Mr. Dulles.

Dr. PERRY. No, sir.

Representative Ford.

May I ask--
Dr. PERRY. I have failed to see one that was asked.

Representative Ford.

In other words, you subsequently read or heard what was allegedly said by you and by Dr. Clark and Dr. Carrico. Were those reportings by the news media accurate or inaccurate as to what you and others said?
Dr. PERRY. In general, they were inaccurate. There were some that were fairly close, but I, as you will probably surmise, was pretty full after both Friday and Sunday, and after the interviews again, following the operation of which I was a member on Sunday, I left town, and I did not read a lot of them, but of those which I saw I found none that portrayed it exactly as it happened. Nor did I find any that reported our statements exactly as they were given.

They were frequently taken out of context. They were frequently mixed up as to who said what or identification as to which person was who.

Representative Ford.

This interview took place on Sunday, the 24th, did you say?
Dr. PERRY. No, there were several interviews, Mr. Ford. We had one in the afternoon, Friday afternoon, and then I spent almost the entire day Saturday in the administrative suite at the hospital answering questions to people of the press, and some medical people of the American Medical Association. And then, of course, Sunday, following the operation on Oswald, I again attended the press conference since I was the first in attendance with him. And, subsequently, there was another conference on Monday conducted by the American Medical Association, and a couple of more interviews with some people whom I don't even recall.

Representative Ford.

Would you say that these errors that were reported were because of a lack of technical knowledge as to what you as a physician were saying, or others were saying?
Dr. PERRY. Certainly that could be it in part, but it was not all. Certainly a part of it was lack of attention. A question would be asked and you would incompletely answer it and another question would be asked and they had gotten what they wanted without really understanding, and they would go on and it would go out of context. For example, on the speculation on the ultimate source of bullets, I obviously knew less about it than most people because I was in the hospital at the time and didn't know the circumstances surrounding it until it was over. I was much too busy and yet I was quoted as saying that the bullet, there was probably one bullet, which struck and deviated upward which came from the front, and what I had replied was to a question, was it conceivable that this could have happened, and I said yes, it is conceivable.
I have subsequently learned that to use a straight affirmative word like "yes" is not good relations; that one should say it is conceivable and not give a straight yes or no answer.
"It is conceivable" was dropped and the "yes" was used, and this was happening over and over again. Of course, Shires, for example, who was the professor and chairman of the department was identified in one press release as chief resident.

Mr. Dulles.

As what? I didn't get it.
Dr. PERRY. As chief resident. And myself, as his being my superior, whereas Dr. Ronald Jones was chief resident of course, nothing could be further from the truth in identifying Dr. Shires as chief resident. I was identified as a resident surgeon in the Dallas paper. And I am not impressed with the accuracy of the press reports.

Mr. Mccloy.

I don't know whether you have covered this very well. Let me ask you about the wound, the wound that you examined in the President's neck.
You said that it would have been tolerable. Would his speech have been impaired?
Dr. PERRY. No, sir; I don't think so. The injury was below the larynx, and certainly barring the advent of any complication would have healed without any difficulty.