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?