection, so ordered. [JFK exhibit F-21 is an 8 by 10 photograph derived from one of the original autopsy photographs and depicts a portion of the back and posterior head of President Kennedy. In deciding to release the autopsy photographs, the committee wished to permit public examination of the most important details of evidentiary significance while still maintaining a sense of propriety. In accordance with this desire, the committee decided to display the autopsy photographs to the public in either drawings that represent large areas of the President's body as seen in the photograph or closely cropped photographs that depict the most important areas of evidentiary concern. The committee used photographs such as JFK exhibit F-21 in the hearings only to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the drawings and closely cropped photographs; these photographs are not being published. The original autopsy photographs and committee copies are in the custody of the National Archives.] [The above-referred-to document, exhibit JFK F-22, follows:] 188 JFK EXHIBIT F-22 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that photograph and that blowup? Dr. BADEN. The photograph, an 8 by 10 black and white photograph, that I have in my hand is an enlarged detail from one of the autopsy photographs showing the perforation in the right upper back region seen on the diagram; the exhibit alongside is a blowup of the perforation in the right upper back as seen in this photograph. Mr. KLEIN. So, the blowup is of the wound in the back of the President on the right; is that correct? 189 Dr. BADEN. That's correct, and this diagram is a diagrammatic representation of this photograph. Mr. KLEIN. Did the panel have an opportunity to examine the original photograph from which that blowup was made? Dr. BADEN. The panel had the opportunity and exercised the opportunity to examine, with magnifying lenses, photographs, negatives, transparencies of all of the material available at the Archives. Mr. KLEIN. And using that blowup, would you please explain to the committee what the panel learned from the photograph of the wound on the President's back? Dr. BADEN. The panel was able to conclude after examining the photographs and the details of the perforation in the right upper back, that this perforation was a gunshot wound of entrance and is characterized uniquely by an abrasion collar, a roughening of the edges around the entrance perforation, which is more apparent in the photographs than the blowup, but which clearly depicts and identifies the perforation as an entrance gunshot wound. Mr. KLEIN. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that two diagrams marked JFK F-23 and F-24 be received as committee exhibits. Mr. DODD. Without objection. [The above-referred-to documents, JFK F-23 and JFK F-24, follow:] 190 JFK EXHIBIT F-23 191 JFK EXHIBIT F-24 Mr. DODD. I would point out while this is occurring, we are missing some members. There is a quorum call going on and they will be coming in and coming out as votes and quorum calls occur during the day. You may proceed, counsel. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, using JFK F-23 and F-24, the two diagrams, would you please explain what an abrasion collar is? Dr. BADEN. Yes. An abrasion collar is characteristic of an entrance wound produced when a bullet, as seen in these diagrams made by Miss Dox, penetrates the skin from outside the body. The outer surface of the skin here, the epidermis, is depicted darker than the inner tissues underneath; the diagram shows the bullet entering at a 90ø angle to the skin, with initial stretching of the outer layer of skin, and rubbing of the bullet against the skin surface as it perforates the over stretched skin causing, after the bullet has passed through and the skin has returned to its normal unstretched condition, a rough, abraded margin of the outer layer of the skin which has a typical darker appearance as in the photographs of President Kennedy. This is referred to as an abrasion collar because it immediately surrounds the perforation of the skin. It tells the forensic pathologists that it was caused by a bullet entering the body and rubbing against the outside of the skin. 192 When a bullet exits the body through the skin, proceeding from inside the body to the outside, it does not cause, usually, except under special circumstances, this same type of rubbing effect on the edges of the skin. In this other diagram that Miss Dox has prepared is an example of a bullet entering the skin at an angle. When the bullet enters at an angle, the skin is stretched prior to perforation unequally so that one part of the abrasion collar is wider than another part and this produces a perforation that is assymetric and indicates directionality; thus the abrasion collar establishes not only that it is an entrance wound but also the direction that the bullet is traveling. When a bullet enters head-on at a 90ø angle, the abrasion collar surrounding is equal, uniformly equal. When it enters at an angle, part of the abrasion collar is wider than the other part and this assists in establishing direction of the bullet track. Mr. KLEIN. And the panel found an abrasion collar on the wound of the President's back of the kind you have shown us in these drawings? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. This represents a diagram, a blowup of the actual entrance perforation of the skin showing an abrasion collar. The abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9 o'clock which would indicate a directionality from right to left and toward the middle part of the body, which was the impression of the doctors on reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the shirt, jacket, and tie, marked JFK F-25, F-26, and F-27, be received as committee exhibits. Mr. DODD. Without objection. [The above-referred-to exhibits, JFK F-25, F-26, and F-27, were received as committee exhibits and photographs made for the record.] 193 JFK EXHIBIT F-25 194 JFK EXHIBIT F-26 195 JFK EXHIBIT F-27 196 Mr. KLEIN. And shown to the witness. Doctor, do you recognize that clothing? Dr. BADEN. Yes, I do, Mr. Klein. Mr. KLEIN. Where have you seen that? Dr. BADEN. This clothing was examined by me and by each of the panel members at the Archives where the clothing is kept, preserved, and guarded. Mr. KLEIN. Whose clothing is that and where did it come from? Dr. BADEN. This is the clothing worn by President Kennedy at the time of the assassination and does show various perforations in the fabric that were of importance for the medical panel to evaluate. Present on the mannequin is the jacket and shirt and tie. The jacket and the clothing had been torn at Parkland Hospital by the examining physicians in the course of providing emergency care to the President. Mr. KLEIN. And with respect to the wounds to the President's back, what did the panel learn from that clothing? Dr. BADEN. In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President. This is correspondingly seen in the shirt beneath. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I ask that this X-ray marked JFK F-28, this X-ray marked JFK F-29, as well as two blowups marked JFK F-30 and F-31, be received as committee exhibits. Mr. DODD. Without objection. [JFK exhibits F-28 and F-29 are two of the original 14 autop X-rays kept at the National Archives. They depict the neck and upper chest of President Kennedy. In deciding to release the autosy X-rays the committee wished to permit public examination the most important details of evidentiary significance while still maintaining a sense of propriety. In accordance with this desire, the committee decided to display the autopsy X-rays to the public in a cropped fashion. In the hearings the committee used the original X-rays only to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the cropped counterparts; the entire original X-rays are not being published.] [The above-referred-to exhibits, JFK F-30 and JFK F-31, we received as committee exhibits.] 197 JFK EXHIBIT F-30 198 JFK EXHIBIT F-31 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize those blowups and those X-rays? Dr. BADEN. Yes; these X-rays that I hold are 2 of the 14 X-rays kept at the National Archives and identified to the members of the panel by the radiologist who took the X-rays, Dr. Ebersole. In personal interview Dr. Ebersole told the panel members that the 14 X-rays are the same ones he personally took and received at the time of the autopsy and that he took no other X-rays. These two have been previously labeled 8 and 9 with red tags by Dr. Ebersole 199 who did not indicate the sequence in which the X-rays were taken when he numbered them. The blowups are enlargements of portions of the X-rays. The one I am pointing to labeled 9 shows the chest and neck of the President. This area is the lower neck, this is the upper chest, the right lung, the left lung, a portion of the heart shadow; the other X-ray blowup is of archival X-ray No. 8, which was taken after the autopsy had begun and shows the lower neck, the right side of the neck and the upper ribs and spine of President Kennedy. Mr. KLEIN. What did the panel learn from those X-rays? Dr. BADEN. The X-rays show, first, that there is no missile present in the body at the time the X-rays were taken. This X-ray, No. 9, was taken before the autopsy, this one, No. 8, during the autopsy. Further, there is evidence of injury to the right of the neck with air and gas shadows, in the right side of the neck and an irregularity of one of the spines, a portion of one spine of the President; that is, the first thorasic vertebra which is, also apparent on the blowup and which the panel, and in consultation with the radiology experts, concluded represents a fracture-type injury to that vertebra. Mr. KLEIN. Are those X-rays consistent with the bullet having passed through the President's body? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. They are consistent with the bullet passing through and no longer being present. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I ask that these reports marked JFK F-32-F-35 be received as exhibits and shown to the witness. Mr. DODD. Without objection, so ordered. [The above-referred-to exhibits, JFK F-32-JFK F-35 were received as committee exhibits.] 200 JFK EXHIBIT F-32 201 JFK EXHIBIT F-32 cont. 202 JFK EXHIBIT F-32 cont. 203 JFK EXHIBIT F-32 cont. 204 JFK EXHIBIT F-33 205 JFK EXHIBIT F-33 cont. 206 JFK EXHIBIT F-33 cont. 207 JFK EXHIBIT F-33 cont. 208 JFK EXHIBIT F-33 cont. 209 JFK EXHIBIT F-34 210 JFK EXHIBIT F-34 cont. 211 JFK EXHIBIT F-34 cont. 212 JFK EXHIBIT F-35 213 JFK EXHIBIT F-35 cont. 214 JFK EXHIBIT F-35 cont. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, looking at those reports, do you recognize them? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. These are reports of the X-rays from physician experts consulted by the panel members and submitted to us for review and incorporation into our conclusions as to the medical aspects of the death of the President. Mr. KLEIN. What were the names of the doctors to whom you submitted the X-rays? Dr. BADEN. The doctors are Dr. David Davis, who is chairman of the Radiology Department at George Washington University here in Washington and who has been extremely helpful to the panel in interpreting the X-rays and who has worked with us in making diagrams to illustrate the injuries seen on X-ray. Dr. Norman Chase, who is chairman of the Radiology Department at New York University, Bellevue Medical Center. Dr. William Seaman, chairman of the Department of Radiology at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. And Dr. McDonnel of Los Angeles, Calif, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the Good Samaritan, who performed various specialized tests on the X-rays for the benefit of the panel. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, were the reports of these experts consistent with the panel's evaluation of the JFK X-rays? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir; they were consistent and gave additional evidence to the panel for reaching its conclusions. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the drawing marked JFK F-36 be received as a committee exhibit. Mr. DODD. Without objection, so ordered. [The above-referred-to document, JFK F-36, follows:] 215 JFK EXHIBIT F-36 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that drawing? Dr. BADEN. Yes, this is a drawing of a photograph taken prior to the beginning of the autopsy of the President showing the neck region, the upper chest region, and a wound in the front of the neck. Mr. KLEIN. Does this diagram fairly and accurately represent the location of the wound on the front of the President's neck? Dr. BADEN. Yes, it does. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this cropped photograph marked JFK F-37 and the blowup marked JFK F-38 be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES [presiding]. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [JFK exhibit F-37 is an 8 by 10 photograph derived from one of the original autopsy photographs and depicts the injury to the front of the neck of the President. In deciding to release the autopsy photographs, the committee wished to permit public examination of the most important details of evidentiary significance while still maintaining a sense of propriety. In accordance with this desire, the committee decided to display the autopsy photographs to the public in either drawings that represent large areas of the President's body as seen in the photograph or closely cropped photographs that depict the most important areas of evidentiary concern. The committee used photographs such as JFK F-37 in the hearings only to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the drawings and closely cropped photographs; these photographs are not 216 being published. The original autopsy photographs and committee copies are in the custody of the National Archives.] [The above-referred-to document, JFK F-38, follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-38 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that photograph and that blowup? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. The black and white 8 by 10 photograph I have in my hand is from a photograph taken of the President at the time of the autopsy and the blowup is a detail from that 217 photograph showing the injury to the front of the neck as depicted in the drawing before us. Mr. KLEIN. Using the blowup, would you tell us what the panel learned from the photograph? Dr. BADEN. The panel learned from the photograph that a tracheostomy, incision, an incision to aid the dying President in breathing, had been made on the front of the neck at the hospital and is a typical type of tracheostomy incision; and the panel also noted a semicircular defect at the lower margin of that tracheostomy which required further evaluation. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, in speaking to and reading the reports of the doctors who attended President Kennedy after he was shot, in Parkland Hospital, did you learn any further information about that wound of the neck? Dr. BADEN. Yes. In the reports made available to us from prior testimony, prior medical reports, and from current interviews with the doctors, it is apparent that there was a perforation, a perforating wound, of the front of the neck present when the President was received at Parkland Hospital; and that the tracheostomy incision, the incision to put in a breathing tube, was made through that perforation of the skin and did modify and change the hole in the manner seen here from a circular hole to a semicircle, that remains. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, directing your attention to the clothing already received as exhibits, would you tell us what the panel learned from that clothing with respect to the wound of the President's neck? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. On examining the clothing of the President, there is present in the left upper portion of the shirt, just beneath the left shirt collar, a slit-like tear. This slit-like tear corresponds directly with the area of perforation in the anterior neck seen on the photographs taken prior to the autopsy and is characteristic of a bullet perforation of exit in which the perforation is not necessarily as round as the entrance perforation. The entrance perforation on the back is a round perforation typical for an entrance wound. The perforation in the front of the shirt, slit-like, is typical for an exit perforation of a missile. There is also associated with this tear in the shirt fabric a tear or nick of the tie the President was wearing, which corresponds to that same area of the body when the tie is made into a knot as he was wearing at the time of the shooting. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, in addition to examining the foregoing evidence, did the panel have an opportunity to examine the autopsy protocol report, the autopsy descriptive sheet, and the autopsy supplementary report? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that these three reports marked JFK F-42 through F-44 be received as exhibits and shown to the witness, and F-45, an enlargement of F-44. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be received and entered into the record at this point. [The above-referred-to exhibits, JFK F-42 to JFK F-44, follow:] 218 JFK EXHIBIT F-42 219 JFK EXHIBIT F-42 cont. 220 JFK EXHIBIT F-42 cont. 221 JFK EXHIBIT F-42 cont. 222 JFK EXHIBIT F-42 cont. 223 JFK EXHIBIT F-42 cont. 224 JFK EXHIBIT F-42 cont. 225 JFK EXHIBIT F-43 226 JFK EXHIBIT F-43 cont. 227 JFK EXHIBIT F-43 cont. 228 JFK EXHIBIT F-44 229 JFK EXHIBIT F-44 cont. 230 Mr. KLEIN. Do you recognize these reports, Doctor? Dr. BADEN. Yes. These are copies of reports that the panel had opportunity to see and examine. The panel members then had the opportunity to question the persons who prepared the reports. Mr. KLEIN. Who prepared those reports? Dr. BADEN. The autopsy reports of President Kennedy were prepared by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, who were the autopsy physicians. Mr. KLEIN. When were they prepared? Dr. BADEN. They were prepared during the course of, and in the 2 days following, the performance of the autopsy with the written portions prepared the day following the autopsy. Mr. KLEIN. When was the supplementary report prepared? Dr. BADEN. The supplementary report was prepared 2 weeks later and describes the brain after fixation in formaldehyde, which is a customary way of preparing the brain prior to further examination, and also describes the findings on microscopic examination of various tissues of the President. These two types of study do take time in the normal course of an autopsy and such reports are prepared some time after the initial autopsy. Mr. KLEIN, With respect to the wounds of the upper right back and the front of the neck, what did the autopsy report conclude? Dr. BADEN. The autopsy report concludes that there was a gunshot perforation of entrance in the right upper back and that the exit wound was in the front of the neck. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, on the basis of the foregoing evidence, photos and X-rays taken at the autopsy, the examination of the President's clothing, the reports of radiologists, interviews of the surgeons who attended the President at Parkland Hospital, and the autopsy report, did the panel unanimously conclude that a bullet entered the upper right back of the President and exited from the front of his neck? Dr. BADEN. Every member of the panel so concluded. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would ask that the drawing marked JFK F-46 be received as a committee exhibit. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be received and entered into the record at this point. [The above-mentioned document, JFK exhibit F-46, a drawing, follows:] 231 JFK EXHIBIT F-46 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that drawing? Dr. BADEN. Yes, I do. Mr. KLEIN. What does that show? Dr. BADEN. This is a drawing prepared by Miss Dox with the medical panel of the upper portion of the President showing the track that the bullet took through the back, exiting the neck adjacent to the spine, and through the windpipe (or trachea) in the neck; it shows the direction of the bullet path in the body. This path can be produced by various bullet trajectories, depending on the position of the President at the time the missile struck. On your right, there are three positions of the head of the President all showing the same bullet track and direction within the body, going from the back to the exit in the neck, that could be inflicted by a bullet traveling upward, approximately horizontally, or downward. Each of these trajectories could produce the autopsy findings as depicted on the left and cause a similar track within the body itself. We cannot on the basis of the autopsy findings alone, in this instance, determine from whence the bullet came. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the drawing marked JFK F-47 be received as a committee exhibit. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The above-mentioned document, JFK exhibit F-47 follows:] 232 JFK EXHIBIT F-47 233 Mr. KLEIN. Do you recognize that drawing, Doctor? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir; I recognize this as a drawing made for the Warren Commission depicting the same track from back to front neck region that we have been describing. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, does that drawing made for the Warren Commission fairly and accurately represent the location of the entry wound and the exit wound and the path of the bullet? Dr. BADEN. Not precisely, The exit perforation in the neck is approximately at the proper area, but the entrance wound in the back is higher than the medical panel concluded from examining the documents, the photographs as to the point of entrance. We place the entrance perforation a bit lower almost 2 inches lower Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the drawing marked JFK F-48 be received as a committee exhibit. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered into the record at this point. [The above-mentioned document, JFK exhibit F-48, follows:] 234 JFK EXHIBIT F-48 Mr. KLEIN. Do you recognize that drawing, Doctor? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Mr. KLEIN. What does that drawing depict? Dr. BADEN. This is a drawing made from photographs taken at the time of the autopsy showing the back of the President's head and showing a ruler adjacent to an area of discoloration in the cowlick area of the back of the head of the scalp, which the panel determined was an entrance perforation, an entrance bullet perforation; this also shows portions of fractures of the skull of the 235 President caused by this gunshot wound and a fragment of dried tissue near the hairline of the President. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, does this drawing fairly and accurately represent the location of the wound in the back of the President's head? Dr. BADEN. Yes, it does, in the unanimous opinion of all of the panel members. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that the photographs marked JFK F-49A and F-49B and the blowups marked JFK F-50 and F-51 be received as committee exhibits. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be entered into the record at this point. [JFK exhibits F-49A and F-49B are 8 by 10 photographs derived from the original autopsy photographs and depict posterior views of the head of the President. In deciding to release the autopsy photographs, the committee wished to permit public examination of the most important details of evidentiary significance while still maintaining a sense of propriety. In accordance with this desire, the committee decided to display the autopsy photographs to the public in either drawings that represent large areas of the President's body as seen in the photograph or closely cropped photographs that depict the most important areas of evidentiary concern. The committee used photographs such as JFK F-49A and F-49B in the hearings only to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the drawings and closely cropped photographs; these photgraphs are not being published. The original autopsy photographs and committee copies are in the custody of the National Archives.] [The above-mentioned documents, JFK F-50, and F-51, follow:] 236 JFK EXHIBIT F-50 237 JFK EXHIBIT F-51 Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir; I have the 8 by 10 photographs. Mr. KLEIN. Do you recognize those photographs and those blowups? Dr. BADEN. Yes, Mr. Klein. Mr. KLEIN. Would you tell us what they are? Dr. BADEN. The two photographs I have, 8 by 10 glossy prints, have been prepared from the original photographs in the Archives and show enlargement of the perforation in the cowlick area of the scalp, which is represented on your extreme right in this area; the detail in the photograph is much superior to the blowup detail. Also depicted in the center is the area in the lower back of the head which I referred to as dry tissue. This is depicted in the middle photograph. These are both enlargements of the actual photographs taken prior to the autopsy of the President. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, using those blowups, would you please explain to the committee what the panel learned from those photographs? Dr. BADEN. The panel did learn and conclude from the photographs and close examination under magnification of the transpar- 238 encies, and other materials in the Archives, that without question, the superior more area under consideration is a typical gunshot wound of entrance and that it corresponded in many of its features very closely with the gunshot wound of entrance in the right upper back, especially as to the appearance of the abrasion collar and as to its size. The panel further concluded that the lower more area under question is clearly extraneous dried brain tissue on top of scalp hair. Mr. Klein. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this X-ray deemed marked JFK F-54 as well as the blowups marked "JFK F-52," "JFK F-53." and "JFK F-297" be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection. [Documents handed to the witness for his inspection.] [JFK exhibit F-54 is one of the original 14 autopsy X-rays kept at the National Archives. It depicts a lateral or side view of the President and is labeled "No. 2" In deciding to release the autopsy X-rays the committee wished to permit public examination of the most important details of evidentiary significance while still maintaining a sense of propriety. In accordance with this desire, the committee decided to display the autopsy X-rays to the public in a cropped fashion. In the hearings the committee used the original X-rays only to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the cropped counterparts; the entire original X-rays are not being published.] [The above-referred-to JFK exhibits F-52, F-53, and F-297 were marked as committee exhibits and received into the record, and follow:] 239 JFK EXHIBIT F-52 240 JFK EXHIBIT F-53 241 JFK EXHIBIT F-297 Mr. KLEIN. Do you recoginze those X-rays and those blowups? Dr. BADEN. Yes, I do. This is X-ray labeled "No. 2" by the tag applied by Dr. Ebersole and identified to the panel members by Dr. Ebersole as an X-ray he took at the time of the autopsy of President Kennedy; it shows a side view of the President's head and is preserved in the Archives. This is an enlarged copy of that specific X-ray showing a side view of the skull of the President with the back of the head to your left, the front of the head to your right. Because of the difficulty interpreting some of the subtle features on the X-ray, the X-rays were further examined using enhancement techniques to increase the image contrast. This is a computerized enhancement on your right of the same X-ray showing the same structures but bringing out some of the details of the X-ray more clearly by the enhancement techniques. Mr. KLEIN. What did the panel learn from those X-rays? Dr. BADEN. The panel learned from these X-rays that there was extensive fracturing of the bones of the skull of the President as manifested by these various lines and irregularities, that there was displacement of some bony fragments as a result of this explosive type injury to the skull as seen on the X-ray, and that there are many small white areas in the X-ray film that are metallic fragments resulting from a bullet having passed through the skull and fragmenting to some small degree. Mr. KLEIN. Are those X-rays consistent with a bullet having entered the President's head high on top of the head and passed through? 242 Dr. BADEN. Yes sir. This is clearly demonstrated in these X-rays, and as comparison, the X-ray on the extreme left is an X-ray taken of President Kennedy during life showing the normal appearance of the skull with the various skull bones in their normal appearance and illustrates the extensive damage of the skull present at the time of the autopsy. The panel concluded, and all of theradiologist consultants with whom the panel spoke with and met with, all concluded that without question there is an entrance bullet hole on the upper portion of the skull at the area I am pointing to where the bone itself has been displaced, and that this corresponds precisely with the point in the cowlick area on the overlying skin has the appearance of an entrance wound, that the track of the bullet then proceeded from back to front and toward the right causing extensive damage to the head. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that this original X-ray marked "JFK F-57" as well as two blowups marked "JFK F-55" and "JFK F-56" be received as committee exhibits. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be received. [JFK exhibit F-57 is one of the original 14 autopsy X-rays kept at the National Archives. It depicts an anterior-posterior view of the skull. In deciding to release the autopsy X-rays the committee wished to permit public examination of the most important details of evidentiary significance while still maintaining a sense of propriety. In accordance with this desire, the committee decided to display the autopsy X-rays to the public in a Cropped fashion. In the hearings the committee used the original X-rays only to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the cropped counterparts; the entire original X-rays are not being published.] [The above-referred-to exhibits "JFK F-55" and "JFK F-56" were marked committee exhibits and received into the record and follow:] 243 JFK EXHIBIT F-55 244 JFK EXHIBIT F-56 Dr. BADEN. For orientation, this is the back of the skull, front of the skull, the eye area, pituitary gland, the ear bones. Mr. Klein, what I have just been given is an X-ray from the Archives viewed by the panel at the Archives with the label in red "No. 1" affixed. Mr. KLEIN. Would you briefly tell us, using the blowups, what the panel learned from these X-rays? Dr. BADEN. Yes, this is an antero-posterior view of the skull-that is, taken with the back of the head directly against the X-ray film. These are true enlargements of portions of those X-rays. Mr. KLEIN. Are these X-rays consistent with a bullet having passed through the President's head? Dr. BADEN. Yes; there is extensive damage to the right side of the skull area, shown more clearly in the enhancement of the X- 245 ray, and there are extensive fracture lines radiating from the point of entrance marked by this relatively large metal fragment and the X-ray lines extending from it. This corresponds precisely to the point of entrance beneath the cowlick area and shows the extensive loss of bone at that area. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I ask that the drawing marked "JFK F-58" be received as an exhibit and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be received at this point. [The above-referred-to exhibit "JFK F-58" follows:] JFK EXHIBIT F-58 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that drawing? Dr. BADEN. Yes; this is a drawing prepared with the panel and Miss Dox showing a side view of the President's skull and showing the point that the panel agreed was the exit point for the gunshot wound that entered the back of the head; this exit perforation is on the right front side of the head of the President. 246 Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that this photograph and the blowup marked "JFK F-59" and "JFK F-60" be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be received at this point. [JFK exhibit F-59 is an 8 by 10 photograph derived from one of the original autopsy photographs and depicts the area of bone injury on the right side of the head. In deciding to release the autopsy photographs, the committee wished to permit public examination of the most important details of evidentiary significance while still maintaining a sense of propriety. In accordance with this desire, the committee decided to display the autopsy photographs to the public in either drawings that represent large areas of the President's body as seen in the photograph or closely cropped photographs that depict the most important areas of evidentiary concern. The committee used photographs such as JFK F-59 in the hearings only to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the drawings and closely cropped photographs; these photographs are not being published. The original autopsy photographs and committee copies are in the custody of the National Archives.] [The above-referred-to exhibit JFK F-60 follows:] 247 JFK EXHIBIT F-60 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that photograph and that blowup? Dr. BADEN. Yes; this is a detail of one of the autopsy photographs, in fact the only photograph that shows any internal structures of the President at the time of autopsy as opposed to all of the other photographs which are of the outside of the body. This photograph shows the bullet exit area on the right side of the head and is seen in better detail and sharper on the photograph than in the blowup. The photograph shows the front right part of the skull 248 of the President and the semicircular defect that I am pointing to corresponds with the black dot present on the previous exhibit. This is a portion of a gunshot wound of exit as determined by the panel because of the beveling of the outer layer of bone visible in the photographs, which is also described in the autopsy report. Beveling refers to the breaking away of bone in a concave pattern as when a BB goes through plate glass causing a concavity in the glass in the direction in which the BB is proceeding. This also happens when a bullet enters and exits skull bone and other bones. It is the conclusion of the panel that this is unquestionably an exit perforation. Mr. KLEIN. Does the beveling allow you to make a determination whether it is an entry or exit perforation? Dr. BADEN. Yes. When a bullet strikes bone, expecially flat bone such as the skull, the entrance into the bone is sharp and the exit from the bone is beveled. The bone breaks and bevels in the direction that the bullet is going and we are then able to tell as here, because the beveling is on the outside of the skull, on the right side, that the bullet traveled from within the skull to the outside causing this characteristic change in the bone where the bullet exited. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the blowup marked "JFK F-64" be received as a committee exhibit. Chairman. STOKES. Without objection, it may be received at this point. [The above-referred-to exhibit JFK F-64 follows:] 249 JFK EXHIBIT F-64 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that blowup? Dr. BADEN. Yes sir, this is a blowup of one of the X-rays, one of the 14 X-rays kept at the Archives, showing 3 fragments of bone received by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell in the autopsy room while they were performing the autopsy on the President, that had been retrieved from the limousine in which the President had been riding. The doctors looked at the bone fragments, took X-rays of the bone fragments, inserted this particular bone fragment against this semicircle and concluded that they matched and fitted together. On this larger triangular fragment there is at one edge metal fragments seen on the X-ray that the panel concluded, and the autopsy physicians concluded, were part of the exit perforation 250 through the bone and that there is beveling on this bony fragment of the outer aspect of the bone. In addition, a portion of a suture line is also present on one edge of this fragment. A suture line refers to the point at which two bones join. This suture line assisted the panel in precisely identifying from where the fragment derived. The panel concluded that this was part of the gunshot wound of exit of the right side of the head of the President. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, directing your attention to the autopsy reports which have already been received as exhibits, in what ways was the autopsy report consistent with the other evidence available with respect to the wound to the President's head? Dr. BADEN. The autopsy reports did indicate that the gunshot wound of the head of the President came from behind, proceeded in a forward direction, and exited the right side of the skull. This is consistent with the findings of the panel. Mr. KLEIN. In what ways was the autopsy report not consistant with the other evidence available to the panel? Dr. BADEN. The location and placement of the gunshot wound of entrance was significantly different on examination by the panel members than the autopsy pathologists had indicated. The panel members unanimously placed the gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head approximately 4 inches above the point indicated in the autopsy report prepared by Drs. Humes and Boswell. Mr. KLEIN. So the panel concluded that the autopsy report placed the wound in the back of the head 4 inches too low? Dr. BADEN. That is correct; as recorded in the original autopsy. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, on the basis of the foregoing evidence, the photographs and X-rays taken of the autopsy, the reports of the radiologists and the autopsy report, did the panel unanimously conclude that a bullet entered the President high on the back of his head and exited on the right side toward the front of his head? Dr. BADEN. All nine members of the panel so unanimously concluded. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that two drawings marked "JFK F-65" and "JFK F-66" and the photograph marked "JFK F-67" be received as committee exhibits at this time. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be received. [The above referred to exhibits, "JFK F-65," "JFK F-66," and "JFK F-67" follow:] 251 JFK EXHIBIT F-65 252 JFK EXHIBIT F-66 253 JFK EXHIBIT F-67 Mr. KLEIN. Do you recognize these exhibits, doctor? Dr. BADEN. Yes, I do. Mr. KLEIN. What do they depict? Dr. BADEN. The drawings were prepared with Miss Dox and the members of the panel to illustrate the path of the gunshot wounds that struck the President. The photograph is Zapruder frame 312 and shows the President just before the explosion caused by the head shot. Mr. KLEIN. Do the diagrams fairly and accurately represent the path of the bullet which entered high on the back of the President's head and exited from the right side of the head toward the front? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. One, the drawing to your right, indicates the path of the bullet entering the right upper head region approximately 1 inch to the right of the midline of the body and approximately 4 inches above a bony prominence in the back of the head, the external occipital protuberance which is depicted here. This bullet, then, proceeds from back to front exiting in the area of the suture line, that I mentioned earlier, the coronal suture line as depicted on the drawing, causing a semicircular defect in the frontal bone of the skull. This drawing does indicate that at the time of this injury to the back of the head there already existed in the body a bullet track of the right upper back region going from back to front exiting through the tracheostomy incision in the front of the neck. The other diagram, the other drawing, is an attempt to illustrate the direction of the gunshot wound and the damage done to the skull, utilizing the X-rays in great measure and the photographs taken at the autopsy procedure. This shows the entrance perforation in the upper posterior right side of the skull, and the bullet path proceeding forward causing extensive fractures of the skull bones on the right and then exiting the right front area. The four bone fragments illustrated in this diagram are drawn to scale in relation to each other, but not to the skull, utilizing the X-rays and photographs at the Archives. The three to your right are 254 the fragments removed from the limousine of the President and brought to the autopsy doctors during the course of the autopsy; and the fourth fragment is a separate fragment found a few days later in Dealey Plaza and referred to as the Harper fragment. These four fragments did emanate from the large defect in the side of the President's head. The position of the President's head in both of these diagrams was derived from Zapruder frame 312, which, as I already mentioned, shows the position of the President just before the explosion of the head. Mr. KLEIN. Did the panel conclude that the direction of the bullet was downward? Dr. BADEN. Yes, in this instance the panel was able to arrive at a conclusion of the directionality from whence the bullet originated because of other evidence made available to the panel, notably, the Zapruder film showing the position of the head of the President at the moment of impact with the bullet. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the drawing marked JFK F-68 be received as a committee exhibit. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be received at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-68 follows:] 255 JFK EXHIBIT F-68 256 Mr. KLEIN. Do you recognize that drawing, Doctor? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir, this is a drawing prepared for the Warren Commission attempting to illustrate the gunshot wound that entered the back of the President's head. Mr. KLEIN. Does that drawing fairly and accurately represent the location of the wounds and the path of the bullet in the President's head? Dr. BADEN. Not in the area of location of the entrance perforation but it does illustrate the general concept that it is a gunshot wound from the back proceeding to the front. That the panel agrees with. However, the panel places the entrance perforation 4 inches higher in the back of the head than the illustration for the Commission shows. The panel also places the entrance perforation on the lower, in the back area, a few inches lower than illustrated on this drawing. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, you have testified that the President was hit by two bullets, one of which entered his upper right back, and the other entered high on the back of his head. Did the panel reach any conclusions as to whether each of these wounds would have been fatal in and of itself? Dr. BADEN. Yes, the panel did conclude, without question, that the gunshot wound that struck the head of the President in and of itself would be fatal. The panel could not unanimously agree as to whether or not the gunshot wound through the back and neck would necessarily be fatal because of the failure to examine the bullet track at the time of the autopsy--disect the track. As a result we do not know whether there was injury to the spine of the President or to major blood vessels. If the spine or blood vessels were injured, that bullet also could have been fatal, but we are unable to conclusively agree on that question. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, at this point, I would ask you to direct your attention to the wounds received by Governor Connally. What was the nature of the injuries received by the Governor? Dr. BADEN. The Governor suffered injuries also of the right upper back region, more to the side, than the President. The bullet exited. It entered near the top of the armpit on the Governor, exited beneath the right nipple. There was another bullet path through the right wrist, entering on the thumb side about an inch above the wrist, exiting on the palm aspect of the wrist, and there was another bullet perforation in the left inner thigh of the Governor. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that these reports marked JFK F-70 and F-71 be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be received. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-70 and F-71 follow:] 257 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 Tuesday, April 21, 1964 TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT ROEDER SHAW, DR. CHARLES FRANCIS GREGORY, Gov. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR., AND MRS. JOHN BOWDEN CONNALLY, JR. The President's Commission met at 1:30 p.m., on April 21, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator Richard B. Russell, Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, John J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members. Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Francis W.H. Adams, assistant counsel; Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel; David W. Belin, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Arlen Specter, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers; and Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas. TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT ROEDER SHAW Senator COOPER. The Commission will come to order. Dr. Shaw, you understand that the purpose of this inquiry is taken under the order of the President appointing the Commission on the assassination of President Kennedy to investigate all the facts relating to his assassination. Dr. SHAW. I do. Senator COOPER. And report to the public. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Dr. SHAW. I do. Senator COOPER. Do you desire an attorney to be with you? Dr. SHAW. No. Mr. SPECTER. Will you state your full name for the record, please? Dr. SHAW. Robert Roeder Shaw. Mr. SPECTER. What is your profession, please? Dr. SHAW. Physician and surgeon. Mr. SPECTER. Will you outline briefly your educational background? Dr. SHAW. I received my B.A. degree from the University of Michigan in 1927, and my M.D. degree from the same institution in 1933. Following that I served 2 years at the Roosevelt Hospital in New York City from July 1934, to July 1936, in training in general surgery. I had then 2 years of training in thoracic surgery at the University Hospital, Ann Arbor, Mich., from July 1936 to July 1938. On August 1, 1938, I entered private practice limiting my practice to thoracic surgery in Dallas, Tex. Mr. DULLES. What kind of surgery? Dr. SHAW. Thoracic surgery or surgery of the chest. I have practiced there continuously except for a period from June 1942, until December 1945, when I was a member of the Medical Corps of the Army of the United States serving principally in the European theater of operations. I was away again from December 1961, until June of 1963, when I was head of the MEDICO team and performed surgery at Avicenna Hospital in Kabul, Pakistan. Mr. DULLES. Will you tell us a little bit about MEDICO. Is that the ship? Dr. SHAW. No; that is HOPE. MEDICO was formed by the late Dr. Tom Dooley. Mr. DULLES. Yes; I know him very well. He was the man in Laos. Dr. SHAW. Yes, sir; this was one of their projects. Mr. DULLES. I see. Dr. SHAW, I returned to----- Mr. DULLES. An interesting project. Dr. SHAW. I returned to Dallas and on September 1, 1963, started working full time with the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School as professor of thoracic surgery and chairman of the division of thoracic surgery. In this position I also am chief of thoracic surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas which is the chief hospital from the standpoint of the medical facilities of the school. Mr. SPECTER. Are you licensed to practice medicine in the State of Texas? Dr. SHAW. I am. Mr. SPECTER. Are you certified? Dr. SHAW. By the board of thoracic surgery you mean? Mr. SPECTER. Yes; by the board of thoracic surgery. 258 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Dr. SHAW. Yes; as of 1948. Mr. SPECTER. What experience, if any, have you had, Dr. Shaw, with bullet wounds? Dr. SHAW. I have had civilian experience, both in the work at Parkland Hospital, where we see a great amount of trauma, and much of this involves bullet wounds from homicidal attempts and accidents. The chief experience I had, however, was during the Second World War when I was serving as chief of the thoracic surgery center in Paris, France. And during this particular experience we admitted over 900 patients with chest wounds of various sort, many of them, of course, being shell fragments rather than bullet wounds. Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the total number of bullet wounds you have had experience with? Dr. SHAW. It would be approximately 1,000, considering the large number of admissions we had in Paris. Mr. SPECTER. What were your duties in a general way on November 22, 1963. Dr. SHAW. On that particular date I had been at a conference at Woodlawn Hospital, which is our hospital for medical chest diseases connected with the medical school system. I had just gone to the Children's Hospital to see a small patient that I had done a bronchoscopy on a few days before and was returning to Parkland Hospital, and the medical school. Woodlawn and the Children's Hospital are approximately a mile away from Parkland Hospital. Mr. SPECTER. Were you called upon to render any aid to President Kennedy on November 22? Dr. SHAW. No. Mr. SPECTER. Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John B. Connally on that day? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe briefly the circumstances surrounding your being called into the case. Dr. SHAW. As I was driving toward the medical school I came to an intersection of Harry Hines Boulevard and Industrial Boulevard. There is also a railroad crossing at this particular point. I saw an open limousine pass this point at high speed with a police escort. We were held up in traffic because of this escort. Finally, when we were allowed to proceed, I went on to the medical school expecting to eat lunch. I had the radio on because it was the day that I knew the President was in Dallas and would be eating lunch at the Trade Mart which was not far away, and over the radio I heard the report that the President had been shot at while riding in the motorcade. I went on to the medical school and as I entered the medical school a student came in and joined three other students, and said the President has just been brought into the emergency room at Parkland, dead on arrival. The students said, "You are kidding, aren't you?" and he said, "No, I am not. I saw him, and Governor Connally has been shot through the chest." Hearing that I turned and walked over to the emergency room, which is approximately 150 yards from the medical school, and entered the emergency room. Mr. SPECTER. At approximately what time did you arrive at the emergency room where Governor Connally was situated? Dr. SHAW. As near as I could tell it was about 12:45. Mr. SPECTER. Who was with Governor Connally, if anyone, at that time, Dr. Shaw? Dr. SHAW. I immediately recognized two of the men who worked with me in thoracic surgery, Dr. James Duke and Dr. James Boland, Dr. Giesecke, who is an anesthesiologist, was also there along with a Dr. David Mebane who is an instructor in general surgery. Mr. SPECTER. What was Governor Connally's condition at that time, based on your observations? Dr. SHAW. The Governor was complaining bitterly of difficulty in breathing, and of pain in his right chest. Prior to my arriving there, the men had very properly placed a tight occlusive dressing over what on later examination proved to be a large sucking wound in the front of his right chest, and they had inserted a rubber tube between the second and third ribs in the front of the right chest, carrying this tube to what we call a water seal bottle. Mr. SPECTER. What was the purpose? Dr. SHAW. Yes; this is done to reexpand the right lung which had collapsed due to the opening through the chest wall. Mr. SPECTER. What wounds, if any, did you observe on the Governor at that time? 259 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Dr. SHAW. I observed no wounds on the Governor at this time. It wasn't until he was taken to the operating room that I properly examined him from the standpoint of the wound. Mr. SPECTER. How long after your initial viewing of him was he taken to the operating room? Dr. SHAW. Within about 5 minutes. I stepped outside to talk to Mrs. Connally because I had been given information by Dr. Duke that blood had been drawn from the Governor, sent to the laboratory for cross-matching for blood that we knew would be necessary, that the operating room had already been alerted, and that they were ready and they were merely awaiting my arrival. Mr. SPECTER. How was Governor Connally transported from the emergency room to the operating room? Dr. SHAW. On a stretcher. Mr. SPECTER. And was he transported up an elevator as well? Dr. SHAW. Yes. It is two floors above the emergency rooms. Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe what happened next in connection with Governor Connally's---- Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question, putting in this tube is prior to making an incision? Dr. SHAW. Yes; a stab wound. Mr. DULLES. Just a stab wound? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. What treatment next followed for Governor Connally, Doctor? Dr. SHAW. He was taken to the operating room and there Dr. Giesecke started the anesthesia. This entails giving an intravenous injection of sodium pentathol and then after the Governor was asleep a gas was used, that will be on the anesthetic record there. Mr. SPECTER. Do you know at approximately what time this procedure was started? Dr. SHAW. I will have to refresh my memory again from the record. We had at the time I testified before, we had the--- Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to make available to you a copy of the Parkland Memorial Hospital operative record and let me ask you, first of all, if you can identify these two pages on an exhibit heretofore marked as Commission Exhibit 392 as to whether or not this constitutes your report? Dr. SHAW. Yes; this is a transcription of my dictated report of the operation. Mr. SPECTER. Are the facts set forth therein true and correct? Dr. SHAW. Yes. On this it states that the operation itself was begun at 1300 hours or 1 o'clock, 1 p.m., and that the actual surgery started at 1335 or 1:35 p.m. The operation was concluded by me at 3--1520 which would be 3:20 p.m. Mr. SPECTER. You have described, in a general way, the chest wound. What other wounds, if any, was Governor Connally suffering from at the time you saw him? Dr. SHAW. I will describe then the wound of the wrist which was obvious. He had a wound of the lower right forearm that I did not accurately examine because I had already talked to Dr. Gregory while I was scrubbing for the operation, told him that this wound would need his attention as soon as we were able to get the chest in a satisfactory condition. There was also, I was told, I didn't see the wound, on the thigh, I was told that there was a small wound on the thigh which I saw later. Mr. SPECTER. When did you first have an opportunity then to examine Governor Connally's wound on the posterior aspect of his chest? Dr. SHAW. After the Governor had been anesthetized. As soon as he was asleep so we could manipulate him--before that time it was necessary for an endotracheal tube to be in place so his respirations could be controlled before we felt we could roll him over and accurately examine the wound entrance. We knew this was the wound exit. Mr. SPECTER. This [indicating an area below the right nipple on the body]? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. DULLES. How did you know it was a wound exit. Dr. SHAw. By the fact of its size, the ragged edges of the wound. This wound was covered by a dressing which could not be removed until the Governor was anesthetized. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating this wound, the wound on the Governor's chest? Dr. SHAW. Yes; the front part. Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound on the posterior side of the Governor s chest? Dr. SHAW. This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axillary fold or 260 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade. Mr. SPECTER. What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated to you that it was a wound of entrance then? Dr. SHAW. Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit. Mr. SPECTER. Now, I hand you a diagram which is a body diagram on Commission Exhibit No. 679, and ask you if, on the back portion of the figure, that accurately depicts the point of entry into Governor Connally's back? Dr. SHAW. Yes. The depiction of the point of entry, I feel is quite accurate. Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the front side of the body, is the point of exit accurately shown on the diagram? Dr. SHAW. The point Mr. SPECTER. We have heretofore, may the record show the deposition covered much the same ground with Dr. Shaw, but the diagrams used now are new diagrams which will have to be remarked in accordance with your recollection. Dr. SHAW. Yes. Because I would have to place--they are showing here the angle. Mr. DULLES. Is this all on the record? Mr. SPECTER. It should be. Dr. SHAW. We are showing on this angle, the cartilage angle which it makes at the end of the sternum. Mr. SPECTER. That is an inverted V which appears in front of the body? Dr. SHAW. Now the wound was above that. They have shown it below that point so the wound would have to be placed here as far as the point is concerned. Mr. SPECTER. Would you draw on that diagram a more accurate depiction of where the wound of exit occurred? Dr. SHAW. Do you want me to initial this? Mr. SPECTER. Yes; if you please, Dr. Shaw. I hand you another body diagram marked Commission Exhibit 680 and I will ask you if that accurately depicts the angle of decline as the bullet passed through Governor Connally? Dr. SHAW. I thing the declination of this line is a little too sharply downward. I would place it about 5ø off that line. Mr. SPECTER. Will you redraw the line then, Dr. Shaw, and initial it, indicating the more accurate angle? Dr. SHAW. The reason I state this is that as they have shown this, it would place the wound of exit a little too far below the nipple. Also it would, since the bullet followed the line of declination of the fifth rib, it would make the ribs placed in a too slanting position. Mr. SPECTER. What operative procedures did you employ in caring for the wound of the chest, Dr. Shaw. Dr. SHAW. The first measure was to excise the edges of the wound of exit in an elliptical fashion, and then this incision was carried in a curved incision along the lateral portion of the right chest up toward the right axilla in order to place the skin incision lower than the actual path of the bullet through the chest wall. After this incision had been carried down to the level of the muscles attached to the rib cage, all of the damaged muscle which was chiefly the serratus anterior muscle which digitares along the fifth rib at this position, was cleaned away, cut away with sharp dissection. As soon as--of course, this incision had been made, the opening through the parietal pleura, which is the lining of the inside of the chest was very obvious. It was necessary to trim away several small fragments of the rib which were still hanging to tags of periosteum, the lining of the rib, and the ragged ends of the rib were smoothed off with a rongeur. Mr. SPECTER. What damage had been inflicted upon a rib, if any, Dr. Shaw? Dr. SHAW. About 10 centimeters of the fifth rib starting at the, about the midaxillary line and going to the anterior axillary line, as we describe it, or that would be the midline at the armpit going to the anterior lateral portion of the chest, had been stripped away by the missile. Mr. SPECTER. What is the texture of the rib at the point where the missile struck? Dr. SHAW. The texture of the rib here is not of great density. The cortex of the rib in the lateral portions of our ribs, is thin with the so-called cancellus portion of the rib being very spongy, offering very little resistance to pressure or to fracturing. Mr. SPECTER. What effect, if any, would the striking of that rib have had to the trajectory of the bullet? 261 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Dr. SHAW. It could have had a slight, caused a slight deflection of the rib, but probably not a great deflection of the rib, because of the angle at which it struck and also because of the texture of the rib at this time. Mr. SPECTER. You say deflection of the rib or deflection of the bullet? Dr. SHAW. Deflection of the bullet, I am sorry. Mr. SPECTER. Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in the thoracic cage as a result of the passage of the bullet through the Governor's body? Dr. SHAW. No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found none during the operation. Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the X-rays with you. Dr. Shaw, from Parkland Hospital? Dr. SHAW. Yes; we have them here. Mr. SPECTER. May the record show we have available a viewer for the X-rays. Dr. Shaw, would you, by use of the viewer, exhibit the X-rays of the Governor's chest to show more graphically that which you have heretofore described? Dr. SHAW. This is the first X-ray that was taken, which was taken in the operating room with the Governor on the operating table, and at this time anesthetized. The safety pin that you see here is used, was used, to secure the tube which had been put between the second and third rib in expanding the Governor's lung. We can dimly see also the latex rubber tube up in the chest coming to the apex of the chest. The variations that we see from normal here are the fact that first, there is a great amount of swelling in the chest wall which we know was due to bleeding and bruising of the tissues of the chest wall, and we also see that there is air in the tissues of the chest wall here and here. It is rather obvious. Mr. SPECTER. When you say here and here, you are referring to the outer portions, showing on the X-ray moving up toward the shoulder area? Dr. SHAW. Yes; going from the lower chest up to the region near the angle of the shoulder blade. The boney framework of the chest, it is obvious that the fifth rib, we count ribs from above downward, this is the first rib, second rib, third rib, fourth rib, fifth rib, that a portion of this rib has been shattered, and we can see a few fragments that have been left behind. Also the rib has because of being broken and losing some of its substance, has taken a rather inward position in relation to the fourth and the sixth ribs on either side. Mr. SPECTER. What effect was there, if any, on the upper portion of that rib? Dr. SHAW. This was not noticed at the time of this examination, Mr. Specter. However, in subsequent examinations we can tell that there was a fracture across the rib at this point due to the rib being struck and bent. Mr. SPECTER. When you say this point, will you describe where that point exists on the X-ray? Dr. SHAW. This is a point approximately 4 centimeters from its connection with the transverse process of the spine. Mr. SPECTER. And is the fracture, which is located there, caused by a striking there or by the striking at the end of the rib? Dr. SHAW. It is caused by the striking at the end of the rib. Mr. SPECTER. Fine. What else then is discernible from the viewing of the X-ray, Dr. Shaw? Dr. SHAW. There is a great amount of, we would say, obscuration of the lower part of the right lung field which we know from subsequent examination was due to blood in the pleural cavity and also due to a hematoma in the lower part of the right lower lobe and also a severe laceration of the middle lobe with it having lost its ability to ventilate at that time. So, we have both an airless lung, and blood in the lung to account for these shadows. Mr. SPECTER. Is there anything else visible from the X-ray which is helpful in our understanding of the Governor's condition? Dr. SHAW. No; I don't think so. Mr. SPECTER. Would it be useful--As to that X-ray, Dr. Shaw, will you tell us what identifying data, if any, it has in the records of Parkland Hospital, for the record? Dr. SHAW. On this X-ray it has in pencil John G. Connally. Mr. SPECTER. Is that G or C? Dr. SHAW. They have a "G" November 22, 1963, and it has a number 218-922. Mr. SPECTER. Were those X-rays taken under your supervision? Dr. SHAW. Yes, by a technician. 262 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Mr. SPECTER. And that is, in fact, the X-ray then which was taken of Governor Connally at the time these procedures were being performed? Dr. SHAW. It is. Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, would any of the other X-rays be helpful in our understanding of the Governor's condition? Dr. SHAW. I believe the only--perhaps showing one additional X-ray would show the fracture previously described which was not easily discernible on the first film. This is quite often true but not important to the--here is the fracture that can be easily seen. Mr. SPECTER. You are now referring to a separate and second X-ray. Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Will you start out by telling us on what date this X-ray was performed. Dr. SHAW. This X-ray was made on the 29th of November 1963, 7 days following the incident. Mr. SPECTER. What does it show of significance? Dr. SHAW. It shows that there has been considerable clearing in the lower portion of the lung, and also that there is a fracture of the fifth rib as previously described approximately 4 centimeters from the transverse process posteriorly. Mr. SPECTER. Is there anything else depicted by that X-ray of material assistance in evaluating the Governor's wound? Dr. SHAW. No. Mr. McCLOY. Were there any photographs taken as distinguished from X-rays of the body? Dr. SHAW. There were no photographs. Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, we shall then, subject to the approval of the Commission, for the record, have the X-rays reproduced at Parkland Memorial Hospital, and, if possible, also have a photograph of the X-ray made for the permanent records of the Commission to show the actual X-ray, which Dr. Shaw has described during his testimony here this afternoon. Senator COOPER. It is directed that it be made a part of the record of these hearings. Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, what additional operative procedures did you perform on Governor Connally's chest? Dr. SHAW. I will continue with my description of the operative procedure. The opening that had been made through the rib after the removal of the fragments was adequate for further exploration of the pleural cavity. A self-retaining retractor was put into place to maintain exposure. Inside the pleural cavity there were approximately 200 cc. of clotted blood. It was found that the middle lobe had been lacerated with the laceration dividing the lobe into roughly two equal parts. The laceration ran from the lower tip of the middle lobe up into its root or hilum. However, the lobe was not otherwise damaged, so that it could be repaired using a running suture of triple zero chromic catgut. The anterior basal segments of the right lower lobe had a large hematoma, and blood was oozing out of one small laceration that was a little less than a centimeter in length, where a rib fragment had undoubtedly been driven into the lobe. To control hemorrhage a single suture of triple zero chromic gut was placed in this laceration. There were several small matchstick size fragments of rib within the pleural cavity. Examination, however, of the pericardium of the diaphragm and the upper lobe revealed no injury to these parts of the chest. A drain was placed in the eighth space in the posterior axillary line similar to the drain which had been placed in the second interspace in the front of the chest. The drain in the front of the chest was thought to be a little too long so about 3 centimeters of it were cut away. Attention was then turned on the laceration of the latissimus dorsi muscle where the missile had passed through it. Several sutures of chromic gut where used to repair this muscle. The inclusion was then closed with interrupted No. zero chromic gut in the muscles of the chest wall--first, I am sorry, in the intercostale muscle, and muscles of the chest wall, and the same suture material was used to close the serratus anterior muscle in the subcutaneous tissue, and interrupted vertical sutures of black silk were used to close the skin. Attention was then turned to the wound of entrance which, as previously described, was about a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter, roughly elliptical in shape. The skin edges of this wound were incised--excised, I beg your pardon--I have to go back just a little bit. 263 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Prior to examination of this wound, a stab wound was made at the angle of the scapula to place a drain in the subscapular space. In the examination of the wound of entrance, the examining finger could determine that this drain was immediately under the wound of entrance, so that it was adequately draining the space. Two sutures were placed in the facia of the muscle, and the skin was closed with interrupted vertical matching sutures of black silk. That concluded the operation. Both tubes were connected to a water seal bottle, and the dressing was applied. Mr. SPECTER. Who was in charge then of the subsequent care on the Governor's wrist? Dr. SHAW. Dr. Charles Gregory who had been previously alerted and then came in to take care of the wrist. Mr. SPECTER. Now, with respect to the wound on the wrist, did you have any opportunity to examine it by way of determining points of entry and exit? Dr. SHAW. My examination of the wrist was a very cursory one. I could tell that there was a compound comminuted fracture because there was motion present, and there was a ragged wound just over the radius above the wrist joint. But that was the extent of my examination of the wrist. Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, did I take your deposition at Parkland Memorial Hospital on March 23 of 1964? Dr. SHAW. Yes; you did. Mr. SPECTER. Has that deposition been made available to you? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. To you here this afternoon? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Have you subsequent to the giving of that deposition on March 23, 1964, had an opportunity to examine Governor Connally's clothing which we have available in the Commission room here today? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Now, based on all facts now within your knowledge, is there any modification which you would care to make in terms of the views which you expressed about entrance and exit wounds, back on March 23, based on the information which was available to you at that time? Dr. SHAW. From an examination of the clothing, it is very obvious that the wound of entrance was through the coat sleeve. Mr. SPECTER. While you are testifying in that manner, perhaps it would be helpful if we would make available to you the actual jacket, if it pleases the Commission. We shall reserve Exhibits Nos. 681 for the X-ray of November 22; 682 for the X-ray of November 29; and we shall now mark a ,photograph of the coat for our permanent records as "Commission Exhibit No. 683 . Dr. Shaw, I hand you at this time what purports to be the coat worn by Governor Connally, which we introduce subject to later proof when Governor Connally appears later this afternoon; and, for the record, I ask you first of all if this photograph, designated as Commission Exhibit No. 683, is a picture of this suit coat? Dr. SHAW. It is. Mr. SPECTER. I had interrupted you when you started to refer to the hole in the sleeve of the coat. Will you proceed with what you were testifying about there? Dr. SHAW. The hole in the sleeve of the coat is within half a centimeter of the very edge of the sleeve, and lies--- Mr. DULLES. This is the right sleeve, is it not? Dr. SHAW. I am sorry, yes. Thank you. Of the right sleeve, and places it, if the coat sleeve was in the same position, assuming it is in the same position that my coat sleeve is in, places it directly over the lateral portion of the wrist, really not directly on the volar or the dorsum of the surface of the wrist, but on the lateral position or the upper position, as the wrist is held in a neutral position. Mr. SPECTER. With the additional information provided by the coat, would that enable you to give an opinion as to which was the wound of entrance and which the wound of exit on the Governor's wrist? Dr. SHAW. There is only tear in the Governor's garment, as far as the appearance of the tear is concerned, I don t think I could render an opinion as to whether this is a wound of entrance or exit. Mr. SPECTER. Then, do you have sufficient information at your disposal in total, based on your observations and what you know now to give any meaningful opinion as to which was the wound of entrance and which the wound of exit on the Governor's wrist? Dr. SHAW. I would prefer to have Dr. Gregory testify about that, because he has examined it more carefully than I have. 264 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Mr. DULLES. Could you tell at all how the arm was held from that mark or that hole in the Sleeve? Dr. SHAW. Mr. Dulles, I thought I knew just how the Governor was wounded until I saw the pictures today, and it becomes a little bit harder to explain. I felt that the wound had been caused by the same bullet than came out through the chest with the Governor's arm held in approximately this position. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the right hand held close to the body? Dr. SHAW. Yes, and this is still a possibility. But I don't feel that it is the only possibility. Senator COOPER. Why do you say you don't think it is the only possibility? What causes you now to say that it is the location. Dr. SHAW. This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally. Mr. DULLES. Or whether it was one or two wounds? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. DULLES. Or two bullets? Dr. SHAW. Yes; or three. Mr. DULLES. Why do you say three? Dr. SHAW. He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh. Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes; we haven't come to the wound of the thigh, yet, have we? Mr. McCLOY. You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by one bullet? Dr. SHAW. I have no firm opinion. Mr. McCLOY. That is right. Dr. SHAW. Asking me this now if it was true. If you had asked me a month ago I would have. Mr. DULLES. Could they have been caused by one bullet, in your opinion? Dr. SHAW. They could. Mr. McCLOY. I gather that what the witness is saying is that it is possible that they might have been caused by one bullet. But that he has no firm opinion now that they were. Mr. DULLES. As I understand it too. Is our understanding correct? Dr. SHAW. That is correct. Senator COOPER. When you say all three are your referring to the wounds you have just described to the chest, the wound in the wrist, and also the wound in the thigh? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Senator COOPER. It was possible? Dr. SHAW. Our original assumption, Senator Cooper, was that the Governor was approximately in this attitude at the time he was-- Senator COOPER. What attitude is that now? Dr. SHAW. This is an attitude sitting in a jump seat as we know he was, upright, with his right forearm held across the lower portion of the chest. In this position, the trajectory of the bullet could have caused the wound of entrance, the wound of exit, struck his wrist and proceeded on into the left thigh. But although this is a possibility, I can't give a firm opinion that this is the actual way in which it occurred. Mr. SPECTER. If it pleases the Commission, we propose to go through that in this testimony; and we have already started to mark other exhibits in sequence on the clothing. So that it will be more systematic, we plan to proceed with the identification of clothing and then go on to the composite diagram which explains the first hypothesis of Dr. Shaw and the other doctors of Parkland. And then proceed from that, as I intend to do with an examination of the bullet, which will explore the thinking of the doctor on that subject. Dr. Shaw, for our record, I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 684 and ask you if that is a picture of the reverse side of the coat, which we will later prove to have been worn by Governor Connally, the coat which is before you? Dr. SHAW. It is. Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, appears on the back of that coat and also on the picture in line with the wound which you have described on the Governor's posterior chest? 265 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Dr. SHAW. The picture--the coat and the picture of the coat, show a rent in the back of the coat approximately 2 centimeters medial to the point where the sleeve has been joined to the main portion. Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, I show you a shirt, subject to later proof that it was the shirt worn by Governor Connally, together with a photograph marked "Commission Exhibit No. 685," and ask you if that is a picture of that shirt, the back side of the shirt? Dr. SHAW. Yes; it is a picture of the back side of the shirt. However, in this particular picture I am not able to make out the hole in the shirt very well. I see it, I believe; yes. Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe the hole as you see it to exist in the shirt? Aside from what you see on the picture, what hole do you observe on the back of the shirt itself? Dr. SHAW. On the back of the shirt itself there is a hole, a punched out area of the shirt which is a little more than a centimeter in its greater diameter. The whole shirt is soiled by brown stains which could have been due to blood. Mr. SPECTER. How does the hole in the back of the shirt correspond with the wound on the Governor's back? Dr. SHAW. It does correspond exactly. Mr. SPECTER. Now turning the same shirt over to the front side, I ask you if the photograph, marked "Commission Exhibit No. 386," is a picture of the front side of this shirt? Dr. SHAW. It is. Mr. SPECTER. What does the picture of the shirt show with respect to a hole, if any? Dr. SHAW. The picture of the shirt on the right side a much larger rent in the garment with the rent being approximately 4 centimeters in its largest diameter. Mr. SPECTER. What wound, if any, did the Governor sustain on his thigh, Dr. Shaw? Mr. DULLES. Just one moment, are you leaving this? Mr. SPECTER. Yes. Mr. DULLES. I wonder whether or not it would not be desirable for the doctor to put this photograph where these holes are, because they are not at all clear for the future if we want to study those photographs. Dr. SHAW. This one is not so hard. Mr. DULLES. That one appears but the other one doesn't appear and I think it would be very helpful. Dr. SHAW. How would you like to have me outline this? Mr. SPECTER. Draw a red circle of what you conceive to be the hole there, Doctor. Mr. DULLES. The actual hole is not nearly as big as your circle, it is the darkened area inside that circle, is it not? Dr. SHAW. Yes; the darkened area is enclosed by the circle. Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to note on the photograph of the back of the shirt, 685? Will you draw a red circle around the area of the hole on the photograph then, Dr. Shaw? Mr. DULLES. Would you just initial those two circles, if you can. Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, what wounds, if any, did the Governor sustain on his left thigh? Dr. SHAW. He sustained a small puncture-type wound on the roedial aspect of the left thigh. Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opportunity to examine that closely? Dr SHAW. No. Mr. SPECTER. Did you have opportunity to examine it sufficiently to ascertain its location on the left thigh? Dr. SHAW. No; I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location. Mr. SPECTER. Where was it with respect to a general location then on the Governor's thigh? Dr. SHAW. It is on the medial anterior aspect of thigh. Mr. DULLES. Nontechnically, what does it mean? Dr. SHAW. Well, above, slightly above, between, in other words, the medial aspect would be the aspect toward the middle of the body, but as far as being how many centimeters or inches it is from the knee and the groin, I am not absolutely sure. 266 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a pair of trousers which we shall later identify as being those worn by the Governor. I will, first of all, ask you if a photograph bearing Commission Exhibit No. 687 is a picture of those trousers? Dr. SHAW. It is. Mr. SPECTER. And what hole, if any did you observe on the trousers and on the picture of the trousers? Dr. SHAW. There is a hole in the garment that has been made by some instrument which has carried away a part of the Governor's garment. In other words, it is not a tear but is a punched out hole, and this is approximately 4 centimeters on the inner aspect from the crease of the trousers. Mr. DULLES. Can you tell where the knee is there and how far above the knee approximately? Dr. SHAW. I can't tell exactly. Mr. DULLES. I guess you can't tell. Dr. SHAW. From the crotch I would say it would be slightly, it is a little hard to tell, slightly more toward the knee than the groin. Mr. SPECTER. Does that hole in the left leg of the trousers match up to the wound on the left thigh of the Governor? Dr. SHAW. To the best of my recollection it does. Mr. DULLES. Are there any other perforations in these trousers at all, any other holes? Dr. SHAW. No. Mr. DULLES. So that means that whatever made the hole on the front side did not come through and make a hole anywhere else in the trousers? Dr. SHAW. That is correct. It had to be a penetrating wound and not a perforating wound, it didn't go on through. Mr. SPECTER. Will you turn those trousers over, Dr. Shaw? Dr. SHAW. I believe we had already looked at it. Mr. SPECTER. On the reverse side, and state whether or not this picture bearing Commission Exhibit No. 688 accurately depicts the reverse side of the trousers? Dr. SHAW. Yes; it does. Mr. SPECTER. Is there any hole shown either on the picture or on the trousers themselves? Dr. SHAW. No. Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, I now show you a body diagram which is marked "Commission Exhibit No. 689." Senator Cooper. May I ask a question before you ask that question? When you first saw Governor Connally in the emergency room was he dressed or undressed? Dr. SHAW. His trousers were still on. He had his shorts on, I should say, Senator Cooper, but his coat, shirt, and trousers had been removed. Mr. SPECTER. Were his clothes anywhere in the vicinity where you could have seen them? Dr. SHAW. No; I never saw them. This is the first time that I saw them. Mr. SPECTER. That is earlier today when you examined them in this room? Dr. SHAW. That is correct. Mr. SPECTER. Looking at Commission Exhibit No. 689, is that a drawing which was prepared, after consultation with you, representing the earlier theory of all of the Governor's wounds having been inflicted by a single missile? Dr. SHAW. That is correct. Mr. SPECTER. With reference to that diagram, would you explain the position that you had earlier thought the Governor to have been in when he was wounded here? Dr. SHAW. We felt that the Governor was in an upright sitting position, and at the time of wounding was turning slightly to the right. This would bring the three wounds, as we know them, the wound in the chest, the wound in the wrist, and the wound in the thigh into a line assuming that the right forearm was held against the lower right chest in front. The line of inclination of this particular diagram is a little more sharply downward than is probably correct in view of the inclination of the ribs of the chest. Mr. SPECTER. Will you redraw that line, Dr. Shaw, to conform with what you believe to be--- Dr. SHAW. The fact that the muscle bundles on either side of the fifth rib were not damaged meant that the missile to strip away 10 centimeters of the rib had to follow this rib pretty much along its line of inclination. Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could use that red pencil to make it a little clearer for us? 267 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Dr. SHAW. I think these would probably work well on this paper. Perhaps this isn't a tremendous point but it slopes just a little too much. Mr. SPECTER. You have initiated that to show your incline? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the wound you described on the thigh, Dr. Shaw, was there any point of exit as to that wound? Dr. SHAW. No. Mr. SPECTER. I now show you--- Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one more question there, how deep was the wound of entry could you tell at all? Dr. SHAW. Mr. Dulles, I didn't examine the wound of the thigh so I can't testify as to that. Dr. Gregory, I think, was there at the time that the debris was carried out and he may have more knowledge than I have. Mr. DULLES. We will hear Dr. Gregory later? Mr. SPECTER. Yes; he is scheduled to testify as soon as Dr. Shaw concludes. Dr. Shaw, I now show you Commission Exhibit 399 which has heretofore been identified as being a virtually whole bullet weighing 158 grains. May I say for the record, that in the depositions which have been taken in Parkland Hospital, that we have ascertained, and those depositions are part of the overall record, that is the bullet which came from the stretcher of Governor Connally. First, Dr. Shaw, have you had a chance to examine that bullet earlier today? Dr. SHAW. Yes; I examined it this morning. Mr. SPECTER. Is it possible that the bullet which went through the Governor's chest could have emerged being as fully intact as that bullet is? Dr. SHAW. Yes; I believe it is possible because of the fact that the bullet struck the fifth rib at a very acute angle and struck a portion of the rib which would not offer a great amount of resistance. Mr. SPECTOR. Does that bullet appear to you to have any of its metal flaked off? Dr. SHAW. I have been told that the one point on the nose of this bullet that is deformed was cut off for purposes of examination. With that information, I would have to say that this bullet has lost literally none of its substance. Mr. SPECTER. Now, as to the wound on the thigh, could that bullet have gone into the Governor's thigh without causing any more damage than appears on the face of that bullet? Dr. SHAW. If it was a spent bullet; yes. As far as the bullet is concerned it could have caused the Governor's thigh wound as a spent missile. Mr. SPECTER. Why do you say it is a spent missile, would you elaborate on what your thinking is on that issue? Dr. SHAW. Only from what I have been told by Dr. Shires and Dr. Gregory, that the depth of the wound was only into the subcutaneous tissue, not actually into the muscle of the leg, so it meant that missile had penetrated for a very short period. Am I quoting you correctly, Dr. Gregory? Mr. SPECTER. May the record show Dr. Gregory is present during this testimony and--- Dr. GREGORY. I will say yes. Mr. SPECTER. And indicates in the affirmative. Do you have sufficient knowledge of the wound of the wrist to render an opinion as to whether that bullet could have gone through Governor Connally's wrist and emerged being as much intact as it is? Dr. SHAW. I do not. Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, assume if you will certain facts to be true in hypothetical form, that is, that the President was struck in the upper portion of the back or lower portion of the neck with a 6.5-mm. missle passing between the strap muscles of the President's neck, proceeding through a facia channel striking no bones, not violating the pleural cavity, and emerging through the anterior third of the neck, with the missle having been fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the muzzle being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President's body; that the missle was a copper jacketed bullet. Would it be possible for that bullet to have then proceeded approximately 4 or 5 feet and then would it be possible for it to have struck Governor Connally in the back and have inflicted the wound which you have described on the posterior aspect of his chest, and also on the anterior aspect of his chest? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. And what would your reason be for giving an affirmative answer to that question, Dr. Shaw? 268 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Dr. SHAW. Because I would feel that a missle with this velocity and weight striking no more that the soft tissues of the neck would have adequate velocity and mass to inflict the wound that we found on the Governor's chest. Mr. SPECTER. Now, without respect to whether or not the bullet indentired as Commission Exhibit 399 is or is not the one which inficted the wound on the Governor, is it possible that a missle similar to the one which I have just described in the hypothetical question could have inflicted all of the Governor's wounds in accordance with the theory which you have outlined on Commission Exhibit No. 689? Dr. SHAW. Assuming that it also had passed through the President's neck you mean? Mr. SPECTER. No; I had not added that factor in. I will in the next question. Dr. SHAW. All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missle could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more that three grains of metal missing as far as the--I mean in the wrist. Mr. SPECTER. Your answer there, though, depends upon the assumption that the bullet which we have identified as Exhibit 399 is the bullet which did the damage to the Governor. Aside from whether or not that is the bullet which inflicted the Governor's wounds. Dr. SHAW. I see. Mr. SPECTER. Could a bullet traveling in the path which I have described in the prior hypothetical question, have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. And so far as the velocity and the dimension of the bullet are concerned, is it possible that the same bullet could have gone through the President in the way that I have described and proceed through the Governor causing all of his wounds without regard to whether or not it was bullet 399? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. When you started to comment about it not being possible, was that in reference to the existing mass and shape of bullet 399? Dr. SHAW. I thought you were referring directly to the bullet shown as Exhibit 399. Mr. SPECTER. What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck? Dr. SHAW. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Shaw, have you had an opportunity today here in the Commission building to view the movies which we referred to as the Zapruder movies and the slides taken from these movies? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. And what, if any, light did those movies shed on your evaluation and opinions on this matter with respect to the wounds of the Governor? Dr. SHAW. Well, my main interest was to try to place the time that the Governor was struck by the bullet which inflicted the wound on his chest in reference to the sequence of the three shots, as has been described to us. (At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.) This meant trying to carefully examine the position of the Governor's body in the car so that it would fall in line with what we knew the trajectory must be for this bullet coming from the point where it has been indicated it did come from. And in trying to place this actual frame that these frames are numbered when the Governor was hit, my opinion was that it was frame number, let's see, I think it was No. 36. Mr. SPECTER. 236? Dr. SHAW. 236, give or take 1 or 2 frames. It was right in 35, 36, 37, perhaps. Mr. SPECTER. I have heretofore asked you questions about what possibly could have happened in terms of the various combinations of possibilities on missiles striking the Governor in relationship to striking the President as well. Do you have any opinion as to what, in fact, did happen? Dr. SHAW. Yes. From the pictures, from the conversation with Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally, it seems that the first bullet hit the President in the shoulder and perforated the neck, but this was not the bullet that Governor Connally feels 269 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. hit him; and in the sequence of films I think it is hard to say that the first bullet hit both of these men almost simultaneously. Mr. SPECTER. Is that view based on the information which Governor Connally provided to you? Dr. SHAW. Largely. Mr. SPECTER. As opposed to any objectively determinable facts from the bullets, the situs of the wounds of your viewing of the pictures? Dr. SHAW. I was influenced a great deal by what Governor Connally knew about his movements in the car at this particular time. Mr. DULLES. You have indicated a certain angle of declination on this chart here which the Chief Justice has. Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Do you know enough about the angle of declination of the bullet that hit the President to judge at all whether these two angles of declination are consistent? Dr. SHAW. We know that the angle of declination was a downward one from back to front so that I think this is consistent with the angle of declination of the wound that the Governor sustained. Senator COOPER. Are you speaking of the angle of declination in the President's body? Dr. SHAW. Of the first wound? Mr. SPECTER. Yes. Dr. SHAW. First wound Mr. SPECTER. What you have actually seen from pictures to show the angle of declination? Dr. SHAW. That is right. Mr. SPECTER. In the wounds in the President's body? Dr. SHAW. Yes; that is right. I did not examine the President. Mr. DULLES. And that angle taking into account say the 4 feet difference between where the President was sitting and where the Governor was sitting, would be consistent with the point of entry of the Governor's body as you have shown it? Dr. SHAW. The jump seat in the car, as we could see, placed the Governor sitting at a lower level than the President, and I think conceivably these two wounds could have been caused by the same bullet. Mr. SPECTER. Do you have anything else to add, Dr. Shaw, which you think would be helpful to the Commission in any way? Dr. SHAW. I don't believe so, Mr. Specter. Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission then I would like to move into evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 679 and 690, and then reserve Nos. 681 and 682 until we get the photographs of the X-rays and I now move for admission into evidence Commission Exhibits No. 683 through 689. Senator COOPER. They have all been identified, have they? Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; during the course of Dr. Shaw's testimony. Senator COOPER. It is ordered then that these exhibits be received in the record. (The documents referred to, previously identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 679, 680, and 683-689 for identification were received in evidence.) Mr. McCLOY. Just one or two questions. It is perfectly clear, Doctor, that the wound, the lethal wound on the President did not--the bullet that caused the lethal wound on the President, did not cause any wounds on Governor Connally, in your opinion? Dr. SHAW. Mr. McCloy, I couldn't say that from my knowledge. Mr. McCLOY. We are talking about the, following up what Mr. Dulles said about the angle of declination, the wound that came through the President's collar, you said was consistent between the same bullet. I just wondered whether under all the circumstances that you know about the President's head wound on the top that would also be consistent with a wound in Governor Connally's body? Dr. SHAW. On the chest, yes; I am not so sure about the wrist. I can't quite place where his wrist was at the time his chest was struck. Mr. McCLOY. Now perhaps this is Dr. Gregory's testimony, that is the full description of the wrist wound, that would be his rather than your testimony? Dr. SHAW. I think he could throw just as much light on it as I could. And more in certain aspects. Mr. McCLOY. It did hit bone? Dr. SHAW. Obviously. Mr. McCLOY. And there must have been considerable diminution in the velocity of the bullet after penetrating through the wrist? Dr. SHAW. Yes. 270 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Mr. DULLES. The wound inflicted on it, the chest wound on Governor Connally, if you move that an inch or two, 1 inch or the other, could that have been lethal, go through an area that could easily have been lethal? Dr. SHAW. Yes; of course, if it had been moved more medially it could have struck the heart and the great vessels. Mr. McCLOY. Let me ask you this, Doctor, in your experience with gunshot wounds, is it possible for a man to be hit sometime before he realizes it? Dr. SHAW. Yes. There can be a delay in the sensory reaction. Mr. McCLOY. Yes; so that a man can think as of a given instant he was not hit, and when actually he could have been hit. Dr. SHAW. There can be an extending sensation and then just a gradual building up of a feeling of severe injury. Mr. MCCLOY. But there could be a delay in any appreciable reaction between the time of the impact of the bullet and the occurrence? Dr. SHAW. Yes; but in the case of a wound which strikes a bony substance such as a rib, usually the reaction is quite prompt. Mr. McCLOY. Yes. Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. McCLOY. Now, yOU have indicated, I think, that this bullet traveled along, hit and traveled along the path of the rib, is that right? Dr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. McCLOY. Is it possible that it could have not, the actual bullet could not have hit the rib at all but it might have been the expanding flesh that would cause the wound or the proper contusion, I guess you would call it on the rib itself?. Dr. SHAW. I think we would have to postulate that the bullet hit the rib itself by the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage, to the muscles that lay on either side of it. Mr. McCLOY. Was--up until you gave him the anesthetic--the Governor was fully conscious, was he? Dr. SHAW. I would not say fully, but he was responsive. He would answer questions. Mr. McCLOY. I think that is all I have. The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions of the doctor. Mr. DULLES. There were no questions put to him that were significant as far as our testimony is concerned? Dr. SHAW. No; we really don't have to question him much. Our problem was pretty clearcut, and he told us it hurt and that was about his only response as far as---- Senator COOPER. Could I ask you a question, doctor? I think you said from the time you came into the emergency room and the time you went to the operating room was about 5 minutes? Dr. SHAW. Yes; it was just the time that it took to ask a few simple questions, what has been done so far, and has the operating room been alerted, and then I went out and talked to Mrs. Connally, just very briefly, I told her what the problem was in respect to the Governor and what we were going to have to do about it and she said to go ahead with anything that was necessary. So this couldn't have taken much more than 5 minutes or so. Mr. DULLES. Did you say anything or did anyone say anything there about the circumstances of the shooting? Dr. SHAW. Not at that time. Mr. DULLES. Either of Governor Connally or the President? Dr. SHAW. Not at that time. All of our conversation was later. Mr. DULLES. Was the President in the same room? Dr. SHAW. No. Mr. DULLES. Did you see him? Dr. SHAW. I only saw his shoes and his feet. He was in the room immediately opposite. As I came into the hallway, I would recognize that the President was on it, in the room to my right. I knew that my problem was concerned with Governor Connally, and I turned and went into the room where I saw that he was. Mr. DULLES. Did you hear at that time or have any knowledge, of a bullet which had been found on the stretcher? Dr. SHAW. No; this was later knowledge. Mr. DULLES. When did you first hear that? (At this point Senator Russell entered the hearing room.) Dr. SHAW. This information was first given to me by a man from the Secret Service who interviewed me in the office several weeks later. It is the first time I knew about any bullet being recovered. 271 JFK EXHIBIT F-70 cont. Senator COOPER. I think, of course, it is evident from your testimony you have had wide experience in chest wounds and bullet wounds in the chest. What experience have you had in, say, the field of ballistics? Would this experience-you have been dealing in chest wounds caused by bullets--have provided you knowledge also about the characteristics of missiles, particularly bullets of this type? Dr. SHAW. No; Senator. I believe that my information about ballistics is just that of an average layman, no more. ,Perhaps a little more since I have seen deformed bullets from wounds, but I haven t gone into that aspect of wounds. Senator COOPER. In the answers to the hypothetical questions that were addressed to you, based upon the only actual knowledge which you could base that answer, was the fact that you had performed the operation on the wound caused in the chest, on the wound in the chest? Dr. SHAW. That is true. I have seen many bullets that have passed through bodies or have penetrated bodies and have struck bone and I know manners from which they are deformed but I know very little about the caliber of bullets, the velocity of bullets, many things that other people have much more knowledge of than I have. Senator COOPER. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Shaw. 272 JFK EXHIBIT F-71 273 JFK EXHIBIT F-71 cont. 274 JFK EXHIBIT F-71 cont. 275 JFK EXHIBIT F-71 cont. 276 JFK EXHIBIT F-71 cont. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize those reports? Dr. BADEN. Yes, these are reports from the testimony of Dr. Shaw, a thoracic surgeon, a chest doctor, who operated on Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital, made before the Warren Commission, and subsequent reports of interviews by the staff members and Dr. Petty of the medical panel who interviewed Dr. Shaw recently. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, what did the panel learn from those reports with respect to the entrance and exit wounds of the back of the Governor? Dr. BADEN. There was an entrance perforation, according to the interpretation of the doctors who operated on Governor Connally, in the upper right back region just next to the top of the armpit area, and the bullet pathway proceeded from back to front, downward, causing extensive fractures of the fifth rib of the Governor 277 and exited in a large irregular jagged typical exit perforation 1 inch below the right nipple. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the clothing, shirt, and jacket, marked JFK F-74 and F-75 be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be received and shown to the witness. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-74 and F-75 were received as committee exhibits and photographs made for the record.] 278 JFK EXHIBIT F-74 279 JFK EXHIBIT F-74 cont. 280 JFK EXHIBIT F-75 281 JFK EXHIBIT F-75 cont. 282 Dr. BADEN. This is the clothing of Governor Connally that the medical panel members have had opportunity to examine, that the Governor wore at the time of the shooting. Mr. KLEIN. With respect to the wound of the Governor's back, would you tell the committee what the panel learned from that clothing? Dr. BADEN. Yes. There is a tear in the fabric of the cloth in the right upper back region which corresponds precisely to the area where the bullet struck the skin of the Governor and which is larger than would be caused by a bullet perforation that strikes cloth or skin head-on at a right angle. So the clothing does give us an ability to interpret the position of the bullet wound of entrance and also gives us some information as to the manner in which the bullet struck. Mr. KLEIN. And what did the panel learn from that clothing with respect to the exit wound? Dr. BADEN. The exit wound on the clothing--and again the corresponding tears in the fabric of the clothing. The shirt, which is present also, does show a perforation of the fabric corresponding to the exit wound beneath the right nipple of the skin of Governor Connally, and this corresponds to the tear in the right mid-portion of the jacket. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that blowups marked JFK F-76 and F-77 be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be received and shown to the witness. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-76 and F-77 follow:] 283 JFK EXHIBIT F-76 284 JFK EXHIBIT F-77 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize these blowups? Dr. BADEN. Yes; I do. They are photographic enlargements of two of the X-rays taken of the chest of Governor Connally at Parkland Memorial Hospital. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, did the panel have an opportunity to examine these X-rays? Dr. BADEN. Yes. Mr. KLEIN. And from these X-rays did the panel determine whether there were injuries consistent with a bullet passing through the Governor? Dr. BADEN. Yes. There were X-rays that the panel was able to review that show fractures of the fifth rib, as described by the 285 surgeons, and no missile, no bullet projectile, nor any evidence of metal present on the X-ray. Mr. KLEIN. And was there any indication that the bullet was still in the Governor, or did the X-ray show the bullet had passed through? Dr. BADEN. There was no evidence of any missile or bullet present on the X-rays taken of the Governor at the time of admission to Parkland Hospital. Mr. KLEIN. Did the panel have an opportunity to examine the reports of Dr. Reynolds? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Mr. KLEIN. And who is Dr. Reynolds? Dr. BADEN. Dr. Reynolds was a radiologist, X-ray physician at Parkland Hospital, who made reports on various X-rays taken of Governor Connally during his stay and treatment at the hospital. Mr. KLEIN. And were his reports consistent with what you have told us with regard to the bullet which entered the Governor's back? Dr. BADEN. Yes. He does describe on the X-rays extensive injury to the rib of the Governor, and to the lung. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the diagram marked JFK F-81 be received as a committee exhibit and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be received and shown to the witness. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-81 follows:] 286 JFK EXHIBIT F-81 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that diagram? Dr. BADEN. Yes, I do. This is an enlargement of a diagram prepared by the surgeons at Parkland Hospital for the Warren Commission, at which time this material was discussed. Mr. KLEIN. What does that diagram show? Dr. BADEN. The diagram is an outline of an individual in an erect posture, so-called anatomic position, showing a gunshot wound of entrance indicated in the right upper back, and an exit wound noted below the right nipple, with a straight pathway drawn between. There are also notations by Dr. Shires, who I believe the initials are of Dr. Shires, who placed the track slightly higher to correspond to the exit being 1 inch beneath the nipple. This track is meant to correspond to the fifth rib, which is the only rib that was injured by the bullet path. Mr. KLEIN. Did the panel agree with the locations of the entry and exit wounds as well as the path of the bullet as depicted by that diagram? 287 Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir; in general the panel did agree that there was an entrance wound of the upper back exiting below the nipple and a downward track between. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, with respect to the wound of the Governor's wrist, did the panel have an opportunity to read the reports of Dr. Gregory and to read his Warren Commission testimony? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Mr. KLEIN. And why wasn't the panel able to speak with Dr. Gregory? Dr. BADEN. Dr. Gregory is deceased. Panel members did talk, and the staff members did talk, with Dr. Shaw who operated on the chest, and with other doctors from Parkland Hospital, but did not have an opportunity to speak with Dr. Gregory. Mr. KLEIN. In reading the reports and medical records of Dr. Gregory, what did the panel learn with respect to the wound of the Governor's wrist? Dr. BADEN. The panel learned that there was a gunshot perforation of the thumb side of the forearm about 1 inch above the wrist, which on examination was finally determined to be the point of entrance, and that the bullet did exit through the front of the wrist at the crease of the wrist. Mr. KLEIN. Directing your attention to the clothing already received as an exhibit, what did the panel learn from the clothing with respect to the wound of the Governor's wrist? Dr. BADEN. On the clothing, including the suit coat and the shirt, which has French cuffs and is longer than the coat sleeve, there is a perforation of the fabric of the cloth that corresponds with the thumb side of the lower portion of the forearm of the Governor. The tear in the fabric is wide and irregular and the panel concluded that this was made by a bullet reentering into the wrist. Mr. KLEIN. Were the marks on the clothing consistent with Dr. Gregory's reports? Dr. BADEN. Dr. Gregory did have occasion to modify his reports. Initially during the course of surgery he thought that the wound on the undersurface of the wrist, the hand aspect of the wrist, might be an entrance wound, but in his final reports after full evaluation Dr. Gregory and subsequently all of the surgeons and all of the panel pathologists do agree that the bullet entered on the thumb side top or dorsal aspect of the forearm and exited the undersurface of the wrist. Mr. KLEIN. At this time Mr. Chairman, I would ask that blowups marked JFK F-84 and F-85 be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, they may be received at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-84 and F-85 follow:] 288 JFK EXHIBIT F-84 289 JFK EXHIBIT F-85 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize these blowups? Dr. BADEN. Yes, these are enlargements of X-rays provided the panel of Governor Connally's right wrist taken at Parkland Hospital before any surgery was performed. These show extensive fractures of one of the long bones of the forearm, the radius bone, approximately 1 inch above the wrist. The wrist itself is composed of many small bones as can be seen here and is normal. There are fractures of one bone, the radius bone, just before it enlarges to articulate or meet with the wrist bones, and there are present in 290 the photographs, in the X-rays, multiple metal fragments, evidence of a bullet having passed through causing the fractures and losing a small amount of metal substance. Mr. KLEIN. Although there are metal fragments in the wrist, there is no bullet in the wrist, is that correct? Dr. BADEN. That is correct; these are very small pieces of metal but the bullet itself, the bullet proper, is not present. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, were the reports of Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Seaman, which have already been received as exhibits, consistent with the findings of the panel with respect to the wound of the wrist? Dr. BADEN. Yes; they support the panel's view. Subsequent Xrays of the wrist in the process of healing after surgery does reveal that the largest of the metal fragments although still a very small fragment seen in the preoperative blowup of the X-ray, was removed at the time of surgery. This was subsequently given to the Archives for preservation. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, I direct your attention to the wound of the Governor's thigh. Did the panel have an opportunity to read the reports of Dr. Shires? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Mr. KLEIN. And could you tell us what the panel learned from the reports of Dr. Shires with respect to the wound of the thigh? Dr. BADEN. We reviewed Dr. Shires' reports and staff and medical panel members did have an opportunity to speak and interview Dr. Shires recently. We concluded from available evidence that there was a single perforating gunshot wound of entrance in the inner aspect of the left thigh of Governor Connally. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the clothing deemed marked JFK F-88, the trousers, be received as a committee exhibit? Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be received at this point. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-88 was received as a committee exhibit and a photograph made for the record.] 291 JFK EXHIBIT F-88 Dr. BADEN. The trousers worn by Governor Connally have been preserved and show the entrance perforation through the fabric of the left inner thigh region, with typical features of a round entrance bullet perforation corresponding precisely in location to where the gunshot wound is described in Dr. Shires' operative report. Mr. KLEIN. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the blowups, JFK F-89 and F-90, be received as committee exhibits. Chairman STOKES. Without objection they may be received. [The above referred to JFK exhibits F-89 and F-90 follow:] 292 JFK EXHIBIT F-89 293 JFK EXHIBIT F-90 Mr. KLEIN. Do you recognize those blowups, Doctor? Dr. BADEN. Yes, Mr. Klein, these are enlargements of the X-rays of Governor Connally's thigh that were taken at the time of admission to Parkland Hospital. Mr. KLEIN. What did the panel learn from those X-rays? Dr. BADEN. The panel learned that there was no bullet nor significant portion of bullet present in the thigh; this was also confirmed by the fact that the surgeons did explore the wound in the thigh surgically and found no bullet. 294 This is the lower thigh bone in the blowup. This is the knee area and the left thigh of Governor Connally. The blowup on your left is a side view showing a small piece of white irregularity with an arrow which is on the original X-rays, put there by treating physicians in Parkland Hospital and interpreted by some physicians initially and in testimony to the Warren Commission as being metal from a bullet within the thigh bone itself. The direct frontal view shows the thigh from the front rather than from the side. This shows the same metal fragment which in the interpretation of the medical panel members, the panel's consultant radiologists and Dr. Reynolds, who reported on the X-rays at Parkland Hospital, is not in the bone but is immediately beneath the skin on the inside of the thigh. What was interpreted by some doctors as being within the bone is really an artifact, that is, a marking produced by dirt or a scratch, et cetera, and does not represent injury to the bone. This is an enhanced Logatronic X-ray that assisted us, and is clearer than the original X-ray. We concluded that the bullet did enter the skin of the thigh but that it was a spent bullet and it did not penetrate more than a half inch or so into the skin, and that in fact the bullet was not present in the thigh when treatment was provided to Governor Connally in the operating room. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, did the panel reach any conclusion as to what happened to the bullet which had entered the thigh? Dr. BADEN. Yes, the panel concluded after reviewing all of the medical evidence and other evidence and circumstances as to how the Governor was treated, that the bullet had partially entered, the thigh and then had dropped out. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the diagram marked JFK F-73 be received as a committee exhibit and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be received and shown to the witness. [The above-referred-to JFK exhibit F-73 follows:] 295 JFK EXHIBIT F-73 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that diagram? Dr. BADEN. Yes; I do. This is an enlargement of a diagram prepared by the surgeons at Parkland Hospital for the Warren Commission, at which time this material was discussed. Mr. KLEIN. What does the diagram show? Dr. BADEN. The diagram is an anterior-posterior outline of an individual in an erect position, so-called anatomic position, showing gunshot wounds to the chest, wrist, and thigh. Mr. KLEIN. Did the panel agree with the locations of the entry and exit wounds? Dr. BADEN. Yes; the panel generally agreed. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, I have a few more questions but I think you can sit down now, you might be more comfortable. 296 Doctor, to sum up for a moment. On the basis of foregoing evidence, the X-rays taken by the surgeons in Parkland Hospital, the medical records and interviews with the surgeons from Parkland Hospital, the condition of the Governor's clothing, and the reports of the doctors who examined the X-rays at the request of the panel, did the panel unanimously conclude, first, that the Governor received an entry wound of his right lateral back and the bullet exited from his right chest? Dr. BADEN. Yes, all the panel members so concluded. Mr. KLEIN. Second, did the panel unanimously conclude the Governor received an entry wound of his wrist and the bullet exited on the front surface of his right wrist? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir; on the hand surface of the wrist. Mr. KLEIN. And, third, did the panel unanimously conclude that the Governor received an entry wound in his left thigh with subsequent dislodgement of the bullet? Dr. BADEN. Yes. Mr. KLEIN. Has the panel reached a conclusion as to whether these wounds were all caused by one bullet? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. The panel did conclude that these wounds were caused by one bullet. Mr. KLEIN. Would you please explain to the committee why the panel concluded that one bullet caused the wounds received by the Governor? Dr. BADEN. Yes. The panel concluded that, taking into evaluation the nature of the injuries to the wrist and thigh and to the chest region, and the direction of these injuries, that a single bullet proceeding through the chest exiting below the nipple, entering the wrist in a partially spent manner, not at full force which would have caused much greater damage to the wrist--exiting the wrist and then reentering the left thigh, is all consistent with a single gunshot track, and the panel has seen no other reasonable evidence to support anything but a single track through the Governor. Mr. KLEIN. Did the examination of the wound to the wrist and thigh lead the panel to conclude that the bullet which entered the wrist and then entered the thigh had been slowed up by something prior to hitting the wrist and prior to hitting the thigh? Dr. BADEN. Yes, that is, the bullet striking the thigh was an obviously spent bullet that must have gone through other structures or struck something before striking the thigh or else it would have caused a massive defect in the thigh and exited the thigh. The bullet striking the wrist also was produced by a bullet that had lost full power and it was the conclusion of the panel that it had struck something before striking the wrist and it was the conclusion of the panel the most reasonable area to have struck before striking the wrist and considering the position of the Governor seated at the time of the shooting, that it did indeed strike the back and exit the chest. And the path lines up for all three tracks. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, you have also testified that the panel unanimously concluded that a bullet entered the President's upper right back and exited from the front of his neck. Did the panel reach a conclusion as to whether the same bullet which entered the President's upper right back could have then exited from the front of 297 his neck and struck Governor Connally and caused the wounds that he received? Dr. BADEN. Yes; the panel concluded, based on the enlarged nature of the entrance perforation in the Governor's back, that the bullet was wobbling when it struck him and had to have struck something before striking the Governor; that this entrance perforation of the Governor's back could have resulted from a missile that had come through the neck of the President on the basis of the autopsy findings alone; that in taking other evidence into consideration, such as the position of the President and the position of the Governor in the car, the findings are entirely consistent with a single bullet exit exiting the front of the President's neck and reentering in the back of the Governor. Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that this little container and its contents be deemed marked "JFK Exhibit F-95", received as an exhibit, and shown to the witness. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be received. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-95 was received as a committee exhibit and a photograph made for the record.] JFK EXHIBIT F-95 Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize the contents of that container? Dr. BADEN. Yes, from the label on the container and from examining the bullet, I recognize this as the Warren Commission Exhibit 399, which is a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher Carcano bullet. Mr. KLEIN. Did the entire panel have an opportunity to examine this bullet? 298 Dr. BADEN. Yes. Mr. KLEIN. What expertise, if any, did the members of the panel have with respect to determining whether a particular bullet is consistent with having caused one or more wounds? Dr. BADEN. The panel members in the normal course of their official duties have many occasions frequently to perform autopsies on victims of gunshot wounds and to examine missiles that cause these injuries, so that there is a great deal of experience among the panel members in examining effects of gunshot injuries and the missiles that produce them. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, did the panel reach a conclusion as to whether this bullet is consistent with having entered President Kennedy's upper right back, exited through the front of his neck, and entered Governor Connally and caused the wounds that the Governor received? Dr. BADEN. Yes, the panel did conclude, all but one, Dr. Wecht, who will testify later, that this bullet is in fact consistent with having caused all of the wounds described and that in fact, this bullet is significantly flattened at one end and is not in a virgin state. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, you have testified that the panel collectively performed or were responsible for over 100,000 autopsies. You have also testified that the panel members read the autopsy report and spoke with the doctors who performed the autopsy on President Kennedy. Did the panel members reach any conclusions with respect to the procedures used during the course of the autopsy on President Kennedy? Dr. BADEN. Yes, Mr. Klein, they did, but just as an additional evidence for the panel, on why we felt that the bullet went through the President and the Governor, was the information that we were able to accumulate that indicates clearly there is no other bullet other than this bullet and the bullet fragments that passed through the head of the President, that was found, there is no evidence of other bullet injury to any other occupants of the car or in the car itself, which was part of the information we considered when we concluded in constructing the bullet trajectory. Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, directing your attention my subsequent question, did the panel reach any conclusions with respect to the procedures used during the course of the autopsy of the President? Dr. BADEN. Yes. The panel did conclude that there were a number of deficiencies in the manner in which the autopsy of the President was done. Mr. KLEIN. And will the panel in its final report fully document its conclusions with respect to these deficiencies? Mr. BADEN. Yes; the panel will document its full critical analysis from the improper assumption of jurisdiction of the dead body and deficiencies in the qualifications of the pathologists who did the autopsy, to the failure of the prosectors to contact the doctors who treated the President at Parkland Hospital and failure to inspect the clothing, to the inadequate documentation of injuries, lack of proper preservation of evidence, and incompleteness of the autopsy. Mr. KLEIN. And in its final report will the doctors also be making recommendations as to what procedures should be utilized in the future? 299 Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Chairman STOKES. Thank you, counsel. Prior to recognizing the next member of the committee, the Chair would like to note the presence in the hearing room today of four gentlemen, Mr. Clarence Lyons, Mr. Marion Johnson, Mr. Michael Leahy, and Mr. William Grover. These gentlemen are employed by the National Archives and over a period of time have been extremely cooperative with this committee in furnishing and making available materials which are held in the National Archives, and they also came over last night and spent time with this committee, to a rather late hour, and are back in the hearing room this morning providing our committee with these materials. The committee wishes to thank you for the kind of cooperation that we have received from you. The Chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Judge Preyer. Mr. PREYER. Thank you very much, Dr. Baden, for your testimony. There has been considerable controversy over the autopsies, and there has been confusion since there have been several autopsies and several panels which have worked on this and we appreciate your meticulous and painstaking testimony which, I think, goes a long way to clearing up much of the uncertainty. Your testimony reflects the conclusions, I take it, of eight members of your panel. There is one member who dissents, in part, and who will testify later today; is that correct? Dr. BADEN. That's correct, Mr. Preyer. All nine members do agree on the bulk of the material I presented, but Dr. Wecht does have some important dissents. Mr. PREYER. Thank you. The first doctors, the first scientific experts who saw the President after he was shot, were the doctors at Parkland Hospital who operated on him. Those doctors actually saw the bullet wound in the President's throat and they described it as an entry wound, while you have described it as an exit wound. Can you explain why that's the case? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. It is not uncommon for medical examiners in the course of their investigations of persons who have been injured and treated at hospitals to arrive at different opinions than the treating physician's as to the identification of entrance and exit gunshot wounds. The reasons for this is that surgeons who treat live patients are most concerned and have greatest expertise in treating the injury suffered by the patient and are little concerned and little trained in distinguishing some of the fine points of differences between entrance and exit gunshot wounds, because this does not have much pertinence to treatment and therapy. I think, in this particular incident, the exit perforation in the throat was small and did have some characteristics of an exit wound because of its smallness and roundness which may have been, in part, due to the fact that it came out right beneath the collar and tie of the President where the skin was held fairly firm. 300 An exit perforation through firm skin is smaller than through lax skin. And in addition, the physicians who treated the President at Parkland Hospital did not turn the President over so they did not know there was another bullet hole in the back. There is a natural tendency, when a doctor sees one bullet hole and not a second bullet hole, to just assume that the one he sees is an entrance wound. The treatment of the President, the outcome, would not have been any different had different perceptions been made by the doctors. Clearly, despite early confusion as to whether the bullet wound in the neck was an entrance or an exit perforation, the panel members all unanimously agree that it is indeed an exit perforation. Mr. PREYER. You mentioned another fact about the Parkland Hospital examination, which has been puzzling to many of us and that is why the doctors did not report the wound in the President's back. I gather you were saying they were primarily concerned with the medical treatment of the President and simply did not turn him over? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir, they responded, and properly so, by trying to establish breathing by inserting an air tube and by trying to get the heart to start functioning. All these procedures are done, performed, with the patient on his back and they never had the time or opportunity to turn the President over. They just did not know that there was an entrance wound in the upper back. Of course, this error was compounded by the autopsy physicians who, when they started the autopsy, did not appreciate that the tracheostomy wound, the incision made to insert an airway, was made through the exit perforation. So, there were two sets of confusions that compounded the problem. Mr. PREYER. After the President's body was brought back to Washington, the official autopsy was performed out at Bethesda. The pathologists who did the autopsy actually saw the President's body, of course. Your panel has placed the head wound some 4 inches higher than those physicians placed it. How do you account for that when those physicians actually saw the President's body and your panel did not? Dr. BADEN. Yes. I think, in general, the doctors who perform the autopsy have a better opportunity to make valid observations than those who come later, but in this instance, the photographs taken during the course of the autopsy and the X-rays taken during the course of the autopsy and the autopsy report itself provide sufficient evidence for the panel members to arrive at valid, we feel, valid, independent conclusions. Further, we had opportunity to interview and we did extensively interview the physicians who did the autopsy, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Colonel Finck. In all candor, these three pathologists, to the present time, do feel that the entrance perforation is 4 inches lower than we have concluded. They place the entrance perforation approximately in the area of that dried brain tissue in the lower portion of the scalp above the hairline. 301 We disagree with these doctors and we do agree with the observations of the doctors in the Clark panel and the Rockefeller Commission who also independently agreed it was 4 inches higher than the autopsy doctors stated. Our conclusion, in part, is that the observations that these three pathologists made were valid in describing the wound and the characteristics of the wound, but in making the report up the next day, not in the presence of the body, the location of the entrance perforation in the back of the head was mistakenly placed 4 inches lower than it actually was. Mr. PREYER. So that the original autopsy panel maintained, and I gather still maintains, that what you have described as brain tissue was actually the entry wound in the head? What did they say about the entry wound that you described as being 4 inches higher? Dr. BADEN. In discussions with the three doctors and looking together at the same photographs, the doctors who did the autopsy feel that what we identify as an entry wound is an artifact, perhaps dried blood, and not a perforation. I think that the committee will have opportunity to hear testimony from Dr. Humes, who did perform the autopsy, later today, and he can give you his reasoning. We, as the panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin; and further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact. If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. Mr. PREYER. Is it at all possible, Doctor, that there could have been two entry wounds, the one described by 'your panel in the higher part of the head, and the one described by the original autopsy panel, 4 inches lower? Dr. BADEN. I think we physicians learn that when a question is asked, "is it possible," that many things are possible. It is the firm conclusion of the panel members, however, that, beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick that it is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue nor any place on the skull and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head. Mr. PREYER. Turning to another question that has come up concerning the single bullet theory, you mentioned Dr. Shaw, who operated on Governor Connally. Isn't it true that Dr. Shaw testified 302 before the Warren Commission that he did not believe the single bullet theory, and if so, how do you account for it? Dr. BADEN. Yes, Mr. Preyer, he did so testify before the Warren Commission. In fact, I had occasion to speak with Dr. Shaw recently and to determine the basis for his disagreement. And he advised me that he still feels that the single bullet theory is untenable. But the basis for this belief essentially is what was told to him by Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally at the time he treated the Governor in Parkland Hospital; his basis is what they heard, what they observed, what they perceived. He feels that Governor and Mrs. Connally are good witnesses, have good memory of what happened and in relying on the information that they gave to him, he concludes that one bullet did not pass through the President and through the Governor. He does not make that determination on the basis of the medical, surgical, or pathological findings. In discussing the matter with him, he indicates that what he saw at surgery is consistent with a single bullet; but in taking other material into account, especially the Governor's recollection of what happened, and Mrs. Connally's recollection, he feels that for these other reasons, not the medical ones, the single bullet theory is not tenable. Mr. PREYER. So, his opinion is based partly, at least, on eyewitness testimony rather than purely scientific? Dr. BADEN. On persuasive eyewitness testimony, yes, sir. Chairman STOKES. Will the gentleman suspend? Those are the second bells, There is an extremely important vote on the floor of the House, and I think this would perhaps be an appropriate time for us to suspend. The Chair will recess the hearings until 1:30 this afternoon, at which time Mr. Preyer will resume questioning of the witness. We are now recessed. [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. the same day.] AFTERNOON SESSION Chairman STOKES. At this time, the committee will come back to order. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Baden, I would like to go back to an earlier question and see if we can't clear it up a little more. That is the difference between the autopsy panels, the original autopsy panel's finding of the entrance of the head wound and your panel's findings. Your panel's findings put it some 4 inches above the entry found by the original autopsy panel. I believe you have testified that there was no possibility in your judgment, at least you were strongly convinced there were not two wounds. I would like to ask the clerk if she could put on the easel JFK exhibit F-53. This is the enhanced computerized photograph of the President's skull, a technique which I assume was not available to the original autopsy panel. 303 TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL BADEN--Resumed Dr. BADEN. That's correct. Mr. PREYER. If you would like to step over to that. As I understand your testimony, you were able to--let me put it this way: Are you able to see a penetration of the skull bone in the higher area where you say the entry wound occurred? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir, on this and on the other lateral X-ray, next in number, all the members of the panel, and I think Dr. Petty, Dr. Wecht are here in the room with us now who are members of the panel, we all agreed that the entrance perforation was at this point where there is a separation and an obvious fracture depression on the upper back aspect of the skull. This perforation has been made more prominent for the members of our panel than the doctors in 1963 because of the X-ray enhancement technique. We are unanimously agreed that this is an entrance perforation. An additional reason for this conclusion, aside from the fact that it is a depressed fracture, is that there is a metal fragment here which shows up clearer on the original nonenhanced X-ray. This original X-ray shows a piece of metal that rubbed off from the bullet on entering the skull and was deposited at the entrance site which also is typical of an entrance perforation. This piece of metal is clearer on the original X-rays at the site of entrance and from it radiates many fracture lines, also typical of an entrance wound. May I have the other X-ray blowup showing the anterior-posterior front view? So, we were in agreement, as were all of the radiologists that we consulted with--Dr. Davis, Dr. Seaman, Dr. Chase--that that is the point of entrance in the right upper back skull with radiating fractures. Mr. PREYER. And can you say, from looking at those exhibits, that there is no evidence of penetration of the skull 4 inches lower than the original--- Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. The original X-ray shows it best. About 4 inches below our placement of the entry perforation is the external occipital protuberance, which is the little boney bump in the back of the head that we can feel right in the midline; this is approximately the place where the autopsy surgeons placed the wound of entrance. On these X-rays and on the enhancements of these X-rays, there is no evidence of any perforation in this area. The autopsy physicians-Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, and Dr. Ebersole, who was the radiologist present--all agree that there was one and only one entrance wound in the back of the head. They describe the wound's appearance in accord with other available evidence, but they place it 4 inches lower than the panel places it. So, the disagreement is a matter of the proper placement of a single entrance perforation rather than any reasonable possibility of two perforations. Mr. PREYER. And I believe on the enhanced photograph, you identified metallic particles left in the top of the skull? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Mr. PREYER. Is there any evidence from any photograph or any X-ray you have seen of a bullet entrance lower down than the one 304 you have described and other metallic fragments or penetration of the skull or any other sort of evidence? Dr. BADEN. No, sir. May I use an exhibit that wasn't shown, a diagram of the brain, Mr. Chairman? A drawing, it is a diagram, not a picture. Chairman STOKES. Yes, you may. Dr. BADEN. Thank you, sir. Mr. PREYER. It is 302, I believe. Dr. BADEN. Thank you, sir. There is present evidence of a bullet track only in the upper portion of the skull; these metal fragments have moved a bit because some of the fragments are in the loose scalp tissues and soft tissues that are movable. There is no evidence of any metal fragments in the lower portion of the skull in the X-rays, nor in the photographs. Now, the brain, as was mentioned, is not available for our examination and was not thoroughly examined, nor examined even in the normal fashion, in 1963. However, it was described externally and many photographs were taken of the brain. Miss Dox has prepared a diagram of the brain as seen here, which shows how the brain looked when it was examined and before it was misplaced or lost. This fairly and accurately represents the extensive damage, and injury to the right top of the brain, that I am pointing to, that is apparent in the photographs. This, on the left side, is what the normal brain looks like and what the appearance would be on the right side if it were not injured by the bullet track. We do see some of the lower portion of the brain here, the cerebellum area. This area would have to be injured, in the unanimous opinion of the medical panel, if a bullet entered in the lower scalp area near the external occipital protuberance which is the area of discussion relative to a second lower bullet in the back of the head. We did not see any photographic or X-ray evidence of, and there is no description indicating any injury of, the brain other than the extensive damage to the right upper part of the brain consistent with the upper track which the panel agrees to. Mr. PREYER. Thank you very much, Dr. Baden. I think that has clarified that. If you will take your seat. Dr. BADEN. Thank you, sir. Mr. PREYER. Incidentally, what happened to the metal fragments that you have stated were found in President Kennedy's skull? Were they removed? Dr. BADEN. There were some fragments removed in the course of the autopsy and preserved and kept at the Archives. They are very small fragments. They have been much enlarged on the blowups; some fine fragments were removed and preserved and kept in the custody of the Archives. Mr. PREYER. Thank you. There were several other descrepancies between your report and the Ramsey Clark panel's report and the Rockefeller Commission report which I would like you to comment on briefly. You testified that the bullet which passed through President Kennedy's back and out of his throat did not leave any fragments, and, as I understand it, at least one of the doctors on the Rockefeller Commission panel did state that there were metal fragments left by that bullet. 305 Do you have any comments on that? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. That, in fact, was a conclusion by one of the members of the Rockefeller Commission and was an area of concern that the panel did spend time examining. If we are able to have X-rays of the chest of President Kennedy placed on the easel, I think I can explain to you how we approached that issue, what we did and what our conclusions were. There is present in the right neck region, as seen on the chest X-ray taken prior to the autopsy, a small white area that has the appearance possibly of metal or bone. That was one of the reasons that the panel requested, and the staff did go to great troubles to have made, enhancement and enlargement photographs of that area of the X-rays. We did resolve that issue to our satisfaction, as I will show you, if I can use those exhibits, please. On your right is an X-ray taken of the President just prior to autopsy showing the neck, the area where the bullet passed through. This is an enlargement the lungs. of a portion of the X-ray taken while the autopsy was in progress to see if there was a bullet in the body; none was present. This fragment did raise some concern with the Rockefeller panel and with our physicians because it has some appearances suggesting that it is a piece of metal which would indicate that the bullet struck bone in the area as it passed through the neck. We have concluded that there is a fracture of the transverse process of the first thoracic vertebra which could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or by the force of the cavity created by the bullet passing near to it. However, after obtaining the enhancements of the X-rays and after consulting with various X-ray specialists, Dr. Davis here in Washington, Dr. McDonald in California, and others, we have concluded that what appears to be a radio opaque, white metal fragment is, in fact, an artifact: it is not a piece of metal, it is not a piece of bone, and one reason for this conclusion is that it is not present in the first X-ray that was taken. Careful examination of that X-ray shows no evidence of any metal or bone or fragments in the neck area. We are satisfied that the most reasonable explanation for this artifact is that it is due to a piece of dirt present on the X-ray cassette or that it was produced during the X-ray developing process which occurs not uncommonly as can be seen on other of the President's X-rays. We are satisfied that it does not represent bullet or bone. Mr. PREYER. Incidentally, you mentioned the bullet nicking the vertebra. Could the, bullet, CE-399, the pristine bullet, have nicked President Kennedy s vertebra and still have left the neat, clean exit wound in the throat? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Usually, when a bullet strikes something of substance, it will begin to wobble, but as a bullet wobbles, there are times when it will be alined in a straight-on directional course. As I am demonstrating by using this wooden pointer there are times when, even if it is wobbling as it is moving, it will be in a straight on position. If the bullet did strike bone, and we cannot be certain of that, it may nevertheless have stayed on course; it may have begun to 306 wobble after it came out from the neck. If it were exiting in a direct head-on fashion and the skin were made more firm because the collar and the shirt were reasonably snug around the President's neck, these factors would tend to make the exit skin hole small. There is no disagreement among the panel members that the perforation in the front of the neck is an exit wound, despite early Parkland Hospital confusion, and this was also the conclusion of the Rockefeller panel and the Clark panel. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Dr. Baden. I believe we can try again from your seat here. One descrepancy, I think, with the Clark panel, the Ramsey Clark panel, was put together in 1968, I believe-- Dr. BADEN. Yes. sir. Mr. PREYER. That was that they located the wound on the President's neck in a different area from where your panel has located it. Dr. BADEN. Yes. Mr. PREYER. Could you comment on that? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Miss Hess, could we see the neck diagram and the neck photograph? The Clark panel, which had two fine forensic pathologists as members, Dr. Russel Fisher and Dr. Moritz, who are senior forensic pathologists and well experienced, did conclude that there was a wound of entrance in the back and exit in the neck. In describing the wound that we see here, that semicircle at the lower margin of the tracheostomy incision, the Clark report locates it in the upper margin of the incision. It is a trivial mistake and in no way does it change the significance of the injury and the interpretation of the injury; but it does reflect, I think, the problems that forensic pathologists have when they make reports while not directly looking at the object being described as would have happened if the description was made sometime after seeing the archival photographs. This same type of error, preparing the autposy report 24 hours after the autopsy was completed and after the body had been removed, may have contributed to the more significant mistake of placing the gunshot wound of entrance 4 inches lower than it actually was. The description of the size and shape of the entry wound is correct, but the location of it is incorrect perhaps due to reliance on memory. Mr. PREYER. You have described your findings at some length from photographs and from X-rays. I am sure the question will occur to a lot of people, did you perform any experiments to see if the damage caused by the pristine bullet could have occurred and the bullet still be so slightly damaged? If not, why not? Dr. BADEN. The panel did review the experiments that have been done, and the panel members, in evaluating the desirability of doing further experiments--and we had long discussions about this--were in agreement, save for Dr. Wecht, that it is impossible to perform experiments to duplicate the injury patterns in President Kennedy or Governor Connally, or in any other individual who dies. We can do experiments to see how much powder is produced by a gun at a certain distance; but even in war time--and civilian life occasionally in New York City--when people are killed by 307 machinegun fire, with the machinegunner firing multiple rounds within seconds at a relatively stationary person, the bullet paths and injuries produced are never duplicated. The slightest difference in weight of the ammunition, in manufacture of the ammunition has significance; the gun that is fired 12 times is different than the gun that is fired 13 times; the slightest contraction of muscle, any injury causes the next bullet fired to take a different course and a different path and produce different injuries. And it is the opinion of many of the panel members that even the doing of experiments in this regard, to reproduce the President's, the Governor's, and the bullet s injuries does more to obscure the issue than to clarify it; gives a credibility to experiments on people in reproducing injuries that is not warranted and may be very misleading. Humans are not guinea pigs that can be put in cages and can be standardized. The dead bone, the dead wrist bone, the dead thigh bone is different than the live thigh bone. A bone with blood going through it reacts differently to a gunshot wound than a dried bone without blood going through it. These differences not only affect the path of the bullet going through the body and the injuries produced, but also affect the damage done to the bullet; a hair's breath difference in distance between two bullets similarly fired will cause one bullet to shear in half and split and the other bullet to go straight through the body without the missile being greatly damaged. I don't want to belabor the point, but the panel majority after much consideration does feel that the injuries sustained by Governor Connally and President Kennedy, and the trajectory and the ballistics could not be precisely duplicated; that there were myriads and myriads of ways the experiment could be done wrong and only one way it could be done right--and if by chance it were done right once we wouldn't know it or be able to prove it. There would still be room for argument. Mr. PREYER. So, the problem in duplicating the wounds are so complex that you would create more problems than you would solve by conducting experiments of this nature? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir, it is a futile search that produces a false confidence in uninterpretable data. In our everyday practices, when we have to make judgments about gunshot wounds and injuries, we do not do so by performing experiments. We make that judgment by looking at the evidence, by taking everything available into consideration and then by drawing a conclusion; not by attempting to duplicate the impossible. Mr. PREYER. Finally, let me just ask you a couple of questions about something that I think troubles people more than anything else about the autopsy. That is, the fact that a bullet could appear to do so much damage and still remain in almost pristine condition. It seems to fly in the face of commonsense. Let me ask you, have you ever seen a bullet that has done this much damage as the bullet CE-399 did and still emerge in as good condition as this bullet is in? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. Absolutely, but with qualification. We on the medical panel have certain problems, as have other doctors in the past, in evaluating the injuries produced by the so-called "pristine 308 bullet", which is a media term that is inaccurate: it is like being a little bit pregnant--it is either pristine or it is not pristine. This is a damaged bullet and this is not a pristine bullet. This is a bullet that is deformed; it would be very difficult to take a hammer and flatten it to the degree that this is flattened. This is a partially deformed bullet with a heavy jacket. The problem is that although in New York City we see more than 1,000 gunshot wound deaths a year, in a civilian population it is most unusual to encounter military ammunition; and in military practice where people are killed by rifle bullets, autopsies, and follow-up correlations are not performed as in the civilian death situation. Very few people, if any, have had autopsy experience with the Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter ammunition in a civilian population. However, we do see copper-jacketed handgun bullets not infrequently, and typically, a copper-jacketed handgun bullet will cause extensive damage and deform very little. In fact, according to the Geneva Convention, military bullets must be jacketed so that they do not split up and deform. They are meant to cause minimal injury and suffering while killing somebody; the bullets are designed so as not to break up into many different parts and to be minimally deformed. Mr. PREYER. It only caused death and no side effects; is that it? Dr. BADEN. That is correct. It stays intact. Further, sir, in fact, this bullet struck little that would deform it. The track through President Kennedy is essentially through soft tissue which does not deform a bullet. The only injury to the chest of Governor Connally that could have damaged the bullet would have occurred if it struck the fifth rib. But the rib is a very thin bone and striking a rib does not significantly deform a copper-jacketed bullet. So, the only impact that caused any appreciable damage to that bullet occurred when it struck the lower forearm. Do you have that X-ray of Governor Connally available? This Xray of Governor Connally's forearm shows the radius bone of the forearm, the only object that that bullet, C.E. 399, struck that could have caused only significant damage to the bullet. It is the opinion of the panel that the impact with the radius bone did cause some flattening of the bullet, but it would not necessarily be a very marked deformity. Impact that causes great damage to a bullet typically occurs when the bullet strikes skull bone or spine bone, which are hard and tough bones. The wrist, the radius at that point where you see the fracture lines, is not a very hard bone. It can damage some bullets, and not others. It is hard to predict. We have seen many bullets that go through radius bones that are very little deformed. The bullet struck only superficial soft tissues of the left thigh where its course terminated; this impact would have caused no damage to the bullet Mr. PREYER. I was going to ask you how you explained the massive fragmenting of the bullet from the head wound compared to the relatively undamaged bullet from the throat wound? Dr. BADEN. The skull bones are much denser and harder and provide much more resistance especially if the bullet should strike at a sheering angle. The skull bone is a round bone and often a bullet like this may enter the skin head on but, when it hits the 309 bone beneath, because of the curvature, the lines of force are different than when it goes through a flat bone like the radius. It is typical for bullets striking the head to be much more damaged than bullets going through a rib or a wrist; in fact 399 did not strike much that would cause it to be damaged. But to get back to your original question, if you asked me can I produce a bullet that similarly went through two individuals, I could not because of the uniqueness in the way people are shot and the way people die. Mr. PREYER. The final question I have, Dr. Baden, you mentioned that part of the information on which you based your conclusions that the single-bullet theory was valid was that no other bullet was found. If another bullet would have turned up, or should turn up, say in the upholstry of the car, would that affect the validity of the single-bullet theory, that is, that one bullet passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally? Dr. BADEN. I think that if another bullet were found in the car, the pathology panel members would have to give that a great deal of consideration before reading its final conclusions. The problem with bullets going through people, through multiple people, which happens from time to time in ordinary civilian practice, or going in and out of one part of the body and into another part of the body, is that it is never possible to say that the only possibility is a single bullet from the autopsy findings a lone. The circumstances are very important in interpreting the autopsy findings. All we as pathologists can do is say they line up together; one bullet could have caused both injuries, but if the two people, if the arm and the chest were held apart and two bullets were fired at appropriate angles, it is possible to simulate tracks with two bullets that could be caused by one bullet. Presence or absence of the reentry characteristic would be important in interpreting the findings. We are taking into account in our evaluation the Zapruder film, the fact that the President and the Governor are in certain positions, seated down, one in front of the other; from the autopsy point of view they line up. The bullet going through the President would have enough steam behind it to reenter the Governor. Further, the appearance of the Governor's wound indicates that the bullet entering the Governor struck something before it hit the Governor. There is no evidence of striking anything else in the vicinity of the car, although it is possible; but being reasonable and trying to examine all of the possibilities in the context of the medical evidence available, we find that the bullet that struck the President in the upper back had no other place to go, went no place else, except into the person in front of him, the Governor. And that there is no other place that the bullet going through the chest could go but the wrist. It would be possible for another bullet to have been fired from another point and caused the same injuries to the Governor. This is highly unlikely. In civilian practice with experience with thousands of bullet wounds the majority of panel members find it very significant that the wounds line up: If the shoe fits, it fits. If the bullet in the hand and the chest line up as consistent with coming from the same bullet track, invariably, when all the evi- 310 dence is in, this proves to be the correct explanation; but it is not necessarily the only explanation. It is just there are so many ways people can be shot; myriads of ways people can be shot that don't line up. If the bullet paths line up in a way so that they are possibly caused by one bullet, that in itself eliminates countless other possibilities. Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Dr. Baden. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Committee will now operate under the 5-minute rule. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. Mr. DEVINE Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Baden, you are obviously eminently qualified with your vast experience in the field of forensic pathology. I know of the general reluctance of members of the medical profession--as well as indeed, lawyers--to be critical of their colleagues or their work, and keeping that in mind I am wondering could you elaborate more fully on the conclusions the panel reached regarding the autopsy procedure? Do you have anything you would like to enlarge upon in that regard? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. As was mentioned previously, we are going to include in the report a full documentation of critical analysis of the autopsy report. I would say that, as you will find today and perhaps other times, that although many physicians are hesitant to criticize one another, that is not the rule among forensic pathologists, and I think this is a good rule because the forensic pathologist is often in the court room and has to call it the way he or she sees it. I think in this regard, perhaps as a caveat, we did agree as a group with the basic bottom-line conclusions of the original autopsy doctors: Two bullets from behind struck the President and only two bullets. However, we had a great deal of concern on many levels as to how the autopsy was performed, beginning immediately with the assumption of jurisdiction by what appears to be the Federal Government and the family of the President, intruding into what was at that time a State crime, homicide. The effect of that was to remove the body from Dallas, the jurisdiction which had a very competent forensic pathologist in charge, Dr. Earl Rose, who happens to be a member of our panel presently, to Bethesda at, apparently, the request of the family. The experience of each and every panel member is that in a homicide situation the last person to have control and tell the medical examiner how to proceed or what to do is the family of the next of kin. This is a rule that we live with while still keeping the sensitivities of the family fully in mind. The very concept of the family having control of the body, of the family having control of the archival material although done with the best and noblest of intentions, does cause great concern for forensic pathologists because of its implications in other homicides where the family does not and is not permitted and should not be permitted to have control over what happens to the bullet that killed Uncle Louie. The district attorney handles that and not the family. 311 As a result of that move of the body many things happened. In all fairness, Dr. Humes is here and will speak later. Some people assume authority and upon others authority is thrust as happened to Dr. Humes. He was later to become president of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists. A well experienced hospital pathologist in the scheme of things, he had not been exposed to many gunshot wounds and had not performed autopsies in deaths due to shooting previously: neither had the other autopsy pathologists present. So they were required to do an autopsy that by experience and by the way our society is structured in the United States, is reserved for forensic pathologists and coroner's pathologists. As a result of that, certain things didn't happen. The kinds of documentation, pictures, measurements, that the forensic pathologist does automatically and that a hospital pathologist had no need to do. Further, the forensic pathologist knows that he must speak to any physician who treated or touched the body of the decedent prior to the pronouncing of death before the autopsy is done, just to determine what the doctors did to the body--in this instance to learn that a tracheostomy had been made through a bullet hole. From our vantage point it appears to be a rule among clinicians, those people who deal with live patients, that if there is a perforation in the body, a tube will be stuck into it, the doctors will enlarge it, or they may incorporate it into a surgical incision. This goes for bullet wounds and stab wounds. This is what we deal with every day as medical examiners in our different jurisdictions. This is not what Dr. Humes and his colleagues deal with or are exposed to at Bethesda Hospital. That created a problem. We forensic pathologists insist on seeing clothing as part of the homicide examination, we must see the clothing because we know from experience that the clothing tells us a great deal about bullet holes, about injuries, that may be obscured in the body. It tells if a bullet struck the clothing but missed the body, for example, which may be important. It gives information as to distance, as to whether the bullet is wobbling, et cetera. The clothing was not examined. The autopsy itself is conducted differently by a hospital pathologist than by a forensic pathologist. The former is not trained to reconstruct the skull, to put the bones together, preserve evidence appropriate for subsequent medical or legal proceedings, et cetera. I think the preservation of evidence, the finding of all those little bits of pieces of metal fragments Mr. Preyer referred to, are more important to us as forensic pathologists than to the regular pathologist or surgeon because preservation of evidence is not necessarily relevant to treatment. The question of how extensive an autopsy should be done becomes an issue. Should a complete autopsy be done? In a homicide, yes, because of medical and legal questions that may be anticipated to arise. The state of the various organs may prove important. Heart diseases, brain tumors, and other natural diseases may not have caused death but may relate to other questions that come up as to how a person acted prior to death. Chemical analysis may also be an important part of the post morten examination. Mr. DEVINE. Dr. Baden, I presume that you, as the spokesman for your panel, are convinced that your findings are accurate and that any deviation from the original autopsy that was conducted under 312 very highly charged emotional stress, the fact that the first group of physicians were involved with trying to attempt to save the President's life, rather than determine entrance and exits of wounds, and so forth, and you are persuaded today as you testify here that your findings, the findings of your panel, are accurate and the previous findings that were different are in error? Mr. BADEN. Yes, sir. However, as to certain of these differences, in particular, the placement of the entrance wound in the back of the head and of the exit perforation in the neck, after further recent discussions with the original surgeons, Dr. Perry, Dr. Carrico, Dr. Shires, we find that we are not now in disagreement. There are some persistent disagreements between the panel and the autopsy doctors in Bethesda particular as to the location of the entry head wound. I wish to point out and emphasize that the doctors performed the autopsy in Bethesda in a military situation, with a lot of superior officers who were not forensic pathologists present; this creates a pressure, I think, that we are more able to control in the civilian setting where the medical examiner can ask the chief of police or the mayor's representatives or the chief Rabbi to please leave the autopsy room if we deem this appropriate so that the autopsy can be done under our terms. We can do that in civilian life. It is difficult to do that in a military setting, and that situation itself generates procedures and a tentativeness that may produce disagreements later. Mr. DEVINE. I think this atmosphere should be pointed out for the record and I appreciate your comments. Thank you, sir. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. BADEN. I would like to return to the skull injury. You viewed with us yesterday the Zapruder film which we and the American people saw several times. You are aware that because of the direction in which the President's body moved, namely, backwards and to the left, it appeared that the bullet had come from the front. Of course, your finding substantiates that of the Commission that two shots came from the rear. Today you mentioned the presence of beveling in the President's skull. I wonder if you would explain, using a diagram, what causes beveling and how it can be interpreted to learn whether a wound is an entry wound or an exit wound? Dr. BADEN. Yes; I think Miss Hess is putting up a diagram that we have not used. May I address that please? Thank you. Because of pressure of time this morning we didn't include all of the materials that might have clarified some issues you are raising, sir. This diagram is to illustrate the beveling concept that I referred to this morning, which was of great importance to us in working out the direction of the bullet wounds in the head and in interpreting the bullet wounds. A bullet entering a bone, like a BB or bullet entering a thick plate glass window, will create lines of force and fractures in the bone or the glass, radiating outward from the point of entrance; a bevel or a concavity will occur in the 313 bone or glass consequent to these fracture lines in the direction in which the missile is going. Thus, a bullet entering the skull will cause beveling on the inside of the bone. The skull bone consists of an outer plate and inner plate. Coming in from the outside, the bullet will cause a small round sharp edged hole of the outer table and a concavity or beveling of the inner table, a circumferential defect. Going out, the bullet will cause beveling on the outside of the bone. This is of great assistance to the forensic pathologist in determining which way the bullet is going. Clearly the perforation in the right front side of the head near the suture line, where the two bones joined, as I referred to earlier, had this type of outer bone beveling, which did match up with the separately received triangular bone fragment, indicating that it was the site of an exit perforation. Do you have that blowup of the X-ray showing the three bone fragments? Thank you. That same beveling was present on one of the fragments of bone found in the car. This fragment of bone found in the car, in the limousine, and brought up to Dr. Humes and his collegues while they were doing the autopsy, proved to be of value in that one showed a margin of beveling on the outer surface, which permitted the doctors at that time to state there was a bullet wound of exit in the right front head region. It shows some pieces of metal deposited in the area of the beveling. The autopsy doctors also describe in their protocol the entrance wound in the back of the head with beveling of the inner table and an exit wound in the front with beveling of the outer table. This is consistent with what we could see on the negatives and on the photographs of both wounds, and permits us to give the direction of the track. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I know my 5 minutes are up and I may have other questions later, but for the record, may we have these two illustrations entered at this point? Dr. BADEN. This one was entered earlier. This one was not. Mr. FAUNTROY. Let's have this. Chairman STOKES. Without objection, the other exhibit may be entered in the record at this point. Mr. FAUNTROY. What is the number? Dr. BADEN. It is F-61. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The above referred to JFK exhibit F-61 follows:] 314 JFK EXHIBIT F-61 Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Baden, I just have two questions I would like to address to you, if I could. In your response to questions from Mr. Klein early on in your testimony, in talking about the wound in the President's back, you said that an entry wound and an exit wound do not cause the same kind of perforation, except under certain special circumstances, or in special cases. I wonder if you might describe what you mean by special cases, was this a special case, if so, why, if not, why not? Dr. BADEN. The description of the perforation in the front of the neck, from the original autopsy doctors, and from the persons who had best visualization of it, the surgeons who did the tracheostomy, Dr. Perry, Dr. Carrico in Parkland, essentially only describes it as a small perforation, I think 6 or 7 millimeters at most in diameter. An exit bullet hole can have an abrasion collar, of it is shored. A shored exit wound can have an abrasion collar, if it were firmly in place, or if the skin is against the wall or a hard surface at the time the bullet exits the body, because as the bullet goes out it rubs the skin against the object on the outside such as heavy clothing or a hard surface. We don't know if this exit perforation had an abrasion collar because it was not that clearly looked at. The doctors were expending all of their efforts to try to save his life. We do not know the perforation was small. The exit perforation is made smaller by clothing tight around the skin. By chance the bullet exited through the windpipe right at the point where the collar is buttoned against the neck, as seen on the clothing exhibit; this amount of pressure against the skin can prevent an exit hole from being bigger than it might otherwise be. So, although an exit perforation may be small without any clothing or constraint about it, the tighter the constraint the smaller it will be, even to the possibility of arriving at an abrasion collar that looks like an entrance wound. But with all of the other evidence at 315 hand, and after interviewing all of the surgeons, and all of the doctors who saw the President, I think there is unanimous agreement presently among the physicians and scientists who have been involved, that the perforation of the neck indeed was an exit perforation. There was some misunderstanding of this initially, but that has been worked out and our panel is unanimously in agreement that the neck wound is an exit wound. Mr. DODD. Are you satisified that the clothing, the tie and the collar, the tears or rips in them, were caused in fact by the bullet exiting or were these like the other, the jacket and so forth, possibly cut away or ripped away by the surgeons operating in Dallas? Do you have any information which could specifically clear up that controversy? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. We could find no evidence that the tie or shirt collar was torn or cut during removal. The perforation itself, although it might look like a cut to the casual observer, is typical of the slit-like irregularity produced by an exiting bullet. A bullet will destroy some of the clothing on entrance and produce a roundish type hole the edges of which cannot be approximated because there is a little bit of fabric missing. In an exit perforation of this nature, not only is there a jagged slit-like, but not sharp, tear of the fabric, but in addition there is no loss of clothing fabric, so the edges can be approximated as in this instance. The tear in the tie and shirt collar directly overly the neck perforation the doctors saw at the Parkland Hospital. There is no other hole in the fabric. We can conclude beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the slit-like hole in the shirt and the nick in the tie were caused by whatever came out of the neck and not by a knife. A knife would cause a sharper tear than present here. Mr. DODD. As I understand your testimony, you acknowledge that you had viewed this Zapruder film, on at least one occasion, if not more? Dr. BADEN. Yes, the panel had many occasions to view the Zapruder film in slow motion and by individual frames. We were very concerned about seeing the film to better interpret the autopsy findings. Mr. DODD. When I ask you this, I recognize you are not a ballistics expert and you are not testifying as to the ballistic evidence, but as a matter of medical evidence, in light of the fact that you have viewed the Zapruder film, can you state it as a medical certainty, that there were no shots fired from the grassy knoll which could have struck either Governor Connally or President Kennedy? Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. If I can take into account the autopsy findings, as well as the Zapruder film. Mr. DODD. That is what I am asking. Dr. BADEN. I can state for the majority of the panel, and Dr. Wecht will have his own opinions that he will explain to you, that there is no evidence beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty, for any bullet to have struck the President from the front or the side. That the only bullets that struck the President are two from behind. 316 We studied the Zapruder film relative to the motion of the head. Suffice it to say, in all our experiences, among the more than 100,000 autopsies that the nine of us have had responsibility for, none of us have ever seen somebody shot in person or on camera to permit study of head motion. That is unique. The uniqueness is certainly undercut by the fact that it then happened on television 2 days later with Mr. Ruby. Apart from those two instances, and an occasional wartime film clip, it is unique to see a person's reaction to a gunshot wound. We cannot say with all of our experiences with gundshot wounds, what movement a head should have when struck, a live head, a live breathing head with blood going through, with the skin alive and the bones alive. How such a real head would react to a gunshot wound is beyond the limits of scientific study and recorded in the annals of medical literature, nor in the experience of the panel members. We cannot say with any degree of medical certainty precisely how we would expect the President's head to move when shot. Chairman STOKES. Time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman STOKES. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. McKinney. Mr. McKINNEY. Doctor, it seems to me that we have an underlying problem. One of the reasons used as a conclusion of one bullet theory and these two men being shot was that no other bullet was found. But, we also have not found the bullet that struck the President's head. But it seems to me that there has always been this one basic problem, could the bullet have done the damage? You have explained that pretty well. But I think one area where we have question is, is there no way that the panel could have found out more to indicate whether or not the President's spinal column was hit by the bullet going through the throat? In essence if it had been hit, then it would be pretty difficult for that bullet to have proceeded ahead, wouldn't it? Dr. BADEN. It would have had a significant effect certainly if the spine were hit. I would say, to begin with, that the panel members were satisfied that the two fragments of the bullet found in the limousine were consistent with having caused the injury to the President's head. So the head bullet wounds I think are accounted for. Mr. McKINNEY. How much of that bullet was found? Dr. BADEN. A great proportion of it, a large proportion of it. That is beyond the pathology panel's work. Mr. McKINNEY. It is fairly safe to say that bullet was fairly well destroyed by--- Dr. BADEN. Well, it was very much damaged but two major fragments were recovered. Mr. McKINNEY. And yet here we have another bullet that went through the neck, went through the chest, rubbed up against a rib, shattered a wrist, and went into the thigh, and stayed relatively-- Dr. BADEN. Intact. Mr. McKINNEY. In one piece. Dr. BADEN. Going through soft tissues, skin and muscle, does not deform a bullet. It may slow it down but doesn't deform it. It is 317 bone that causes the deformation and skull bone is a very hard bone. The spine bone is also hard. Forensic pathologists who deal with gunshot wounds frequently are very careful to dissect out the tracks of bullets to identify all of the injuries caused by the bullet; even if this would not change the final cause of death, we can anticipate that it will answer questions that might arise later. It is important for us to know, and we don't know, whether the bullet that went from the President's back through the neck, tore any major vessels in the neck. It may have. If so, this wound in and of itself could have been fatal. The question you raise has multiple implications because, if the bullet struck the spine, this would cause some damage to the bullet and it would also probably cause damage to the spinal cord. Such injury has certain implication as to how the President would move his extremities, and as to the possibility of survival. The track wasn't dissected out. We have to speculate from other sources of information. One of the reasons we spent so much attention to the possibility of a metal fragment in the side of the neck earlier, was because if it were a piece of bullet in the side of the neck, it would indicate the bullet struck bone. This would have an effect on the bullet as well as on the body. The majority of the panel members are satisfied that it did not strike bone at that point. The missile did create a cavity. The cavity, the bullet missile cavity, created by the bullet at this speed, causes damage much beyond the missile itself. It can cause damage to the spine, even if the spine is a couple of inches away from the bullet. We can speculate as to what it did strike, but there is no evidence from the X-rays,