The Clay Shaw trial testimony of John Nichols
February 17, 19 and 28, 1969

CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW
198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"
EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
February 17, 1969
B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"
MR. OSER: The State would like to note for the record that in light of Time, Inc. on the return of the subpoena, the subpoena called for 35 millimeter slides of Frames 200 to 320, and after checking the return made by Time, Inc., the State learns that Frames 234 through 244 are missing. This is a check by Mr. Alford and myself.
THE COURT: Where is the witness? You excused him?
MR. OSER: Time has these things copyrighted and I wanted to note for the record that we did not receive those particular frames.
THE COURT: You requested that you have them?
MR. OSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why didn't you question the witness while he was here?
MR. OSER: We did not go down and go through 120 35 MM slides, we assumed they were all here. I just want it noted for the record.
THE COURT: If the gentleman is still in the City and he hasn't left, possibly you can have one of the Assistant District Attorneys call Mr. Sessions and tell him about this and maybe it can be rectified while we are proceeding.
MR. OSER: Mr. Sessions is not in his office, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let's proceed with what you do have.
JOHN NICHOLS, M.D., having been first duly sworn by the Minute Clerk, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: Would you state your name for the record, Doctor, please.
A: My full name is John Marshall Nichols.
Q: Where do you live, Doctor?
THE COURT: How do you spell that?
THE WITNESS: N-i-c-h-o-l-s.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Where do you live, Doctor?
A: I live at 8008 Reed Road in Prairie Village, Kansas, that is a suburb of Kansas City.
Q: What is your profession, Doctor?
A: I am a physician.
MR. OSER: At this time the State is going to attempt to qualify Dr. Nichols as an expert in the field of pathology and in the field of forensic pantology.
THE COURT: Proceed.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, from what university did you receive your undergraduate degree?
MR. DYMOND: At this time we object to Dr. Nichols' testimony on the ground that it is irrelevant to the issues in this case.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the questions propounded to Dr. Nichols and answers given, the Defense objection, the reason for the objection, the Court's ruling, and the entire record, including all testimony up to this point, parts of the bill.
THE WITNESS: West Virginia University.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: And in what year was that?
A: 1943.
Q: Doctor, do you hold a PH degree?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: In what, sir?
A: Well, that is from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Q: And do you hold any other degrees, Doctor?
A: Well, I hold a degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from the University of Liverpool --
THE COURT: Would you speak a little louder, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: An MD Degree from the University of Liverpool, Bachelor of Medicine -- I have been ill in bed with a terrible cold.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Continue, Doctor.
A: My medical degree is from the University of Liverpool in England, Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery and Doctor of Medicine, licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians and licentiate of Royal College of Surgeons, and these two licentiates are equivalent to the American MD Degree.
Q: Doctor, did you undergo any internship in the field of Pathology?
A: Yes, I did, Yale University at New Haven, Connecticut.
Q: How long was that internship in Pantology?
A: Well, a year for the internship.
Q: Did you do any residency in Pathology?
A: Yes, at the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond.
Q: Have you had any teaching assignments since becoming a doctor or do you --
A: Well, at the present time I am Associate Professor of Pathology at the University of Kansas.
Q: And prior to that?
A: Well, prior to that I was Assistant Professor of Pathology and prior to that I was Instructor in Pathology at the Medical College in Virginia during my last year.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not you are accredited by the American Board of Pantology?
A: I passed every examination and I am so certified.
Q: Are you a consultant, Doctor, with any hospitals?
A: Well, I am a consultant to the Veterans Hospital in Kansas City, officially, and there are pathologists in several other hospitals who ask my opinions from time to time, yes.
Q: During your medical career, Doctor, have you had occasion to write any articles or pamphlets concerning the area of pathology?
A: Well, I think I published approximately 50 articles in various medical and scientific journals and I have written three chapters in three textbooks on pathology.
Q: Have any of these articles appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association?
A: Yes, that is true, several.
Q: During your career in the field of Pathology, can you tell us approximately how many autopsies you have done?
A: I have personally done approximately 1,000 autopsies.
THE COURT: How many?
THE WITNESS: Approximately 1,000, and I have supervised the doing of approximately another 1,000, and I have assisted and participated, I suppose, in 250, these figures of course are approximate.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Have you done any work, Doctor, with various types of surgical specimens removed from autopsies?
A: Well, the surgical specimens that are removed from living patients on which the surgeon wants to know whether he is dealing with a cancer or not, yes, I suppose I have examined 35 or 40 thousand surgical specimens.
Q: Doctor, have you ever been qualified as an expert in the field of Pathology in any courts of the land?
A: I testify somewhat regularly in the trial courts of Kansas.
MR. OSER: I tender the Doctor on his qualifications as an expert.
THE COURT: In Pathology and also Forensic Pathology?
MR. OSER: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you like to traverse the witness?
MR. DYMOND: We have no questions on that, Judge.
THE COURT: Is the matter submitted?
MR. OSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It is submitted by the State. I will rule that Dr. Nichols by his experience and training and studies is qualified as an expert in and can render his opinions in the field of Pathology and also in the field of Forensic Pathology.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, would you define for us what is known as the field of Pathology.
A: Well, the field of Pathology, as I interpret it, consists mainly of making microscopic diagnoses on patients, tissue removed from human patients in order that the surgeon may tell the patient he has a cancer and treat him appropriately or tell him he has a benign disease and treat that appropriately. I suppose that pathology is really divided into some subsections too, that would be forensic pathology, which deals with the acquiring of evidence with which to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and if a crime has been committed, then to assist in apprehending, convicting, the guilty, and acquitting the innocent, although there is another branch which I am relatively ignorant, this is clinical pathology and this consists mainly of running the blood bank and chemical tests on the blood and urine and things as that in the hospital, and I profess no degree of proficiency in that.
Q: Now, Doctor, am I correct in stating that you deal with the area of forensic pathology? Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, Doctor, have you had occasion to examine what is commonly known as Zapruder film?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: Have you also had occasion, Doctor, to examine various 35 MM slides of the Zapruder film?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: Have you also had occasion, Doctor, to examine various 35 MM slides of the Zapruder film?
A: Yes, I have.
MR. OSER: At this time, the State requests permission to display the Zapruder film to Dr. Nichols.
MR. DYMOND: We object, Your Honor, on the grounds that the film has been shown approximately six times already. We see no connection between the showing of this film and the Doctor's expertise, and we further contend that it is irrelevant to the issues in this case. The Doctor has further testified that he has seen the Zapruder film.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the testimony of this witness, the questions propounded by the State, the Defense objection, together with the reasons therefor, State Exhibit 37, and all of the record and testimony in this case up until now parts of the bill.
THE COURT: I would like to make a statement. We are going to have a mass exodus in about 30 seconds. Mr. Oser stated to me in the chambers that he wishes to go up to the screen and he wants the witness possibly to go to the screen, and he is being blocked by spectators being up around the edge of the chair there. The persons who want to get against the wall, they can do it now, but nobody is going to be permitted to go right up to the front. We are trying to run this case properly and I would request that they do not talk to one another or comment in any way about what is going on in court.
You are going to put it in slow motion?
MR. OSER: In slow motion, Your Honor. I will ask the Doctor to step down, please.
(Whereupon, the Zapruder film was shown.)
THE COURT: Put the lights on, Sheriff. Let the people get back to their seats.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, are you familiar with what you have just viewed on the screen as having seen this before?
A: Yes, my memory is refreshed.
Q: Doctor, I think you said before you viewed certain frames, slides of certain frames of the Zapruder film. Is that correct?
A: Yes, I have.
MR. OSER: At this time the State requests permission to display to Dr. Nichols various 35 MM slides of the Zapruder film.
MR. DYMOND: These have not been offered into evidence, to the best of my knowledge.
THE COURT: They have not as of this moment. They were marked for identification, as I recall, the prints were marked as "S-53," the slides were marked "S-54," and before you can show them to the Doctor, they will have to be received into evidence.
MR. ALCOCK: How can the State lay the proper foundation for introduction unless they show them to the Doctor for identification? The purport was to enter them in globo and show them to the Doctor in the presence of the Jury.
THE COURT: As you well know, if you make the offer, it is going to be shown to the Jury, it should be seen by the witness before it is shown to the Jury. Now, if you wish, have you examined the slides yourself, Doctor?
THE WITNESS: I think perhaps I have picked up one or two of them in my hands and looked at it against the light, and I have seen them thrown on the screen by his projector.
MR. ALFORD: All of the slides were identified this morning as having been made from the original film.
THE COURT: I am aware of that. I just want to know if the Doctor has been given an opportunity to look at these slides since they were in the possession of Mr. Orth, to see if the slides are the slides that he used for whatever tests he made. He said he only looked at one or two --
MR. OSER: Up to the light, Your Honor. I think the Doctor also said he saw all of the slides projected on the screen, is that right, Doctor?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I saw a rather large number, I did not count them all. I think I have seen them all, I did not make a count of them, though, or I did not initial them or identify each slide with a notation.
THE COURT: Let's make the offer.
MR. EDWARD WEGGMAN: The slides just came from New York this afternoon.
MR. OSER: Is the number "53"? I think "54" is the slides.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. OSER: The State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence that which was previously marked for the purposes of identification "S-54," the 35 MM slides from Time, Inc.
MR. DYMOND: We object to the introduction of these items, "53" and "54", first on the grounds that they are irrelevant to the issues, and secondly that the State, by introducing them, seeks to accentuate certain isolated portions of another exhibit in evidence.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection. Before I rule on Dr. Nichols testifying to the slides, I think it should be made evident, and I am afraid it will have to be done out of the presence of the Jury, that the Doctor is referring to the slides that you have in your possession.
MR. OSER: Yes.
THE COURT: That is what we did with Mr. Zapruder, if you remember. Take the Jury upstairs, if you will, Sheriff.
MR. DYMOND: Before the Jury leaves, Your Honor, I would like to reserve my bill of ex- ception to the last ruling of the Court, making the exhibits --
THE COURT: I haven't accepted them into evidence yet.
MR. DYMOND: Very well.
(Whereupon, the Jury was removed.)
MR. OSER: I have two of these carousels. I want to show one first and half of another.
(Whereupon, the slides were shown to the witness.)
MR. OSER: This is the place that is missing, Your Honor.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, having viewed the slides you just viewed, can you tell the Court whether or not you had seen these slides prior to this time?
A: Yes, I have seen the slide earlier this morning.
THE COURT: Can you identify these slides as being the slides you used for whatever tests you made, whatever examination you made?
THE WITNESS: Well, I can't identify the particular slides, the images are all the same.
MR. OSER: I can show the Doctor the 8 x 10's while the Jury is not here.
THE COURT: You might as well cover that point too.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I show you what the State marked for purposes of identification "S-53" --
MR. OSER: Is that right, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: This consists of 21 8 x 10 color photographs or prints, and I ask you to examine the photographs and inform the Court whether or not you have seen these photographs before.
A: Yes, I have seen these photographs earlier this morning and I examined them.
MR. OSER: All right.
THE COURT: Bring the Jury in.
(Whereupon, the Jury was brought in.)
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Oser.
MR. OSER: The State makes its offer as to "S-54," the 35 MM slides consisting of Frames 200 to 320, missing is 235 through 244.
MR. DYMOND: To which we object for the reasons previously stated, and also making a part of our bill the parts which were originally set forth.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection and permit the exhibit to be received into evidence.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, I would merely like at this time to request that the Court inquire of this witness as to his seeing these slides and film early this morning, when we were waiting here right before lunch for Mr. Orth to get off the airplane with these things. We are somewhat at a loss.
MR. ALCOCK: What significance does that have, Your Honor?
THE COURT: The main thing, whether he saw them one second before he got on the stand or four hours, he has testified that he recognized them, that is the controlling factor.
MR. DYMOND: He said he saw them earlier this morning, when did you see the film?
THE WITNESS: Perhaps I used that wrong, perhaps I should have said I saw them earlier today.
THE COURT: You reserve your bill on "54." Now, what about -- did you make an offer on "53" as yet?
MR. OSER: The State wishes to offer, introduce, and file into evidence that which has been previously marked for purposes of identification "S-53," 8 x 10 color prints of certain frames of the Zapruder film. The said prints total 21.
MR. DYMOND: We have the same objection to that offering, making the exhibit, the objection, the offering, the testimony of this witness, the reasons for the objec- tion, the ruling of the Court, together with all testimony and the entire record up to this time parts of the bill.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection. I will permit the prints to be received into evidence.
MR. OSER: At this time I would like to display the slides to the Doctor.
THE COURT: We will have to set it up again, I agree with you, you will have to do it all over again. We are going to have this commotion again. Is it your purpose to play the slides now for the Doctor's benefit in front of the Jury, is that correct?
MR. OSER: Yes.
THE COURT: I will grant you permission to do so. I just don't want to have all of this commotion every time. Sheriff Brocato, if the people wish to move over there, tell them to do it now with at least noise as possible.
MR. DYMOND: We object to the seventh showing of this portion of the Zapruder film now on the slides on the ground that it's prejudicial because of the number of times shown, because of the accentuation of particular portions of it, and further that it is irrelevant to the issues in this case.
THE COURT: I would like to state -- let's have a little order, please, otherwise we are going to work it so that nobody leaves their seats. I am overruling the objection for two reasons. It refreshes the memory of the witness and the witness has been qualified as an expert and he needs this evidence to advise the Jury how he came to an opinion, so for that further reason, I am permitting the reshowing of the slides.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves the bill, making the entire testimony of this witness, the Zapruder film, which is "S-37," the prints from the film, which is Exhibit No. -- what is that, "51" or "52"?
THE COURT: "53" and "54" are the prints and the slides.
MR. DYMOND: "53," and the slides which would be "S-54," the reasons for the objection, and the entire testimony and record up until this point parts of the bill.
MR. OSER: I ask the Doctor can he see the screen from where he is.
THE WITNESS: Well, I would prefer to have a better position, but I don't want to obstruct the Jury.
THE COURT: It would be better if you stepped down. Are you ready, Mr. Oser?
MR. OSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cut out the lights.
(Whereupon, the slides were shown.)
MR. OSER: This is what is missing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. OSER: At this time, the State requests permission to display the 8 x 10 photographs to the Jury.
THE COURT: Any objection? They have already been received in evidence, you can show them to the Jury. Give half of them from this end so they can look at it here.
MR. OSER: It breaks up the order of them.
THE COURT: Oh, I see, it breaks up the sequence. Well, I tell you, it is 21 photographs, 14 men, for them to look at these photographs, that is going to take some time. Is there any objection to -- is there any objection on the part of the Defense or the State to take a recess and let the Jurors take the pictures up to the room upstairs? Any objection?
MR. ALCOCK: Not by the State.
MR. DYMOND: Subject to my original objection on relevancy.
THE COURT: We are going to take a recess and Jurors, let the Sheriff know when you are finished looking at the pictures and come down. I will try to get coffee to you as quick as possible.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Sheriff, bring the Jury down, please. You may proceed, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, I show you what the State has marked as "State Exhibit -- what is the next two numbers, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You marked the photographs in globo, all of the prints as "S-53." Now, if you are going to --
MR. OSER: I can use the alphabet.
THE COURT: "S-53-A, B," whatever you have.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I show you a document which the State marks "S-53-A" and "B," and I ask you if you recognize those two particular photographs.
A: Yes, I recognize these photographs.
Q: I now show you what the State marks as "S-53-C," and I ask you if you recognize that photograph.
A: Yes, I recognize this third photograph.
Q: Doctor, using those three photographs, can you tell the Court whether or not you have examined those photographs as to anyone's body movement or possible reaction on these particular photographs?
A: Yes, I have examined the body movements of the late President and the body movements of Governor Connally in these three photographs.
Q: Doctor, as an expert in the field of Pathology and Forensic Pathology, can you give your opinion as to the body reactions as you see them and the body movements of President Kennedy as depicted on those three photographs?
MR. DYMOND: To which question we object. This is completely out of the scope of this Doctor's expertise, to look at a photograph and interpret the reactions of a body, that is not pathological work.
THE COURT: I understand not only did the witness examine the photographs, but he saw the movies, the Zapruder film. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
MR. DYMOND: That is not within the field of --
THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception making the entire line of questioning, the qualifications of Dr. John Nichols as an expert, the purpose for which he was offered as an expert, the exhibits "State 53-A," "B" and "C," the Defense objection, the reason for the objection, the Court's ruling, and the entire record of the testimony up until now parts of the bill.
THE COURT: Would you like to have the Court Reporter read the question?
THE WITNESS: No, I know the question.
A: In Exhibit "S-53-A," I notice that Governor Connally is sitting rather squarely in his seat looking forward and to the right. I notice that President Kennedy --
MR. DYMOND: We object to this witness looking at the photographs and telling us what the photographs show. The photographs speak for themselves.
THE COURT: He has been qualified as an expert to give his opinion. I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: He is not a photographic expert, that is what he is trying to tell us here.
THE COURT: You can reserve your bill.
MR. DYMOND: We reserve a bill, making the parts thereof the same as the bill which I previously reserved on Dr. Nichols' testimony.
THE WITNESS: Continuing on, "Exhibit S-53-A," I notice that the Presidential vehicle in which President Kennedy is riding, President Kennedy is emerging from behind what appears to be a road sign, he is reaching toward his throat with his hand, and "Exhibit 53" -- "S-53-B," the automobile has proceeded farther and has come further from behind the sign and I notice that Governor Connally still has the same posture, the President is still reaching for his throat with his right hand, and Frame -- and "Exhibit 53," "S-53-C," the automobile has proceeded further, he is almost completely from behind the sign now, Governor Connally is still squarely sitting in his seat looking forward and clutching what appears to be a hat in his right hand, President Kennedy is reaching towards his throat with both hands, and is leaning forward.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, having examined these photographs as well as having viewed the Zapruder film and the slides, do you have any expert opinion as to the reaction of President Kennedy as displayed in those three exhibits?
A: President Kennedy is showing a typical reaction of pain in his throat.
MR. DYMOND: We object on the grounds that the answer is not responsive to the question. He was asked if he had an opinion as to his reaction, not as to the cause of the reaction.
MR. OSER: He said it was pain.
THE COURT: I think being qualified as [sic] the Doctor can give [sic] to the causation of it, I overrule that.
MR. DYMOND: He was asked what the reaction was.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, from having examined these three particular exhibits, as well as the Zapruder film and the 35 MM slides, do you have any opinion as to the cause of the reaction of President Kennedy as exemplified in those three exhibits?
A: President Kennedy is probably reacting to pain in his neck.
Q: Doctor, in those three exhibits that you now hold, do you have any opinion as to the reaction of Governor Connally in regards to pain?
A: Governor Connally does not appear to be reacting to pain.
Q: I now show you, Doctor, what the State has marked as "S-53-D," "E," "F," and "G," and I ask you to review those photographs.
A: Yes, the car in these photographs that you have just cited has moved forward, a second car is coming into view, and "Exhibit 353-D --"
THE COURT: "S-53."
THE WITNESS: I am sorry, "S-53-D" and "E," I detect that President Kennedy is still re- acting to the pain and Governor Connally appears also to be reacting to pain and probably in "Exhibit S-53-B" he is expelling a gush of air out of his mouth and his cheeks are puffed upward, this is -- this puffing of the cheeks is more pronounced in "S-53-F," and the Governor appears to be turning to the side, to the right, and he is turning very pronounced to the right in the last exhibit, "S-53-G."
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, can you tell the gentlemen of the Jury and the Court your expert opinion as to what would be the cause of Governor Connally's reactions as you see in those exhibits?
A: I think it is very likely that he has sustained a gunshot --
MR. DYMOND: I object to this, Your Honor, that is completely outside of the realm of this witness's expertise, for this witness to sit here and tell you as to what probably caused the pain, in my opinion, it is so far out of bounds that it is just --
THE COURT: Continue with your argument.
MR. DYMOND: This witness purports to look at these photographs and tell us what caused the pain that he supposedly detects in these photographs.
THE COURT: I agree with your objection, he can tell as an expert, he can give his opinion as to what caused the pain, but he cannot say unless he witnessed it what caused the pain.
MR. OSER: My question is not as to pain, it was as to reaction, not pain.
THE COURT: He can give his opinion as to the reaction but not the cause of it. We don't know what could have caused it.
MR. DYMOND: That is exactly the thrust of my objection.
MR. ALCOCK: He being a forensic pathologist, wouldn't it be consistent with his experience in the field of forensic pathology, this would be consistent with pain produced by a gunshot? What is so unusual about an expert giving an opinion along those lines? No expert or very few actually view what happened, they only see the effects of what happened. Any expert can give you his expert opinion as to what that cause was, this cause being a gunshot wound.
THE COURT: The question could be rephrased as to what could have caused that, not what did cause it. When the Coroner takes the witness stand in most murder cases or expert doctors are qualified, they can tell you what could have caused the wound, but not what did cause it, so if the question is rephrased, what could have caused it, I will permit it, otherwise I will not.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, unless this witness is qualified to testify that he has some special training which enables him to detect the differences and the different causes of pain which I think is impossible, he would not be qualified to answer that.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question and I will make a ruling on it, Mr. Dymond, and you can be heard. Will you rephrase your question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Using the four photographs you now hold in your possession, as well as having viewed the Zapruder film and the 35 MM slides, could you give your expert opinion as to what could have caused the reaction in Governor Connally as displayed in those four photographs you now hold in your hand?
MR. DYMOND: Objection, if the Court please. This Court should not be interested in what could have caused the pain, anything in the world that would be painful could have caused pain, and that is just pure speculation.
THE COURT: I overrule your objection, he can testify to that.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the State's question, the Defense objection, the reasons for it, the entire testimony of the witness, the exhibits "State 53," and all of the testimony up until this time parts of the bill.
THE WITNESS: I can very definitely and very conclusively say that Governor Connally is reacting to a stimulus, which stimulus probably is pain.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, this stimuli that you speak of, that you just testified about, could this stimuli have been the gunshot wound?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that, if the Court please.
THE COURT: When one of you speak, wait until he finishes so I can understand.
MR. DYMOND: I object to that on the grounds it is completely outside the scope of this witness's qualifications and the question calls for a pure assumption.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: The same bill with the same parts as the bill previously reserved.
THE WITNESS: It would be the impact of the bullet striking the Governor.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I show you what the State marks for identification, "S-53-H" through "S-53-M," and I ask you to take a look at those photographs, if you would, please.
A: Yes, the automobile with the Governor and the President has proceeded further on its course, and in "S-53-H," Governor Connally appears to be in more extreme pain, the President is still clutching his throat, he is leaning forward and to the left, and he is being attended to by his wife. Now, in "S-53-I," the photograph is of a much poor [sic] quality than the previous one, it is blurred, it appears that the President's head, the first half of his head is exploding, and the next picture, "S-53-J," it shows essentially the same thing, the bloodiness and the red character of the explosion about his head is much less in size, and in "S-53-K," it appears that the President's had and his shoulders have moved backwards. This still seems to be apparent in "S-53-L," and Governor Connally is still in his apparent condition of pain, leaning on his wife and the President's wife is attempting to hold her husband in an erect posture, and "S-53-M," it appears that the President has moved still further backwards, his shoulders and his head, and the halo of explosion about his head is no longer apparent, but there appears to be a rather horrible flesh wound, this is the sum and substance of what I reviewed.
Q: Doctor, from having viewed the photographs you now hold as well as the Zapruder film and the 35 MM slides, could you state as an expert, Doctor, as to what the cause of the red halo or the red effect around President Kennedy's head was caused by as well as his backward movement as you have described?
MR. DYMOND: We again object on the grounds that this is outside the field of this Doctor's qualifications, and secondly it is irrelevant to the issues in this case.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: The same bill with the same parts as the previous two bills.
THE WITNESS: I think this depicts the effect of the gunshot wound, a bullet striking the President in the head.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: From having viewed this data, Doctor, can you give us an expert opinion as to the direction from which the President's head was struck?
MR. DYMOND: We strenuously object to such a question as this. This Doctor is not quali- fied to answer such a question.
THE COURT: I overrule your objection, Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, the same parts as the bills previously reserved.
THE WITNESS: Having viewed the Zapruder film, the individual 35 MM frames and the particular exhibits here, I would say that this is compatible with a gunshot having been delivered from the front.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, Doctor, in speaking of the exhibits that you identified before, and I am speaking now of "State Exhibit 53-B" and "State Exhibit 53-G," in using "State Exhibit 53-B," can you tell us again whether or not President Kennedy is responding or reacting to any stimuli?
A: In my opinion, he is reacting to a stimuli in his neck and that stimuli is probably pain.
Q: Now, in "53-B," the one you now hold, can you tell us whether or not Governor Connally is reacting to any stimuli in "53-B"?
A: In "53-B," Governor Connally is not reacting to stimuli.
Q: Now, referring to "53-G," can you tell us whether or not President Kennedy is reacting to stimuli?
A: President Kennedy is reacting more intensely to a stimuli.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not Governor Connally is reacting to a stimuli?
A: Governor Connally in my opinion is reacting to a stimuli.
Q: If, Doctor, using "53-B," if President Kennedy was reacting to a stimuli at that particular time, and the same stimuli would have caused Governor Connally to react, how fast, in your opinion, Doctor, would Governor Connally have reacted to the same stimuli applied to President Kennedy?
MR. DYMOND: I object, Your Honor, on the grounds that the hypothet is going outside the scope of the evidence.
THE COURT: In which way?
MR. DYMOND: If the Stenographer will read the question back, I will point out in which way. I assume the Court heard it.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the reason for the objection, the Court's ruling, the entire testimony and record up until this point, parts of the bill.
A JUROR: Could the Jury have five minutes?
THE COURT: Take the Jury upstairs.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Can I have a little order in the Court, please. Gentlemen, we are going to recess until Wednesday morning, and Dr. Nichols will be asked to return at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday morning. I want to make mention to the Jurors that I was lucky enough, I have a place for you all to see the Rex Parade and the Krewe of Orleans, and after that is finished, you will be brought back. I made arrangements for you all to be able to see the whole Rex Parade and the Krewe of Orleans, so that my break up the monotony that I know you are suffering.
Where is the Sheriff in charge of the Jury? I have some notes I want to give to the Sheriff. It is about 22 minutes to 5:00, and they are not here available to take the Jury, you say? Let everybody have a seat for a moment, Sheriff.
Now, in connection with tomorrow, let me mention one or two things. We are going to have about seven or eight Sheriffs with you, and please do not let anyone try to make a mockery or a joke because we are trying to accommodate you, I don't want any persons talking to you in any way. If they want to throw doubloons or things at you, you can catch them, but I don't want to have a spectacle made because we are letting you see the parade, but you will be far enough away from the street. You are going to be on a balcony at a home, the location of the home I don't want to let out now because it will be found out soon enough when it happens tomorrow, but I think it will be nice. The Sheriff will get sandwiches and chairs and whatnot so you will have food at the place. You should be there from about 9:30 until 2:30 or 3:00, and you will be brought back to the motel.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE COURT: I have arranged for a doctor to come check this evening around 6:00 o'clock. All right. I suggest that you take the Jury, and again I must admonish you, as I have done so many times, do not discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anyone else until it is finally submitted to you for your verdict in the case.

CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW
198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"
EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
February 19, 1969
THE COURT: I trust you Gentlemen had a nice Carnival. Is the State and the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. OSER: We are, Your Honor.
MR. DYMOND: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. OSER: I think we left off with a question being propounded to the Doctor.
JOHN NICHOLS, M.D., having been sworn and having testified previously, resumed the stand for a continuation of the DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: I will ask the Reporter to read the question where we left off the other day.
(Whereupon, the question was read by the Reporter.)
THE WITNESS: May I see the two exhibits again, please? I would like to correct the word "stimuli," that is plural. I should have used the word "stimulus."
THE COURT: I think Mr. Oser was using it plural. Originally you used the word "stimulus."
THE WITNESS: In answer to that question, I would say Governor Connally would have reacted almost exactly 7/5, 670 of one second later than President Kennedy.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I show you what has been marked as "S-53-I," and I ask you if you would describe what is depicted in that photograph, please.
MR. DYMOND: The photograph speaks for itself.
THE COURT: Would you rephrase your question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, would you state for the Court as an expert, what is your opinion as to the body movements and reactions of President Kennedy as depicted in that photograph.
A: I cannot tell any body movements from this single photograph, I would have to compare it to the preceding photographs and subsequent photographs.
Q: I show you, Doctor, what the State marked as "S-53-H" and "S-53-M," and --
MR. DYMOND: Excuse me, Doctor. If the Court please, we object to this testimony on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the expertise of this witness.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the entire testimony up until this point, the objection, the ruling of the Court, the reasons for the objection, the witness's testimony, parts of the bill.
THE COURT: The Doctor has examined all of the photographs, he can use any one of them to give his opinion on. You may proceed.
THE WITNESS: Comparing "S-53-I" and "S-53-M," it is apparent that the President's head and shoulders have moved to the rear in "S-53-M."
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, Doctor, as an expert, and having viewed those particular 8 x 10 enlargements and 35 MM slides, Frames 200 through 320, excluding those that are missing, 234 to 244, and having seen the Zapruder film, I ask you, Doctor, as an expert, what is your opinion if a stimulus was applied to the rear of President Kennedy's head, as to -- correct that, if a stimulus had been applied to the rear of President Kennedy's head at the time of "S-53-I," what in your opinion as an expert would have been President Kennedy's reaction to a stimulus applied to the rear?
A: If the proposed stimulus applied to the rear is the same magnitude as the stimulus apparently delivered from the front, then his head and body would have moved to the front.
MR. OSER: I tender the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Were you in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963?
A: No, I was in my research lab.
Q: You did not witness the assassination. Is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: Now, what is your usual procedure in conducting an autopsy where it appears that the death was caused as a result of a head wound?
A: In conducting the autopsy I would start by X-raying the body completely in two planes, anterior-posterior and lateral, and after these were developed and after I studied them, during this time of course I would be taking those photographs with black and white camera and with a color camera, and I would be making measurements of various points, I would be making measurements of various lesions which might have been involved, and having then studied the X-rays, I would have proceeded along the lines indicated, which would of course include a full, complete and total examination. We would dissect the body and get all of the disease or affected parts out, and make microscopic slides of these, make detailed drawings with measurements, and after all was put together, it would probably be a month before I would be able to issue a final diagnosis; however, in most gunshot wounds one is able to issue a provisional diagnosis shortly after you finish with the body, but to do the complete autopsy, it requires considerable time.
Q: So ordinarily it would take a month or more to perform an autopsy. Is that correct?
A: Well, with a gunshot wound it is reasonable, and if there are no complicating factors otherwise, it is reasonable it could be done within a month, yes.
Q: How would you go about determining the point of entrance and the point of exit of a gunshot wound in the head?
A: It depends an awful lot upon the nature of the gunshot wound, if it is a small 22 it is relatively simple, if it is something such as a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano, it is a little more difficult, but you use every bit of evidence that you have on hand.
Q: Well, tell us some of the procedures which you would ordinarily follow in doing that in conducting an autopsy.
A: Oh, if motion pictures had been taken of the subject during the assassination, I would study those first, and I would have eyewitness testimony, and then sometimes a small caliber --
Q: We are talking about 6.5 --
A: Every situation is different, and I have to go with what we have at hand.
Q: Ordinarily, now, Doctor, is it your testimony you would not examine the remains of the person shot in connection with determining the point of entrance and exit?
A: No, I didn't say that at all, I say we do a complete total autopsy.
Q: Now, what does this complete total autopsy consist of which you would perform under these conditions?
A: It consists of first X-raying the body completely, anterior-posterior, front and back, and then side pictures, from the side, localized missiles, and then for the sake of completeness it requires taking gross photographs of the body for identification, for the position of wound, such things as that, and then it involves a dissection, getting out all of the parts involved, and it includes fixing the tissues in formaldehyde to allow them to become hard, and after they become hard we dissect these very carefully using sometimes a low-power microscope, and we separate and submit the appropriate parts to technicians to make slides, and after the slides come back we study them under a microscope. In the case of a brain, it is necessary to fix the brain in formaldehyde for two weeks until it becomes hard, to dissect, and if you try to dissect a fresh brain it falls apart, putting the whole thing together at the end.
Q: Would you examine and take into consideration the physical characteristics and condition of the remaining parts of the skull of someone?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, Doctor, did you examine any X-rays of the remains of President Kennedy?
A: I requested to do so, sir, but I have been denied that privilege. I have requested on many occasions to do so in telegrams and registered letters.
Q: But you have not examined these X-rays. Is that correct?
A: Not yet.
Q: Doctor, have you ever before performed an autopsy without having reviewed the remains of the person upon whom the autopsy was being performed?
A: I have expressed opinions on such autopsies to some lawyers who come to my office.
Q: You have never actually performed one without having examined the subject?
A: Your cannot perform an autopsy by remote control.
THE COURT: Never mind, proceed.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Doctor, when was the first time that you saw the Zapruder film in its entirety?
A: I suppose it was about two weeks ago.
Q: Two weeks ago, where did you see that?
A: At the Townhouse Motel in Kansas City.
Q: And you saw a complete --
A: I beg your pardon, I saw it in the Pathology Department in Kansas City, in the projection room.
Q: You saw a complete running of the Zapruder film at that time?
A: Yes, the Zapruder film that I saw here was complete as compared to the one I saw in Kansas City, yes.
Q: When was the first time that you examined blown-up slides or prints of the Zapruder film?
A: I suppose it was about 11:30 Monday morning.
Q: Now, Doctor, the opinions which you have expressed here in your testimony, is it not a fact that you expressed the same opinions in an article offered by you in the Archives of Pathology back in 1967?
A: Oh, no, not at all.
Q: In what way does the opinion differ?
A: May I see the article, please?
Q: I don't have the article.
A: It does not exist, sir.
Q: You haven't written any article for the Archives of Pathology?
A: Yes, I have written --
Q: None pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: None, sir, I have never written an article pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy anywhere.
Q: You never have?
A: No.
Q: You have no published work --
A: No published work on the assassination of President Kennedy.
Q: Doctor, do you hold yourself out as a ballistics expert?
A: In the case of the assassination of President Kennedy, I have conducted experiments, yes, this consisted of purchasing 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano ammunition, I have fired this into human wrists and into human ribs, I have recovered the bullets, yes, I proclaim a degree of proficiency in ballistics to this extent.
Q: What formal training have you had in the field of ballistics, Doctor?
A: Well, this consisted of a one-hour lecture, I suppose it was a lecture in Medical School and I have attended ballistics experts examining other bullets at the College of Virginia, I have talked with many police officers, I have identified bullets and have testified to them on those points, yes.
Q: On the basis of that, you consider yourself a ballistics expert?
A: I consider myself an expert in the field of ballistics as I have testified in this Court.
Q: What formal training in the field of ballistics have you had on the ballistics points in which you have testified in this Court?
A: I have created my own, sir, my experience. I chronographed the speed of a bullet emerging at 1,890 feet, at a distance of 30 feet, then I would catch these bullets and I would also shoot through human wrists and ribs and catch the bullets and I would compare them, sir. The bullets coming through the wrists and through the rib, injuries similar to Governor Connally's, were mutilated whereas bullets otherwise -- bullets traversing a rib and a wrist producing wounds similar to that sustained by Governor Connally are mutilated bullets whereas bullets that are merely shot into a mattress in which I checked them, they are pristine. I have, sir, copyrighted results of my work here. May I show them to you, please?
Mr. Oser, do you have the --
THE COURT: Do you have them?
MR. OSER: We can send for the Doctor's briefcase, which is down in my office.
MR. DYMOND: Actually, Your Honor, I am not interested in these.
THE WITNESS: I have them right here, though.
THE COURT: I think he has a right to give an answer.
THE WITNESS: Perhaps we can give a better answer to the Jury if I could set up the slides and project them onto the screen.
MR. DYMOND: If the State wants him to do that --
MR. ALCOCK: This is in response to his question, Your Honor.
MR. DYMOND: Anybody can copyright anything that is unique and original.
THE COURT: I think the Doctor can give you a yes or no answer and tell you and show you what training he did have.
MR. DYMOND: Training, yes.
THE COURT: That is what he is trying to do.
MR. DYMOND: I am willing to hear testimony about training, that is what I have asked for, but a man writing an article does not constitute training.
THE COURT: Wouldn't the articles denote yes or no, whether he did have any training in the subject?
MR. DYMOND: I have never heard or seen of the articles.
THE COURT: Tell of your training without going into the articles.
THE WITNESS: No such article exists, it is a figment of somebody's imagination. My training, sir, in the field of ballistics consists of a one-hour lecture, conferences with ballistics experts in the office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Richmond, Virginia, it consists also, sir, of my own studies, which is training, with a Mannlicher Carcano Rifle, 6.5 ammunition, being fired into human wrists and ribs and collecting the bullets, this is training, sir, and this is the result of it, and with Your Honor's permission, I would like to show these to the Jury in detail.
THE COURT: I think you have answered the question. I say he has answered the question.
MR. DYMOND: I think so.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: In other words, Doctor, your training consists of a one-hour lecture that you have attended, having spoken to police officers about ballistics and some experiments that you yourself conducted. Is that right?
A: That is partly [sic].
Q: What else is there to it?
A: Well, discussing the matter and a rather extensive course of self-taught ballistics in this particular matter extending over a period of two years, sir.
Q: Have you ever qualified as a ballistics expert in any court in the country?
A: To the extent that I would identify missiles removed at autopsy.
Q: What do you mean, identifying missiles which have been removed from a body by you or by someone under your direction?
A: By myself, sir.
Q: You call that being a ballistics expert?
A: No, that is the extent I have qualified in court.
THE COURT: It would depend on the Judge whether or not you would have been qualified, it is not what a person himself thinks he would be. It is what his qualifications are assessed in court by the court.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you hold yourself out as a photograph expert?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you tell us the extent of your training in photography.
A: The extent of my training started, sir, I suppose, when I was about ten years old, I purchased or was given a camera and I had many cameras since then, I have access to a far range of cameras within the pathology department of the University of Kansas and they are used for the specific purpose of identifying wounds on human bodies, living persons or dead persons, and I teach this to medical students and residents and I take the pictures myself of my own autopsies and on other autopsies I supervise, the residents take their pictures.
Q: What formal training in photography have you had?
A: I have never had a minute of formal training as far as anybody giving me lectures, but the results speak for themselves.
Q: Now, do you know how many frames per second are run by the Zapruder film?
A: I think it was described to me in the courtroom as being 18 and 3/10ths, sir.
Q: Was that the first time you knew the speed of the Zapruder film?
A: I don't know what the speed is yet, sir.
Q: You don't, you don't know how many frames per second?
A: I am assuming that is correct.
Q: When did you start assuming that, Doctor?
A: Well, I really don't know, I suppose a couple of years ago.
Q: Didn't you say that you had learned here in this courtroom it was 18.3 per second?
A: I think it was confirmed to me, I am not sure it is 18.3.
Q: Have you ever seen the clothing which was worn by President Kennedy at the time he was assassinated?
A: I am suing the Federal Government to obtain possession of that.
Q: You are suing the Federal Government.
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Did you know he was wearing a back brace at the time of the assassination?
A: I am keenly aware of that, sir, that prevented him from falling to the side, that was why he stayed erect.
Q: You are suing for that too or not?
A: No, I am not suing for that.
Q: Doctor, do you know whether or not at any time after the shot depicted in Frame 313 of the Zapruder film was fired, the Presidential limousine accelerated sharply at any time?
A: I did not know the speed of the limousine, sir.
Q: Was that ever taken into account by you in any of your calculations?
A: As far as Frames 313, 314 and 315, I have assumed that the speed of the limousine was practically constant, I did not know, sir.
Q: You said practically constant?
A: Within those three frames, yes. I do not think it had accelerated or any deceleration in those three frames.
Q: Do you know what the speed of the limousine was?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you know whether it was going fast or slow at the time of the assassination?
THE COURT: I am not trying to assist the witness, but can you tell us what you mean by "fast," or what you mean by "slow"?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I am talking to an expert here.
THE COURT: But your question is confusing.
MR. DYMOND: I am trying to find out whether he has any idea as to the speed, Your Honor, which apparently he does not.
THE COURT: If the State objects, I will sustain the objection that the question is not properly before the witness. It is not a proper question, was he going fast or slow.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Do you know how fast the limousine was going?
A: No.
Q: Do you know how fast it was going in frame 310?
A: No, sir.
Q: 311?
A: No.
Q: 312?
A: Nowhere do I know how fast the limousine was going.
Q: Nowhere in the Zapruder do you know how fast the limousine was going?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you have any idea as to the relative speed as between given frames of the Zapruder film?
A: No, sir.
Q: Doctor, would you testify the sudden acceleration of a vehicle would not throw an occupant back?
A: It did not throw the other occupants back, sir.
Q: It did not?
A: It did not.
Q: You are sure about that?
A: It is demonstrated with the Zapruder film it did not, sir.
Q: And you did not take into account any acceleration or speed?
A: I assume it did not because the other occupants retained their relative positions.
Q: Are there any other assumptions upon which your testimony has been based?
A: Not at the present time. You might drag out some that I am not aware of.
Q: Well, Doctor, it's your testimony, don't you know whether it was based on assumptions?
A: Well, the sun striking the object from the camera, I don't know whether it was Kodachrome film, I don't know the details of the development, no, I don't know these things.
Q: What was the speed and direction of the wind in Dallas at the time of the taking of Frame 313?
MR. ALCOCK: The man said he was not in Dallas.
MR. DYMOND: I will change the form of the question.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did your calculations take into account the speed and direction of the wind in Dallas at the time Frame 313 was taken?
A: The speed and direction of the wind as related to the traversing of the bullet path are insignificant, sir.
Q: Doctor, please answer the question, and if you didn't understand it, I will have it read back.
A: No, I did not take those into account. If you will tell them to me, I will take them into account.
Q: You have not taken them into account up until now, right?
A: No, but, if you will, I will do so.
Q: That's up to you, sir. Now, Doctor, is there such a thing as a delayed reaction to pain?
A: If a person is unconscious or under anesthesia, yes.
Q: Would you say that is the only condition under which that could occur?
A: It depends on your definition of "delayed" sir.
Q: Have you ever heard of a person having been stabbed or shot and not realizing that anything happened to him?
A: Not realizing it in the cerebral cortex of his brain, that is correct.
Q: Have you ever heard of a person stabbed or shot and not showing any immediate reaction to it?
A: Not in a normal person riding in an automobile with the attention of a crowd, waving to the crowd, no, sir, I do not.
Q: Have you ever seen a person waving in an automobile to a crowd shot?
A: No, I haven't, sir.
Q: Have you made any investigation into the normalcy of the people shot on November 22, 1963, in Dallas?
A: In relation to the President I have, sir, yes.
Q: What?
A: He was normal, sir.
Q: In all --
A: His doctor had examined him and approved him taking this visit to the City of Dallas and riding in the automobile, sir, his doctor had taken this into account.
Q: And from that you would conclude his reaction to pain, trauma, would be normal. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that the only information upon which that assumption is based?
A: Yes.
Q: Prior to November 22, 1963, did you ever have occasion to meet President John Kennedy?
A: I think I shook hands with him, sir.
Q: How about Governor Connally?
A: Not Governor Connally, I tried several times to get an appointment with Governor Connally and he rejected me.
Q: Governor Connally rejected you, you say?
A: Yes, he did not answer my letters.
Q: Now, Dr. Nichols, have you ever heard of differences in thresholds of pain, that is, some people being able to stand or endure pain better than others can?
A: I am quite well aware of that. I have conducted experiments on that myself.
Q: You have? Did you feel that that was a consideration which should be taken into account by you at arriving at your conclusion?
A: Yes, and I did so, I took that into account when I assumed the President was in good health and Governor Connally was in a state of good health, they were not intoxicated.
Q: Is good health and intoxication, are those the only two factors that would have anything to do with the threshold of pain?
A: They are the two most important things.
Q: What other factors are there?
A: Let me modify that and say they are the only factors.
Q: What other factors did you have in mind?
A: I have changed --
Q: What did you mean when you say they were the two most important?
A: I can't think of anything now.
Q: You changed your mind, you say, Doctor?
A: At the present time, sir, I can only think of one thing, as a matter of fact, that changes the threshold of pain, physical health.
Q: That is the only one, right?
A: That is the only one, sir.
Q: All right, I see. Now, Doctor, have you ever attempted to determine the direction of the shot from photographic evidence only prior to this time?
A: Yes, I have, sir.
Q: Can you tell us about that, please.
A: It is very tricky and very misleading. With a low caliber bullet, it can be done, with a low velocity bullet -- speaking of the brain, sir, the head?
Q: Any shot.
A: Any shot?
Q: Right.
A: Certainly if you established the bullet entering in one part of the anatomy and emerging in another part of the anatomy and you assume the person is in an anatomical position, I have written this on autopsy articles, it is reasonable sometimes to arrive at an approximate angle that a bullet was fired, and this is very helpful to the police.
Q: What is the best way to determine a point of entrance and point of exit of a bullet?
A: To see the offender fire the shot.
Q: You would not want to examine the body of the victim?
A: You asked me the best, sir.
Q: The best is to see the shot fired?
A: Yes.
Q: Let's assume you do not see the shot fired, what would then be the best way of determining where the bullet entered or exited?
A: The bullet hole enters, sir, in soft tissue of the human body, is a small affair, it is smaller than the bullet is itself, and as the bullet hits, enters, and the speed of the bullet rubbing against the skin produced a small burn, this appears blackened, I am assuming we are at a distance of ten feet now, then on the other side where it emerges the bullet hole is larger, usually, not always, but usually, and the edges are averted and when you study the bullet hole entrance under a microscope, you can see a little rim of burned tissue that almost conclusively pinpoints it, but you can never be certain.
Q: Now, Doctor, wouldn't some of the same factors apply to a head wound --
A: I am suing --
Q: -- with a high velocity rifle?
A: I am suing the Federal Government for permission to look at the X-rays and the pictures of the head in order to find out more exactly than I have at the present time.
Q: Would I be correct in saying then that you consider it very important from a pathological standpoint to be given access to the photographs and films of President Kennedy for the purpose --
A: It is very important.
Q: It is very important?
A: Yes.
Q: And you feel that you could add to the exactness of your opinion were you able to examine these things. Is that right?
A: I feel there is a reasonable possibility that I might.
Q: Now, Doctor, from the standpoint of a pathologist, which is the better tool in determining the point of exit and the point of entrance of a bullet, the examination of the victim or a photograph of the shooting?
A: If the victim is available, the examination of the victim, a complete examination of the victim, a total examination of the victim, including X-rays and dissection of the part.
Q: X-rays and dissection of the brain, did you say?
A: Of the part involved.
Q: Now, as an expert in the field of pathology, Doctor, would you dispute the point of exit and entrance of a bullet on the basis of photographs as opposed to an opinion as to the entrance and exit based upon photographs plus an actual examination of the body of the victim?
A: It depends on who examines the body, sir. Yes, I would, and many occasions I have.
Q: When you say who examines the body, are you speaking from the standpoint of honesty or the standpoint of ability and qualification?
A: Ability and qualifications and previous experience. Previous experience is very important.
Q: I take it then, sir, that assuming that such a determination were made by a patholo- gist of your ability and with your experience, after having examined the remains of the victim, you would not dispute his findings on the basis of mere photographic evidence such as you have had. Is that correct?
A: In which case, in which particular case are you speaking, sir?
Q: In any case.
A: I can't talk about any case.
Q: Why not?
A: I have to know all of the details of the case. Yes, I do not know whether I would or not, I would have to know the details, because this other fellow, although experienced and skilled and honest, he might overlook something. I might pick up something that he overlooked, yes.
Q: Wouldn't it be fair to say that you are very curious to see these X-rays and the pathological reports in order to determine for yourself whether you opinion is correct?
A: I want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Q: And you want to see whether your opinion is correct. Isn't that right, sir?
A: I would like to confirm it.
MR. DYMOND: That's all, sir.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, I show you what the State has marked as "S-18," and I ask you if you have ever seen this particular rifle before, sir.
A: May I step down from the witness stand, sir?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: May I refer to my notes, sir?
THE COURT: You can refresh your memory from your own notes, but you cannot read from your notes.
MR. OSER: Do not read from your notes themselves.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I purchased this rifle from Smitty's Gun Shop in Kansas City on October 10, 1968, sir, it is my rifle, I own it.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: And what type of gun is this, Doctor?
A: This is an Italian Army rifle, it is more commonly known as a Mannlicher Carcano Rifle, Caliber 6.5.
Q: During your research and experiments, did you have occasion to use this particular rifle in your research?
A: Not this particular rifle, sir, but I have used six other rifles similar to this in my research.
Q: Will you identify the particular type of scope that is on that rifle, Doctor?
A: Yes, this scope, I purchased it from Mr. Martin Redding in Culver City, California, along about two months previously, I believe, at a price of $11.00. The mount I purchased at a price of $1.00, it was mounted for me at -- by a firm in Kansas City at a cost of $9.00, and the gun was blued for me at -- by another firm.
MR. OSER: That's all.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Doctor, are all Mannlicher Carcano Rifles 6.5 millimeters?
A: No, sir, there are those that are 7.2 and 7.5, and there is a toy gun that Mussolini had cut down to train the 14-year-old children, also a Mannlicher Carcano that shoots blanks.
MR. DYMOND: No further questions.
THE COURT: Is there any further need for Dr. Nichols under his subpoena?
MR. OSER: No, sir.
(Witness excused.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, the undersigned, a Deputy Official Court Reporter in and for the State of Louisiana, authorized and empowered by law to administer oaths and to take the depositions of witnesses under L.R.S. 13:961.1, as amended, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing deposition is true and correct as taken by me in the above-entitled and numbered cause(s). I further certify that I am not of counsel nor related to any of the parties to this cause or in anywise interested in the event thereof.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, on the 21st day of May, 1969.
/s/ Paul W. Williams
Deputy Official Court Reporter
State of Louisiana

CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW
198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"
EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
February 28, 1969
DR. JOHN MARSHALL NICHOLS, a witness called for and on behalf of the State, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows, on Rebuttal:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Please state your name for the record.
A: Dr. John Nichols.
THE COURT: Mr. Alford, are you submitting the witness as an expert?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, Your Honor. He has been previously --
THE COURT: I am aware of that. I just want to clarify. Mr. Dymond, do you wish to traverse the witness as an expert?
MR. DYMOND: I don't think that is necessary again, Judge.
THE COURT: I didn't think so either. I just wanted the record to show I have previously ruled that he was an expert.
MR. DYMOND: Yes, I know you have, Judge. I don't see any reason to go through the formality.
THE COURT: Let it be noted in the record that I again rule the Doctor is an expert in the field of pathology and forensic pathology and can give his opinion in those particular fields. All right, you may proceed.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Your name is Dr. John Marshall Nichols? Is that correct?
A: That is correct, sir.
Q: Dr. Nichols, are you familiar with the human anatomy?
A: Reasonably so, sir.
Q: Are you familiar with the human skeletal structure?
A: Reasonably so, sir.
Q: More specifically, Doctor, are you familiar with the anatomy, with the human anatomy in the region of the human neck?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Doctor, at this time I wish to give you the following hypothet, and at the conclusion of my giving you this hypothet, I will ask you several questions: Assume that a man was struck by a rifle bullet which impacts at a location in his neck, said location being approximately five inches down from the right mastoid process and approximately five inches from the right acromion and approximately two inches from the mid line; that the resulting wound measures approximately seven millimeters by four millimeters; that this pellet then follows a path which causes it to exit at a point in the frontal neck region at the approximate location of the tie knot, and in making this exit the shirt is torn around the collar button and there is a nick in the tie on the left side of the knot; that this wound measures approximately five millimeters in diameter; and, finally, that in making the alleged path no bones are fractured, and further that this lack of fractures is verified by X-rays of the region of the neck. Now, first of all, Doctor, is there anything inconsistent in the facts which I have given you in this hypothetical situation?
A: You have mentioned a measurement two inches from the mid line. I don't understand that, sir. Is that in the front or in the back?
Q: This is in the back portion.
A: No, sir. The proposition you have stated is impossible, sir.
Q: Well, disregarding Doctor -- or let me ask you this: Why are these facts impossible?
A: Because if the bullet entered two inches from the mid line in the back, it would absolutely be required to strike one of the cervical vertebrae, sir.
Q: Now disregarding the fact of the wound being two inches from the mid line, Doctor, in your expert opinion do the facts which I have stated enable you to determine the minimum lateral or right-to-left angle at which a bullet would have to pass in order to make these wounds which I have described?
A: If the bullet comes out in the front in the mid line, it is quite easy to calculate the minimum lateral angle that it had to go in and missed a bone, yes.
Q: Now, Doctor, considering this right-to-left angle, could a bullet which entered and exited at the point which I have described, have been fired from the northeast window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository into President Kennedy's neck on November 22, 1963?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that, if the Court please. This witness is not qualified to testify to that, he is not.
MR. ALFORD: Your Honor, I haven't completed the question.
THE COURT: Wait, Mr. Alford, let me hear his objection, please.
MR. DYMOND: He is not qualified to testify to that, it is outside the field of his specialty in which he has been qualified as an expert.
THE COURT: I agree with you, Mr. Dymond. I sustain the objection.
MR. ALFORD: All right.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Dr. Nichols, what would be the minimum right-to-left angle at which the bullet causing the wound I have described would have had to enter the body, and why is this so, sir?
A: 28 degrees, sir, the bullet had to be fired at a minimum of 28 degrees or greater.
Q: And why is this, Doctor?
A: Because if the angle is less than that, the cervical vertebra will be fractured.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Doctor, I now show you what for purposes of identification I have marked as "S-73." Now I would ask you to please inspect this and tell me what it represents, if you know.
A: This represents a schematic diagram of the human neck at about the level of C, cervical C-6 or C-7 at which point the bullet is alleged to have emerged from President Kennedy's neck. The drawing was done at my personal request and under my personal direction and supervision in the summer of 1967, and it accurately depicts the minimum lateral angle that a bullet could go through the neck without striking bond. Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Now, Doctor, I show you what for purposes of identification I will mark as "S-79," and ask you whether or not you can identify this.
A: This is a faithful photographic reproduction of the sketch.
Q: Is there anything included in the sketch which is not included in the photograph?
A: The total qualities, the black and white rendition of some portions are not completely similar.
Q: Now, Doctor, have you had occasion to view and examine the Zapruder film, sir?
A: Yes, sir, I have.
Q: And do you have an expert opinion as to the approximate location in reference to the Zapruder film, in which President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet?
MR. DYMOND: Object, if the Court please. This is outside the field of his expertise.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court --
THE COURT: How in the world, Mr. Alford, can you have Dr. Nichols tell us what bullet hit the President.
MR. ALFORD: I will strike the word "bullet." I will rephrase the question.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Dr. Nichols, from your viewing of the Zapruder film, have you been able to determine at what point the President appears to react to some stimulus?
A: He appears to react at frame 200.
MR. DYMOND: I object to that, if the Court please.
MR. ALFORD: On what ground?
MR. DYMOND: Once again that is outside --
MR. ALFORD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Let me get something straight. When he makes an objection, will you please keep quiet until I hear the objection, because when you are talking I can't hear his objection. Will you please do that?
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond, I will be glad to hear you.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, again I object on the ground that this is outside the scope of this witness' expertise. He has not been qualified in the field of photography, and therefore --
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond, this was covered in the original testimony of Dr. Nichols, as I recall it, and you made the same objection, that he was not qualified in the field of photography, and I overruled you then.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we would like to make an additional objection then that this is repetitious and has no place in re-direct examination.
THE COURT: What are you rebutting there, Mr. Alford?
MR. ALFORD: Please the Court, this is simply a preliminary question which the State intends to link up to rebutting evidence.
THE COURT: No, sir, you have got to be more specific than that, you have got to tell me what you are rebutting.
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir, I will be glad to tell you. On Direct testimony and on Cross-Examination Defense witnesses stated that they were not able to determine the lateral angle, they stated that they did not do it. Dr. Finck specifically refused to state the lateral angle. However, he did state facts, and we have already elicited from this witness that based on the facts which were testified to by Dr. Finck, he feels that he can state a minimum angle. We feel like this is perfectly proper rebuttal.
THE COURT: Frame 270 tells you the angle that President Kennedy was struck.
MR. ALFORD: No, Your Honor. I gave the witness a hypothet.
THE COURT: I am aware of that.
MR. ALFORD: Based on the hypothet, and I only asked him about the Zapruder film in order to maintain the continuity of the testimony.
MR. DYMOND: Do you want me to say anything further, Judge?
THE COURT: I don't understand Mr. Alford's explanation of what he is rebutting. Are you rebutting Dr. Finck's testimony?
MR. ALFORD: Not only Dr. Finck's but also Mr. Frazier's testimony, Your Honor. Mr. Frazier specifically testified that one bullet could have passed through two persons seated in the President's limousine. I am leading up to this. Also Dr. Finck's testimony in certain respects.
THE COURT: That was covered in your original presentation of your case.
MR. ALFORD: Not by us, Your Honor. They put Mr. Frazier on. Mr. Frazier is the one who stated in his opinion one bullet could have passed through two persons.
THE COURT: I can't repeat the testimony, but I am certain that was covered.
MR. OSER: If the Court please, the Defense witness, Colonel Finck, testified as to where he found a wound in the President's clothes. Furthermore he testified as to what the track of that wound in the throat was, and, in addition, he said that no bones were broken, and it wasn't until the Defense put on Colonel Finck that it was brought into the facts and into the evidence in this case as to what the description of the President's throat wound was, and this is what we are attempting to rebut at this particular time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I sustain Mr. Dymond's objection, it is repetitious, and besides you are asking for an opinion that is not covered in his expertise for which he was qualified.
MR. ALFORD: One moment please, Your Honor.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Now, Dr. Nichols, if two persons were seated in an automobile, one relatively in front of another, and a bullet made a path as I have described to you through the neck of the rear person or the person furtherest to the rear in the automobile, in your expert opinion, or in your opinion, where would this person seated in front have to be seated in order to be struck in the right armpit?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object to this, first on the ground that it is too indefinite, vague, "sitting relatively in the front." Thirdly, no foundation has been laid to show that this Doctor ever examined the wounds of Governor Connally, he does not know exactly where the Governor was sitting with relation to the late President Kennedy.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court --
THE COURT: I sustain the objection, Mr. Alford.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Now, Doctor, if at the time that the President has been as observed in the Zapruder film, reacting to a stimulus at the first point, would this angle which you have testified to, being a minimum of 28 degrees, have been affected by the direction in which his head were turned, if in fact it was turned?
A: Only very slightly, sir.
Q: Would you please explain this.
A: Yes, sir. When one moves their head, most of the rotation takes place at the top of the vertebral column. We have seven cervical vertebrae. For example, if you move your head seven degrees, you do not get one degree of rotation on the vertebra, you get the majority of the rotation on the top two vertebrae, say five or six degrees of rotation, and down about C-6 or C-7 where the bullet emerged, you get practically no rotation. This can be very easily confirmed by any person putting a finger here and moving the head slightly (demonstrating). It is easily seen that practically no rotation takes place at the level that the bullet emerged.
Q: Now, would the fact that the President's left shoulder were withdrawn from the rear seat affect the lateral angle?
A: Yes, turning the body at that level would affect it.
Q: Now, from your viewing of the Zapruder film and various other pictures, were you able to detect any withdrawing of the left shoulder from the seat?
MR. DYMOND: Object, if the Court please. The Doctor has testified on Direct Examination when he was here in court before, to the exact location of President Kennedy as though he were in Dealey Plaza when the shots were fired, and this is nothing but repetition of that testimony.
THE COURT: I think he has covered that point on Direct Examination. I will sustain the objection.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Now, Doctor, is the fact that there was a wound in the rear neck measuring approximately seven millimeters by four millimeters, and a wound in the area of the know of the tie measuring approximately five millimeters, and said wound being supposedly the wound of exit, are these two measurements consistent with a wound of entrance and a wound of exit?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, the same objection on this, it was covered on Direct.
THE COURT: Just a moment. I particularly remember that you covered this subject very grossly with Dr. Finck. I don't believe that subject matter was taken up by this witness previously. I will permit the question, I will overrule your objection.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Could you answer the question?
THE COURT: Now wait. Let me tell you one thing you left out, Mr. Alford, in your question, you didn't say it was a wound in the fleshy part of the neck, not of the skin. You didn't cover that point.
MR. ALFORD: No, I apologize.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: I would add one additional fact to this question, and that is that this is a wound through a fleshy portion of the body.
A: I think in order to answer that question I would need to have somebody of the same measurements as the President, and I would have to go into considerable detail, the position as measured from the mastoid and from the acromion. Assuming that it does miss the vertebral bodies, the bullet could have traversed the neck, yes, and come out at the mid line.
Q: I see. Are the measurements of the wound of entrance being seven millimeters by four millimeters, the wound of alleged exit being five millimeters, consistent, based upon your experience in the field of pathology?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object there again as to the measurements of the wound of exit. The actual measurements of the wound of exit have never been firmly established. Therefore, this hypothet attempts to go outside the bounds of what has been proven.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection. I particularly recall a previous doctor talking specifically about having measured it. I will permit the question.
THE WITNESS: Generally speaking, the wound of exit in the overwhelming majority of cases is larger than the wound of entrance.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: I see. In the example or the hypothet which I have given you, is the alleged wound of exit larger than the alleged wound of entrance?
A: No, sir.
Q: Now, Doctor, if you were engaged in the performance of an autopsy, and in the course of the performance of this autopsy you found a wound measuring approximately seven millimeters by four millimeters in the back or the neck, back of the neck of a person, but you could not determine or find a wound of exit, what procedure would you take at this time?
A: Before starting this autopsy I would have X-rays made of the entire body, and I would have had photographs of the appropriate anatomy of the body made, and then not having found a missile in the body, I would have dissected the track.
Q: Would there be any other way of accurately determining the path of a bullet under these circumstances, other than through X-rays or dissecting the track?
A: If the subject was in the exact position at autopsy as at the time the injury was inflicted, and you know that one is the hole of exit and one is the hole of entry, it would be very simple.
Q: Now, not knowing that, the location of the hole of exit, would it be possible to accurately determine the path of a bullet without having X-rays or dissecting the track?
A: It would not.
Q: Doctor, are you familiar with the term "beveling"?
A: Yes, I am, in relation to missiles in the skull.
Q: And to what does this term refer?
A: It refers to the fact that the hole will be larger on one side of the skull bone than it is on the other side.
Q: Is this always a valid theory under all circumstances?
A: No, sir. In order to find and firmly establish the bullet hole of entry and the bullet hole of exit, one has to take into account a larger number of things, and this is one of the things that you take into account, but it is not always true, there are exceptions.
Q: I see. And would the type of missile which had entered the skull affect the validity of this theory?
A: Very much so, sir. Small caliber bullets such as a .22 and such as .32's from pistols and such things as this, the beveling is much more pronounced and it is a much more reliable guide. However, with such an impact of such a bullet of the 161 grain 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano, the head in effect explodes and many fragments of bone are produced. It is very, very difficult under these circumstances to ascertain the point of entry and the point of exit.
Q: (Exhibiting document to witness) Doctor, at this time I show you what for purposes of identification has been previously marked as "D-28," and I ask you whether or not you are familiar with what is depicted on this sheet of paper.
A: I am quite familiar with this, sir; I use it in my own lectures, I have seen it in the Warren Report, I have seen it in a publication by Dr. Finck in the Journal of the American Association for Forensic Sciences, I have talked with Dr. Finck about this personally, and I have written him about this.
Q: I see. Is this a valid theory under all circumstances?
A: No, it is not a valid theory under all circumstances. With small caliber weapons, the principles that he is attempting to demonstrate here are reasonably correct. However, with weapons such as 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcanos and such things as 30/30 rifles, this does not apply.
Q: And, Doctor, if a person were struck by a bullet in the skull, will signs of beveling or coning always be present?
A: They do not always occur, sir.
Q: All right. If signs of beveling or coning are detected in a particular skull, is this conclusive evidence as to the direction from which the person were shot?
A: It is not conclusive evidence, sir.
Q: What additional evidence would you require?
A: I would require all data that could possibly be brought to bear on this, including photographs taken at the time of the infliction of the wound, either stills or movies or both.
Q: Now, Doctor, if a person was struck in the head with a relatively high velocity bullet, one traveling at approximately 2,000 feet per second, would the effects of beveling always be present, and, if so, how accurate would it be?
A: Beveling would not necessarily always be present, and if it is present, it is suggestive. However, under these circumstances, as I have previously said, the skull breaks into many fragments and one does not even get all the fragments with which to piece together the whole, and you have to speculate in some instances.
Q: Could bone or what is known as secondary missiles cause beveling?
A: Oh, yes, sir.
Q: Could fragments of bullets cause this beveling?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Have you ever examined a case in which the theory of beveling proved to be inaccurate, or coning proved to be inaccurate?
A: I have examined several cases in which I was unable to obtain an adequate amount of beveling with which to express an opinion.
Q: I see. And in these cases, upon what evidence or medical evidence did you rely?
A: I relied upon microscopic sections of skin wounds, and upon eye-witness reports, and such things as powder burns.
Q: Now, Doctor, you have testified that a bullet entering a neck at the locations as I have given you, but not fracturing bone, would have to enter at a minimum left-to-right angle of 28 degrees. Is that correct, sir?
A: That is correct, sir.
MR. ALFORD: May I have these marked as "State 80" and "State 81."
THE COURT: Show them to Mr. Dymond.
(Whereupon, the photographs referred to by Counsel were duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-80" and "Exhibit S-81.")
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: (Exhibiting photographs to witness) Now, Doctor, I show you what for purposes of identification have been marked as "S-80" and "S-81," and I would request that you examine both of these photographs and tell me whether or not you recognize them, and, if so, what they depict.
A: Yes, sir. Mr. Alford, these are two pictures taken of a skeleton in which I have placed a short-end plated dowel in a position approximately 21 degrees from the right to the left, in such a manner as to get the bullet out at the mid line approximately in the place where one does a tracheotomy incision. I have also indicated on here with letters the mastoid process and the acromion process. These pictures were taken under my personal instruction and supervision, and they faithfully render that which I intended to show, within the degree of accuracy that one can place such a path.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, at this time the State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence exhibits marked "S-79, S-80," and "S-81."
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, as to "S-79" we have no objection. As to "S-80" and "S-81," if the Court please, we object unless this Doctor is in a position to testify that this is either a picture of the skeleton of President Kennedy or that the relative bone size and bone structure and so forth of all individuals is identical. Otherwise it is our position that these photographs are irrelevant to the case.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Alford, if you will rephrase your offer that the pictures are offered as being similar to an ordinary male skeleton, then I will permit the offer --
MR. ALFORD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- and overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling --
THE COURT: They are not being offered as the skeleton of President Kennedy?
MR. ALFORD: That is correct.
THE COURT: An ordinary male skeleton.
MR. DYMOND: To exhibits "S-80" and "S-81" Counsel objects to their introduction and reserves a bill, making the offer, the objection, the reason for the objection, the ruling of the Court, and the entire record, parts of the bill.
MR. ALFORD: At this time, Your Honor, I would request permission to show these to the Jury.
(Whereupon, the exhibits in question were displayed to the Jury.)
THE COURT: All right. Are you ready to proceed, gentlemen?
MR. ALFORD: I would ask that this be marked "S-82."
(Whereupon, the drawing referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identification as "Exhibit S-82.")
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: (Exhibiting drawing to witness) Doctor, I now show you what for purposes of identification has been marked as "S-82," and I ask you whether or not you recognize this, first of all.
A: Yes. This is a drawing, it is a photograph of a drawing. I had the drawing prepared at my explicit instructions and directions, and photographed. The photograph also represents a faithful rendition of what I wanted to do.
Q: I see. Does this photograph depict a bullet entering a person at approximately 28 degrees?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: Does it also indicate a second person, one sitting relatively in front of the other?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: I see. Does it indicate the path of a bullet headed into the first person at 28 degrees?
A: Yes, it does.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, at this time the State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence what has been previously marked as "S-82." The State does not state in its offer that any two persons depicted are seated in the exact same positions as President Kennedy or Governor Connally, but as Officer or Agent Frazier stated, it depicts two persons, one seated relatively in front of the other.
MR. DYMOND: To which we object, if the Court please. This drawing which, according to the Doctor's testimony, represents "what he wanted it to represent," is entered or offered for a precise purpose involving precision. Now, by this Doctor's very testimony it represents one person "sitting relative in front of the other." Frankly, I don't know what that means in terms of precision, I don't believe it means anything, and this is obviously a misleading sketch designed to show exactly what this witness wants it to show.
MR. ALFORD: No, Your Honor --
MR. DYMOND: -- using his own measurements, and by his own testimony not being an exact reproduction of anything except his own sketch.
THE COURT: You see, you would have to get the frame from the Zapruder film and then try to calculate at what particular fraction of a second the entrance wound was made, and then you have to find out where Governor Connally was at that fraction of a second.
MR. DYMOND: That is correct.
THE COURT: The objection is well taken, I sustain it.
MR. ALFORD: May it please the Court, this witness is familiar with the Zapruder film and, if the Court will allow me, I can question him.
THE COURT: You can question him on what he has found in the Zapruder film at that precise fraction of a second, but you cannot bolster your own witness by letting him prepare a drawing that aids him in describing his testimony but bolsters him. You can't bolster him, and that is what you are using it for.
MR. ALFORD: It is simply an illustration of his testimony, that is all.
THE COURT: He can orally testify to the facts you are trying to put over here. I will sustain the objection, I will not admit "S-82."
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Now, Doctor, did you have occasion to examine the Zapruder film at approximately frame 255?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: At this frame can you detect whether or not Governor Connally and President Kennedy are sitting relatively in front of each other?
THE COURT: Which frame?
MR. ALFORD: Frame 225, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Can you detect their exact location in relation to one another?
A: With a reasonable degree of accuracy, yes.
Q: Would you please explain this to the Gentlemen of the Jury.
A: Well, by simple observation with the naked eye, it appears that Governor Connally is sitting almost exactly in front of President Kennedy, perhaps an inch or so to the left.
Q: Now, Doctor, should a bullet enter a person at a 28-degree lateral angle, where would another individual seated in front of this person have to be seated in order to be struck by the bullet on the right side of his body?
A: Very considerably to the left, I would suggest 18 inches or so.
Q: Did you find as a result of your examination of the Zapruder film, that Governor Connally was seated to the left of President Kennedy?
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, we object to this testimony. This doctor is no better qualified to say what the Zapruder film shows than anybody else, and to have him get on this stand as an expert in the field of pathology and try to tell us what that Zapruder film shows when we have seen it eight times here, borders on the ridiculous I submit!
MR. OSER: Your Honor, if the Court please, what the State is attempting to do at this time is to rebut the testimony of Agent Frazier. Agent Frazier's testimony was to the effect that in the reconstruction he could line up a shot that would pass through the President's stand-in and the Governor's stand-in by sighting from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository down to either a white chalk mark or a piece of cloth on the back of the stand-in. We are attempting to do, at this particular time now that the Defense or after the Defense has put on Dr. Finck and we ascertained that it was a through-and-through gunshot wound and that no bones were broken -- the Government in its reconstruction did not calculate the lateral angle from right to left passing through President Kennedy's neck. This doctor has testified today that the lateral angle passing right to left would have to be a minimum of 28 degrees because of the bone structure of the human anatomy with which he is familiar. Now at this time we are attempting to introduce this particular exhibit based on the Doctor's research and examination, showing that if a bullet passed through an individual at 28 degrees as described by Dr. Finck, the Defense's witness, what would happen to that bullet and what would be the path of that bullet if it did not hit bone, and this is the reason, Your Honor, this testimony is being offered.
THE COURT: You have covered that. You are getting to whether or not it would strike someone in front of him. That was the question.
MR. OSER: That is correct.
THE COURT: He said the first (person) would have to be 18 inches over to his left. I heard him state that.
MR. OSER: Right, Your Honor, and this particular exhibit is to show --
THE COURT: I have already ruled on that exhibit -- he can answer it orally -- I have ruled the exhibit out. I believe the Doctor has answered your question, he said the person would have to be 18 inches over to receive the wound. Didn't you say that?
THE WITNESS: Approximately 18 inches.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Doctor, in examination of frame 225 of the Zapruder film, did you find that Governor Connally was seated 18 inches to the left of President Kennedy?
A: Very definitely not.
MR. DYMOND: We object to that, if the Court please. Once again, this is supposedly an expert in the field of pathology and has been --
THE COURT: And forensic pathology.
MR. DYMOND: Forensic pathology, too, but not photography. I haven't heard him qualified --
THE COURT: Overrule the objection. We saw it nine times and I think I could give you an expert opinion on it myself.
MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the objection, the State's Exhibit 82, the answer of the witness, the reasons for the objection, the ruling of the Court and the entire testimony parts of the bill.
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Do you recall the question?
A: I have forgotten it.
MR. ALFORD: Please read it.
(Whereupon, the aforegoing question and answer were read back by the Reporter.)
BY MR. ALFORD:
Q: Do you wish to further answer that question?
A: I would confirm just that he was sitting approximately in front and not 18 inches over, perhaps one inch, perhaps, or two inches.
MR. ALFORD: The State will tender this witness.
MR. DYMOND: Did you tender the witness?
MR. ALFORD: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Doctor, have you ever examined the Presidential limousine which was in Dallas on November 22?
A: I went to Washington to do so, sir, but --
Q: Would you kindly answer my question and then explain, Doctor.
THE COURT: That is correct, just say yes or no.
THE WITNESS: No, I have not, sir.
MR. ALFORD: Now he has a right to explain.
THE COURT: You can explain.
THE WITNESS: (Continuing) I wrote to the Secret Service and asked permission to do this, and they gave me an evasive answer. I went to Washington. They met me at the airport and apologized for having torn it up but gave me the measurements which I have today.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: You are the same doctor who sued the Government, are you not?
A: I am still suing the Government, sir; it is not past tense, it is present.
Q: Now, Doctor, is my understanding correct that sometimes in writing your autopsy reports you take into consideration the testimony of eyewitnesses?
A: It doesn't influence my decision.
Q: Didn't you testify just a few minutes ago that in cases where you might have a skull wound and you can't find beveling, that you take into consideration the testimony of eyewitnesses?
A: If my answer conflicted with my testimony, I would go back and make a reexamination sir, but my testimony would not affect my protocol in the slightest.
Q: So you would not take that into consideration in forming your opinion, is that correct?
A: No, I take into consideration my own observations personally.
Q: And that is all?
A: That is all.
Q: And you are testifying now that you didn't say on Direct Examination that you would take into consideration the testimony of eyewitnesses?
A: I don't recall the exact phrasing of that question, but if I said that, I would like to withdraw it and amend it: I would obtain testimony or opinions of eyewitnesses without --
THE COURT: Please.
THE WITNESS: -- taking them into consideration is another matter.
MR. DYMOND: At this time, if Your Honor please, I would like to ask if the Court Reporter can find that answer given by the witness.
MR. ALCOCK: He acknowledged the possibility of making the statement. He said if he made it he was amending it at this time.
THE COURT: I agree with you, Mr. Alcock. We are not going to go back.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: So you don't know whether you made that statement or not? Is that right, Doctor?
A: I don't think I did, sir.
Q: Now, Doctor, if you couldn't find a point of exit to a body wound where you did find a point of entrance, would you reject the statement of a brother pathologist whom you knew to be qualified, to the effect that he had found a point of exit?
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, that is asking this witness to pass judgment on the testimony of another witness in this case, and this is an objection Mr. Dymond has made repeatedly.
MR. DYMOND: I am not asking him to pass judgment on anything, I am asking him to tell me what he would be willing to consider in arriving at a conclusion, that is all.
MR. ALCOCK: I will withdraw the objection.
THE WITNESS: Repeat the question, please.
MR. DYMOND: Would you read it back.
(Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I would consider the possibility that he had made an error. I would talk with him. For example, a neck wound -- I myself personally found a neck wound in the back but no apparent wound in the front, and in this instance it developed that the decedent had his mouth open and the bullet came out the mouth and there was none to see.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Doctor, did you ever examine the remains of President Kennedy?
A: I have requested to do so, sir, but been rejected.
Q: Would you answer the question and then explain if you want to.
A: No, I have not, sir.
Q: Have you ever seen the X-ray films or X-ray pictures?
A: No, I have not, sir.
Q: Have you ever seen the autopsy photographs?
A: I have not, sir.
Q: Doctor, weren't you a student under Dr. Finck at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology?
A: I attended three lectures given by Dr. Finck, yes, and in that sense he is my mentor, sir. In correspondence with him he refuses to talk to me about the subject. I attempted to do so on many occasions; it was part of my trip to Washington to talk to Dr. Finck, but he rejected me.
MR. DYMOND: That is all.