Quoting Cyril Wecht:
This testimony is Riebe's 30-year-old recollection of the wounds to Kennedy's head that he observed at autopsy. However, in the same testimony Riebe said he never got closer than 5 feet to Kennedy's head during the autopsy, that his recollection of the wounds observed at autopsy was not confident (and was, as he admitted later, in error), and that he had participated in only a few autopsies prior to Kennedy's -- none prior having been the victim of a gunshot wound. In fact, Riebe admitted not being present when the brain was weighed or examined by doctors.
Further, Riebe was shown the autopsy photos as recovered from the national archives and stated under oath that he had no reason to believe they were not the photos he and Stringer had taken during the autopsy.
O'Neill never saw the photographs previously. The film was delivered to the Secret Service and developed, but the FBI never received the requested copies of them and so the first time O'Neill ever saw the autopsy photos was in 1996 at which time he was comparing them to his 30-year-old recollection of the events. Further, we see that O'Neill had undertaken a program of lecturing, reading, and writing on his experiences. In terms of witness testimony, this sort of activity typically has the effect of reinforcing embellishments and misrecollections over time. Hence his 30-year-old "enhanced" recollection is not a sufficient basis for impeaching the validity of photographs he had not previously seen.
Agent O'Neill recalls Kennedy's eyes being open during the autopsy and quibbles with the notion that the photos sometimes depict only half-closed eyes. Other witnesses testify that the President's eyes varied between open and closed, as efforts were made to keep them closed. He comments that the photos are "doctored" in the sense that the wound was evidently manipulated by doctors during the course of the autopsy, such as to reflect the lacerant. He does not seem to understand that this is intentional, is customary procedure, and was documented. This accounts for nearly all his statements that Wecht interprets as attesting to "inaccuracy." In fact O'Neill affirms that he does not question the authenticity of the photos, a fact Wecht suspiciously omits.
Which of the three such reports?
In his 1996 deposition Stringer could not properly recall the camera equipment or film that was used during Kennedy's first autopsy, nor whether certain types of photography were taken. In fact, Stringer's testimony is a whole long list of things he does not recall from previous testimony, yet for which there is documentary evidence. Stringer was ultimately unable to reconcile his misrecollections of the first autopsy with the documentary evidence.
The photographs in question, "of the brain," were from the supplementary autopsy after the brain had been removed for separate study. These have nothing to do with the head wound, or the photos taken during the general (first) autopsy. The casual reader isn't likely to notice that Stringer talks to the Post about photographs that have no bearing on the direction of the fatal shot. And whatever he may have said to the press, his statement under oath is that he had a poor recollection of what photography equipment, techniques, and coverage he employed at the supplementary autopsy.
Stringer testifies that the photographs he took of Kennedy's head wound have not been altered.
Stringer, by the way, explicitly denies that there was skeletal deficit to the occipital bone, that it was cracked only; the injury he describes was primarily to temporal and parietal bones. He also describes the feature previously identified by a doctor as a bullet entrance wound as being in the occipital-parietal region. Stringer's poor performance as a witness under oath notwithstanding, why do conspiracy theorists omit Stringer's confirmation of the opinion that the fatal head shot came from behind?
Each of the witnesses was asked specifically whether he had any reason to believe the autopsy photos had been tampered with, matted, or retouched since they were taken. None said he did, and affirmed that the photos were as they had been taken on the dates in question. The accusation of tampering is Wecht's alone and is not supported in this case by his evidence.
