Mr. Specter.

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 160 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.