Part 3

Dr. PERRY. Yes, sir; immediately on arriving there, and as I say, Dr. Jones and I, and I saw Dr. Carrico, and I have the impression there was another physician there, but I don't know who it was. I asked that an emergency call be placed for Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery, for Dr. Robert McClelland, and Dr. Charles Baxter, assistant professors of surgery. They responded immediately. I don't know how long it took them to get there, but they were probably there within the next few minutes. My first recollection of Dr. McClelland and Dr. Baxter being there was when I was doing the tracheotomy, they suddenly were there assisting me. I don't know when they came in the room, nor do I know when Dr. Clark or the other gentlemen arrived, and there must have been 10 or 12 doctors all told by then.

Mr. SPECTER. Are there any others whom you could identify?

Dr. PERRY. Dr. Peters--I previously mentioned, Dr. Paul Peters, assistant professor of urology, Dr. Fouad Bashour, associate professor of medicine, and chief of cardiology, and Dr. Don Seldin, chief of medicine.

I mentioned Dr. M. T. Jenkins, chief of anesthesia, and Dr. Giesecke, his assistant professor of anesthesiology--that's the only people that I saw directly.

Mr. SPECTER. Could the first doctor whom you saw have been Dr. Don Curtis?

Dr. PERRY. That's entirely possible--I don't recall.

Mr. SPECTER. Was Dr. Dulany there?

Dr. PERRY. I have initially had the impression that Dr. Dulany was in the room when I came in there, but as I understand it, he actually was just going into the room across the hall, but he was there by the door when I came in, but I had the impression he was leaving that room, but I understand he was not, that actually he was going--just going in the room across the hall with the Governor, although I initially thought Dr. Dulany was there.

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe, if anything with respect to bruising in the interior portion of the President's neck?

Dr. PERRY. There was considerable hematoma in the right lateral portion of the neck and the right superior mediastinum, as I noted. As for bruising, per se, it would be difficult to describe that, since by definition, hematoma would be a collection of blood, and there was so much blood that the tissues were discolored. I did not attempt to ascertain trajectory or path of the bullet at the time, but directed myself to obtaining an adequate airway and carried my examination no further down than it was necessary to assure myself that the trachea was controlled and that there was no large vessel injury at that level.

Mr. SPECTER. Were there sufficient facts available to you for you to reach a conclusion as to the cause of the wound on the front side of the President's neck?

Dr. PERRY. No, sir, there was not. I could not determine whether or how this was inflicted, per se, since it would require tracing the trajectory.

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to the President's head, specifically?

Dr. PERRY. I saw no injuries other than the one which I noted to you, which was a large avulsive injury of the right occipitoparietal area, but I did not do a minute examination of his head.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you notice a bullet hole below the large avulsed area?

Dr. PERRY. No; I did not.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Perry, earlier I asked you whether you turned over the President at any time during the course of your treatment or examination of him, and you indicated that you had not, and I then asked you why, and you proceeded to tell me of the things that you did in sequence, as being priority items to try to save his life. Why did you not turn him over at the conclusion of those operative procedures?

Dr. PERRY. Well, actually, I didn't have a specific reason, other than it had been determined that he had expired. There was nothing further that I could do and it was not my particular prerogative to make a minute examination to determine any other cause. I felt that that was a little bit out of my domain.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any occasion to examine the President's clothing to ascertain direction of the missile?

Dr. PERRY. No; I did not. The only aspect of clothing that I know about--I happen to recall pushing up the brace which he had on in an attempt to feel a femoral pulse when I arrived, and I could not, but the shirt had been removed by the personnel there in the emergency room, I assume.

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to the description of that brace?

Dr. PERRY. I couldn't give you a description. I just saw and felt the lower edge of one, and I reached to feel the left femoral pulse.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you see whether the President was wearing any sort of an Ace bandage on the midsection of his body when his trousers were taken down?

Dr. PERRY. There was evidence of an Ace bandage--I saw it sticking out from the edge on the right side, as I recall. I don't believe it was on the midsection, although it may have been. I believe it was on his right leg--his right thigh.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether it was on the left leg and thigh as well?

Dr. PERRY. No, I don't. I just saw that briefly when I was reaching for that pulse and I didn't do any examination at all of the lower trunk or lower extremities.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you personally make any examination by feeling, or in any other way, of the President's back?

Dr. PERRY. I did not.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in a press conference or press conferences following the death of the President?

Dr. PERRY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first of such press conferences?

Dr. PERRY. I don't know the exact time, Mr. Specter. It must have been within the hour, I would say; I don't know exactly.

Mr. SPECTER. And who was present at that press conference by way of identifying, if you can, the members of the news media?

Dr. PERRY. I have no idea. The press conference was held in classrooms 1 and 2 combined here at Parkland. The room was quite full of people. I remember noting some surprise how quickly they had put in a couple of telephones at the back. There were numerous cameras and lights, and flashbulbs, and I went there with one of the administrators, Mr. Landregan, and Dr. Kemp Clark and Mr. Hawkes, who was identified to me as being with the White House Press. I don't know--there were numerous people of the press.

Mr. SPECTER. What doctors appeared and spoke at that press conference?

Dr. PERRY. Dr. Clark, myself, and Dr. Baxter was also there. He arrived a little bit late. I called him just before I went down and asked him and Dr. McClelland to come. I could not find Dr. McClelland. He apparently was busy with a patient at the time. I recall Dr. Baxter came in after the press conference had begun, but I don't believe he said anything. Dr. Clark and I answered the majority of the questions.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, what questions were asked of you and what responses did you give at that press conference?

Dr. PERRY. Well, there were numerous questions asked, all the questions I cannot remember, of course. Specifically, the thing that seemed to be of most interest at that point was actually trying to get me to speculate as to direction of the bullets, the number of bullets, and the exact cause of death.

The first two questions I could not answer, and my reply to them was that I did not know, if there were one or two bullets, and I could not categorically state about the nature of the neck wound, whether it was an entrance or an exit wound, not having examined the President further--I could not comment on any other injuries.

As regards the cause of death, Dr. Clark and I concurred that massive brain trauma with attendant severe hemorrhage was the underlying cause of death, and then there were questions asked in regard to what we did, and I described as I have for you, although not in such detail--essentially the resuscitative measures that were taken at that time; namely, the reinfusion of a balanced salt solution of blood, Solucortef, assisting of respiration with oxygen and pressure apparatus, the tracheotomy, and the chest tubes and the monitoring with the cardiotachioscope.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you express a view as to what might have happened with respect to the number of bullets?

Dr. PERRY. I was asked by several of the people of the press, initially, if there were one or two or more bullets, and to that, Dr. Clark and I both replied that we could not say. I was then asked if it was conceivable that it could have been caused by one bullet, and I replied in the affirmative, that I did not know, but it was conceivable.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you elaborate on how it could have been caused by one bullet?

Dr. PERRY. I was asked if this were one bullet, how would it occur, and I said, "It is conceivable or possible that a bullet could enter and strike the spinal column and be deviated superiorly to exit from the head."

Mr. SPECTER. And where would that point of entry have been?

Dr. PERRY. The surmise was made that if the point of entry were in the neck, how would it have happened, and that is the way I would have reconstructed it. Again, this was speculation.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you denominate it clearly as speculation?

Dr. PERRY. I did.

Mr. SPECTER. Or, what could have been as opposed to what your opinion was?

Dr. PERRY. I did. I said this was conceivable--this was possible, but again, Dr. Clark and I emphasized again that we did not know whether there was one or two bullets.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you express any view as to whether it might have been one bullet or two bullets or either, or what?

Dr. PERRY. I said I did not know.

Mr. SPECTER. And were you asked any other questions at that press conference that you can recollect as being important at this time?

Dr. PERRY. Someone did ask us about Mrs. Kennedy, and I recall that I mentioned that I did not speak to her, but that she was very composed and very quiet.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, were you a part of any other press conferences?

Dr. PERRY. Yes; I was.

Mr. SPECTER. And when did the next one occur?

Dr. PERRY. There were several organized press conferences that occurred in the administration suite in the hospital, Mr. Specter, and I don't know the exact times of these. There were several later that afternoon. There were some the following day, on Saturday, also held in the administrator's office, and then there were subsequent conferences in relation to the other incident that occurred on Sunday with Mr. Oswald. I don't know how many there were.

Mr. SPECTER. Were all these conferences set up by the administration of the hospital?

Dr. PERRY. They were all conducted here. They weren't necessarily--I wouldn't say--set up by the administration. They were done here at the hospital, with one exception, of which you are aware, that I spoke with you about the gentleman that came to me when I was out of town.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you elaborate upon what occurred on that occasion, please?

Dr. PERRY. I had taken the course of complying with the press insofar as was possible about what I could speak that was common knowledge and which had already been covered at the initial press conference. I had done that in the administrative suite or in the hospital or in the medical school under an organized situation as opposed to doing it, say, at home.

I left town Monday following the incident on Sunday with Oswald, in order to secure a little bit of rest for myself and my family, and approximately 36 hours later, members of the press had located me and requested an interview, which I granted, denying any photographs and the interview consisted of essentially the same thing that I had given to the previous press conference at the hospital.

Mr. SPECTER. Where was that interview conducted?

Dr. PERRY. That was in McAllen, Tex.

Mr. SPECTER. In the course of all of these press conferences did you say anything other than that which you have already related you said during the course of the first press conference?

Dr. PERRY. That would require a little bit of thought. I don't think in essence I said anything different. Of course, the wording certainly would have been different. I subsequently had a little bit more knowledge about the initial episode attendant of course upon my discussions with the other doctors and the writing out of our statements, knowledge which I did not have initially, which may have made subsequent statements perhaps more accurate as regards to time and people, but in essence, things that I did and things that I said that I did are essentially the same in all of these.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Perry, I now show you a group of papers heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit No. 392, and I turn to two sheets which are dated November 22, 1963, which have the name "Perry" beside the doctor and purport to bear your signature, and the time--1630 hours, 22 November 1963, and I ask you if this is a photostatic copy of the handwritten report which you submitted concerning the attention you gave to the President on the day of the assassination?

Dr. PERRY. Yes; it is.

Mr. SPECTER. Is this your signature appearing on the second sheet?

Dr. PERRY. That is my signature.

Mr. SPECTER. And are the facts set forth herein true and correct?

Dr. PERRY. They are, to the best of my knowledge, correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Perry, have contents of the autopsy report conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital been made available to you?

Dr. PERRY. They have.

Mr. SPECTER. And are the findings in the autopsy report consistent with your observations and conclusions concerning the source and nature of the President's wounds?

Dr. PERRY. Yes; they are. I think there are no discrepancies at all. I did not have that information initially, and as a result was somewhat confused about the nature of the wounds, as I noted--I could not tell whether there was one or two bullets, or from whence they came, but the findings of the autopsy report are quite compatible with those findings which I noted at the time that I saw the President.

Mr. SPECTER. And have you noted in the autopsy report the reference to the presence of a wound on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 7 by 4 mm. in oval dimension and being located 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process?

Dr. PERRY. Yes; I saw that.

Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that was a point of entry of a missile, which parenthetically was the opinion of the three autopsy surgeons, and assuming still further that the missile which struck the President at that spot was a 6.5-mm. jacketed bullet shot from a rifle at a distance of 166 to 250 feet, having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, and that upon entering the President's body, the bullet traveled between two strap muscles, through a fascia channel, without violating the pleural cavity, striking the trachea, causing the damage which you testified about being on the interior of the President's throat, and exited from the President's throat in the wound which you have described in the midline of his neck, would your findings and observations as to the nature of the wound on the throat be consistent with the set of facts I just presented to you?

Dr. PERRY. It would be entirely compatible.

Mr. SPECTER. And what is the basis for your conclusion that the situation that I presented to you would be entirely compatible with your observations and findings?

Dr. PERRY. The wound in the throat, although as I noted, I did not examine it minutely, was fairly small in nature, and an undeformed, unexpanded missile exiting at rather high speed would leave very little injury behind, since the majority of its energy was expended after it had left the tissues.

Mr. SPECTER. And would the hole that you observed on the President's throat then be consistent with such an exit wound?

Dr. PERRY. It would. There is no way to determine from my examination as to exactly how accurately I could depict an entrance wound from an exit wound, without ascertaining the entire trajectory. Such a wound could be produced by such a missile.

Mr. SPECTER. Were any facts on trajectory available to you at the time of the press conferences that you described?

Dr. PERRY. They were not.

Mr. SPECTER. In response to an earlier question which I asked you, I believe you testified that you did not have sufficient facts available initially to form an opinion as to the source or direction of the cause of the wound, did you not?

Dr. PERRY. That's correct, although several leading questions were directed toward me at the various conferences.

Mr. SPECTER. And to those leading questions you have said here today that you responded that a number of possibilities were present as to what might have happened?

Dr. PERRY. That's correct. I had no way of ascertaining, as I said, the true trajectory. Often questions were directed as to--in such a manner as this: "Doctor, is it possible that if he were in such and such a position and the bullet entered here, could it have done that?" And my reply, "Of course, if it were possible, yes, that is possible, but similarly, it did not have to be so, necessarily."

Mr. SPECTER. So that, from the physical characteristics which you observed in and of themselves, you could not come to any conclusive opinion?

Dr. PERRY. No, sir; I could not, although I have been quoted, I think, as saying, and I might add parenthetically, out of context, without the preceding question which had been directed, as saying that such was the case, when actually, I only admitted that the possibility existed.

Mr. SPECTER. And in the hypothetical of the rather extended nature that I just gave you that your statement that that is consistent with what you found, is that also predicated upon the veracity of the factors, which I have asked you to assume?

Dr. PERRY. That is correct, sir. I have no way to authenticate either by my own knowledge.

Mr. SPECTER. Has your recollection of the nature of the President's neck wound changed at any time from November 22 to the present time?

Dr. PERRY. No, sir. I recall describing it initially as being between 3 and 5 cm. in size and roughly spherical in shape, not unlike a rather large puncture wound, I believe is the word I used initially.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you ever changed your opinion on the possible alternatives as to what could have caused the President's wounds?

Dr. PERRY. No, sir; I have no knowledge even now of my own as to the cause of the wounds. All I can report on is what I saw, and the wound is that as I have described it. It could have been caused conceivably by any number of objects.

Mr. SPECTER. So, that the wound that you saw on the President's neck would be consistent with an exit wound under the factors that I described to you?

Dr. PERRY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Or, it might be consistent with an entry wound under a different set of factors?

Dr. PERRY. That's correct, sir. I, myself, have no knowledge of that. I do not think that it is consistent, for example, with an exit wound of a large expanded bullet--voluntarily I would add that.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, would a jacketed 6.5-mm. bullet fit the description of a large expanded bullet?

Dr. PERRY. No, sir; it would not.

Mr. SPECTER. Based on the information in the autopsy report about a 6- by 15-mm. hole in the lower part of the President's skull on the right side in conjunction with the large part of the skull of the President which you observed to be missing, would you have an opinion as to the source of the missile which inflicted those wounds?

Dr. PERRY. Since I did not see the initial wound which you mentioned, the smaller one, and only saw the large avulsive wound of the head and the scalp, there is no way for me to determine from whence it came.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, if you assume the presence of the first small wound, taking as a fact that there was such a wound, now, would that present sufficient information for you to formulate an opinion as to source or trajectory?

Dr. PERRY. Well, I couldn't testify as to exact source, but if the wound, the smaller wound that you noted were present, it could certainly result in the large avulsive wound as it exited from the skull. As to the ultimate source, there would still be no way for me to tell.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, could you tell sufficient to comment on whether it came from the front or back of the President?

Dr. PERRY. In the absence of other wounds of the head, the presence of the small wound which you described, in addition to the large avulsive wound of the skull and the scalp which I observed would certainly indicate that the two were related and would indicate both an entrance and an exit wound, if there were no other wounds.

Mr. SPECTER. And which would be the wound of entrance, then?

Dr. PERRY. The smaller wound--the smaller wound.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you have occasion to talk via the telephone with Dr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?

Dr. PERRY. I did.

Mr. SPECTER. And will you relate the circumstances of the calls indicating first the time when they occurred.

Dr. PERRY. Dr. Humes called me twice on Friday afternoon, separated by about 30-minute intervals, as I recall. The first one, I, somehow think I recall the first one must have been around 1500 hours, but I'm not real sure about that; I'm not positive of that at all, actually.

Mr. SPECTER. Could it have been Saturday morning?

Dr. PERRY. Saturday morning--was it? It's possible. I remember talking with him twice. I was thinking it was shortly thereafter.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, the record will show.

Dr. PERRY. Oh, sure, it was Saturday morning--yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What made you change your view of that?

Dr. PERRY. You mean Friday?

Mr. SPECTER. Did some specific recollection occur to you which changed your view from Friday to Saturday?

Dr. PERRY. No, I was trying to place where I was at that time--Friday afternoon, and at that particular time, when I paused to think about it, I was actually up in the operating suite at that time, when I thought that he called initially. I seem to remember it being Friday, for some reason.

Mr. SPECTER. Where were you when you received those calls?

Dr. PERRY. I was in the Administrator's office here when he called.

Mr. SPECTER. And what did he ask you, if anything?

Dr. PERRY. He inquired about, initially, about the reasons for my doing a tracheotomy, and I replied, as I have to you, during this procedure, that there was a wound in the lower anterior third of the neck, which was exuding blood and was indicative of a possible tracheal injury underlying, and I did the tracheotomy through a transverse incision made through that wound, and I described to him the right lateral injury to the trachea and the completion of the operation.

He subsequently called back--at that time he told me, of course, that he could not talk to me about any of it and asked that I keep it in confidence, which I did, and he subsequently called back and inquired about the chest tubes, and why they were placed and I replied in part as I have here. It was somewhat more detailed. After having talked to Drs. Baxter and Peters and I identified them as having placed it in the second interspace, anteriorly, in the midclavicular line, in the right hemithorax, he asked me at that time if we had made any wounds in the back. I told him that I had not examined the back nor had I knowledge of any wounds of the back.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you relate the circumstances surrounding an article which appeared about you in the Saturday Evening Post, Dr. Perry?