We also have the testimony of the eyewitnesses that were there. Mr. Zapruder telling you of looking through his telescope or his zoom lens or his field binoculars, that he was hit right here (indicating). We have the testimony of Mr. William Newman that he was hit right above the ear. We have the testimony of Mrs. Newman that he was hit right above the ear, and recall her testimony, becuase, gentlemen, as we told you on the voir dire when you were being selected as jurors, that you cannot go beyond what you hear from the witness stand to convict anybody or to acquite anybody. Therefore, all I ask you to do is to recall what came from that witness stand and what Mrs. Newman said.
Mr. Dymond in cross-examination of Mrs. Newman started his cross by mentioning the bullet came back here, and she shaid, "Oh, no, I didn't say the bullet hit him back here, I said I saw the bullet hit him right here." And where was she standing? Ten feet from him. That's how close she was to him. Mrs. Willis, who said at the time the third shot in the President's head exploded he went backwards and to the left of where he was sitting. Again, we must turn to Mr. Simmons, who had, again, the panoramic view of what is happening in front of him, of the President's head exploding and him going -- falling back to the left.
You have the testimony of Officer Martin, the motorcycle policeman who was riding to the left rear, as indicated in "Willis 5." He testified that he was the furtherest one out; in fact, he put an "X" over his position where he was in the motorcade. And recall now that Mr. Willis' testimony was that when he took this photograph, this was taken almost at the time of the first shot, and he heard it because he said the first shot made him click the camera or the shutter button on his camera.
So we have Officer Martin riding well to the left and well to the left rear of the presidential limousine. We could also see what appears to be Officer Martin in the Moorman photograph, his approximate location to the left and to the rear of the presidential limousine. What does Officer Martin tell us? Officer Martin tells us, one, he doesn't know where the shot came from. He heard the shots and he was looking around on his bike trying to learn where they were coming from; that he found matter on his motorcycle, on his uniform, on his helmet that he had cleaned, if you recall, before they left Love Field at Dallas, and he said it had been raining. They had their rain gear on; they took their rain gear off and they wiped off their boots and wiped off their helmets to get ready for the motorcade.
It was after the shooting of the President and when Officer Martin got to Parkland Hospital and thereafter that he found this matter -- I think he said pink in color or something to that effect -- on his helmet, on his bike, on his motor, and on his uniform. And where was he? He was to the left rear. Remember what Agent Frazier said bout his examination of the presidential car, the one they just happened not to do the reconstruction with. I believe he said it's being reconditioned or something. But anyway, in Frazier's examination of the car, he said he found blood and brain matter over the exterior of the car, the windshield of the car, the handrails of the car, and then he concluded by saying they found a large quantity of -- I believe was his quote -- let me see -- "considerable quantities of blood and brain inside the car," which you would expect, and on the trunk lid area, which means, gentlemen, from the testimony of Frazier and all of the eye witnesses, the majority of the brain matter and the blood was coming back to the left rear of the vehicle. Because how could Martin get hit in his position where he was if it didn't spray back?
Now the testimony of Dr. Nichols, who gave his opinion that he was reacting -- the President was reacting rather to a frontal head shot because of the backward movement as indicated in the Zapruder film. I want to call to your attention, gentlemen, that Dr. Nichols was the only expert in this case that gave his opinion as to -- based on a complete examination of the Zapruder film, as to what it shows as to whether or not the President was moving forward and backward. And also that Dr. Nichols told you that if he had been hit in the rear of the head that he would have been driven forward from the blow traveling at 2,175 feet per second, packing a wallop of 1,676 foot pounds, which is the equivalent -- you recall I asked Agent Frazier if this is not the equivalent of taking a 1,676-pound ball, iron ball, and dropping it one foot. That's a wallop! That's a wallop! And that 1,676-pound ball is traveling at 2,175 feet per second, and what does the President do in reacting to being hit by this? Does he go forward as indicated in the Zapruder film? Oh, no. He goes back and to the left. He goes back and to the left, not forward. Not forward.
We have testimony in this case from Dr. Finck, "pathologist," who tells you in his report that the President fell forward, and I asked Dr. Finck where did he learn this, why did he put this in his report. Because Admiral Galloway seemed to tell him a lot of things about his report. Admiral Galloway is the one that told him to put, presumably, wounds of exit. And speaking of Dr. Finck, somebody told him not to dissect the throat wound.
Gentlemen, can you really imagine the President of the United States being assassinated and these pathologists not dissecting the throat wound to ascertain whether or not it was a through-and-through gunshot wound? Because remember, Dr. Finck told you that on the night of November 22nd, he was puzzled because he couldn't find where this back wound was going. He found no exit. He was puzzled, but he didn't dissect the throat area because, one, he was told not to, and then on cross-examination by Mr. Dymond, he tells Mr. Dymond he didn't do it because he didn't want to mutilate the body. They can cut him open, take all the body organs out, go all through his brain, but they didn't want to mutilate the body by dissecting the track. Not one wound in the President of the United States -- this is not you or I laying on that autopsy table, this is the President of the United States who has been assassinated -- not one wound did they go and take, on the entrance or the exit, and I am referencing to the holes in the body, a cross-section of that particular wound, dissect it and submit it to microscopic examination at least to ascertain whether or not there was any burned area. You recall Dr. Nichols testifying in the first part of this case, when a bullet passes through, it singes or sears the skin to a certain degree. This is a foolproof way of telling whether or not one is an entrance wound or one is an exit wound.
Why didn't they do this to the back wound, or the back of the neck wound as they say? Let me touch a moment on the wounds. Now, you recall Dr. Finck testifying that they found the wound in the back, or the wound in the neck as he calls it, approximately five inches from the tip of the mastoid process and approximately five inches from the tip of the acromion, which is the end bone in your shoulder. In fact, it's recorded right up here (indicating), it says 14 centimeters, and I believe the doctor said 14 centimeters, aproximately five inches, 14 centimeters from the right acromion is 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process. Besides raising the question of how they measured this, he couldn't tell you what position the body was in on the table when he measured it, but I do submit to you and he did state to you that if the body is either on its stomach or on its back and the head turned to the right or turned to the left, it is going to change the position of this mastoid process for measuring purposes.
But what measurement, gentlemen, on that diagram is not mentioned? And what is not mentioned is what Dr. Finck told you, was that it was approximately two inches from the mid-line, and the mid-line is straight down the middle of the body. Two inches from the mid-line. You heard Dr. Nichols tell you that if it was 14 centimeters from the right acromion, 14 centimeters from the right mastoid process, and approximately two inches to the right of the mid-line, that the bullet would have had to hit a vertebra. Where was the wound -- in the back? Was it the neck? Was it the shoulder? Where was it? I don't really know where it was; I don't think Dr. Finck knows where it was either because of this wound is placed on this diagram (indicating) I submit to you either at the time of the autopsy, or shortly thereafter, while the body was still there, and Dr. Finck moved this up higher to the collar than is depicted on here, saying that this is wrong -- and you recall he marked on Mr. Billy Wegmann over in this area of his shoulder a spot (indicating), but the interesting point about that particular wound, gentlemen, is that if it was two inches to the right of the mid-line, it would have had to hit the vertebra by the makeup of the human anatomy, just like if it had gone through the neck area without hitting any bone, it had to go through at a minimum of 28 degrees from right-to-left.
Let me get back and touch upon the head shot that we are speaking about and get off belaboring the point to you about the autopsy and about the reconstruction, which has to be the monumental flop investigation of reconstruction in the history of the world. Here's the FBI, with all types of equipment, technicians, the power to get anything they want in the form of evidence. They got all the evidence up to Washington, D.C., but by some strange circumstance, they couldn't get the same car back down to Dallas for reconstruction. What did they use in the place of that, gentlemen? They used a Cadillac limousine that Frazier can't even tell you the measurements of. He said he thinks so, but he couldn't tell you. He didn't measure it. He improvised. The expert of some 26 years with the FBI improvises. One of the men doing the majority of the work on this reconstruction, in answer to one of my questions, after being in this area for 26 years, says he investigated three or four criminal scenes during his career. This is one of the two men doing most of the work. This is the expert.
What does he do? They get two stand-ins for the President and the Governor and they put the President's stand-in on blankets, and after they put him on blankets, when they are calculating their measurements, they've got to put a spot in his back and move it down ten inches before they can calculate anything. So this reconstruction is with the wrong car, the wrong measurements, as in regard to the Presidential limousine, a stand-in sitting on blankets and he's got to measure ten inches down because the Cadillac is ten inches higher than the Presidential limousine was. But in the reconstruction, what did they use? They used the skin hole as I call it, of the President marked on the President's stand-in. Somebody, Agent Frazier told me from the witness stand, measured on the stand-in five inches from from the mastoid and five inches in from the shoulder. Somebody, I guess some other agent, measured it, or another agent, and that they didn't want to use the President's clothing at the time, because you recall the president's clothing -- the bullet hole in the back of the coat, if I recall, was 5 and 3/8 inches down from the collar. They didn't use this because of the fact that the President's coat may have been puckered up and this would be all wrong, so they used the skin hole.
Now, in regards to whether or not the President's coat was puckered up, I submit to you these two photographs, the Moorman photograph showing the back, and the Willis photograph in the close-up, because, gentlemen, measuring from the collar down 5 and 3/8 inches to the hole in the back of the coat is a heck of a lot of different spot than if you measured on me right now five inches from the tip of my acromion down. So if it had to be as the agent says, his coat was puckered up, it would have to be puckered up to such an extent (demonstrating) that there would be a flap or a fold-over in his particular coat. And remember I specifically asked the agent, were these single bullet holes -- there was no double bullet hole through the coat as he found in Governor Connally's French cuffs -- that went through one side and then through the other side. If you take 5 and 3/8 inches down from my collar and then measure five inches from my mastoid process down, you notice how far my coat has got to pucker up (demonstrating), and if it does pucker that far, you've got the double flap and you've got double bullet holes in the coat.
Anyway, right now wouldn't you say your shirt was secured at least by your belt and by your tie? Because then under their theory, then his shirt had to pucker up that much, too. I think there was about an eight of an inch or a quarter of an inch difference between the shirt hole and the coat hole, but irrespective, they say it was puckered up maybe, so they didn't use it. But what do they use with Connally? I think it would be logical to assume that they would use the skin hole in the back of the Governor. They didn't use that, they used his coat, they used his laundered coat in their reconstruction, and then Frazier gets up here and says in answer to one of Mr. Dymond's questions, is it possible for a shot to be gotten off from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository through the two stand-ins as you sighted. I submit to you gentlemen, that quite possibly it wasn't. They had the skin hole of the President sitting on blankets and they had the laundered coat hole that Frazier said changed the Exhibit so completely that he couldn't even test it. But he didn't calculate the lateral angle. You couldn't get a lateral angle answer out of any of them! Why? Why, because at 28 degrees, it doesn't put a gun in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, that's why. That's by medical proof. Medical proof, the human anatomy. That bullet can't go through there unless it's a 28-degree minimum angle, and not break a bone.
If you're wondering whether or not the backward motion of the President at the time he was hit in the head was attributed to the speed of the car, I submit to you, you recall what you saw in the Zapruder film as to whether or not Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy flew back or any other occupants in the car flew back as the President did, if there was a sudden acceleration. I submit to you the testimony of Mrs. Willis, the Newmans, Officer Martin and Mr. Carr, who said in fact the car slowed down. It did accelerate, it accelerated when that agent was getting on the back of it, which was well after frame 313. And why was everyone running to the grassy knoll? All of the witnesses, bar none that I can recall, told you that the people, were running to the grassy knoll area, Zapruder, Mr. West, the surveyor -- he heard four shots -- Phil Willis, Mrs. Walther, Buell Wesley Frazier, who was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository Building, Mrs. Moorman, who was standing approximately at this location (indicating) when she took this photograph, Mrs. Bond, who was standing in this area (indicating) when she took these two photographs.
Where is everybody running to in the photograph, gentlemen? And, more specifically, I submit to you this particular area of the grassy knoll -- this area on here, the policeman clearing a fence back here (indicating). Why do you think he ran there? Because all the shots were coming from the Texas School Book Depository Building? Why do you think that policeman was running across the neutral ground area towards the grassy knoll? Because all the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Now, besides Mrs. Bond, we have Carr in a building back here (indicating) watching the whole view, seeing people run here. We have Roger Craig, who is a deputy sheriff at that particular time, who not only ran through here but he jumped the fence, and we have old Mr. Simmons again -- he's always popping up. You will recall the panoramic view that Mr. Simmons must have had on the triple overpass or the underpass, whichever you call it. What does he do and what does he see? At the time of the third shot he sees a puff of smoke coming out from the area of the trees in this particular vicinity. Oh, Mr. Dymond asked him on cross-examination, "Mr. Simmons, wasn't the Texas School Book Depository in the same general direction?" Of course it was past the grassy knoll, but he was in the same general direction, but I can recall Mr. Simmons getting off the witness stand and going to the blackboard or the mock-up and putting his hand in this area and saying, This was the area in which I saw the shots, heard the shots come from and saw the puff of smoke and ran behind there and saw the numerous footprints as though someone was pacing up and down behind there or in the fence area on the grassy knoll. What else did Mr. Simmons see? Mr. Simmons said he saw something hit the curb. Something hit the curb, and we had the testimony of Agent Frazier that a piece of curbing was submitted to him for some sort of analysis -- I imagine a spectrographic analysis -- and it contained smears of lead, and on this diagram (indicating) it is noted a section of curb removed in this particular area down here (indicating), and Mr. Simmons was standing in this particular area here. Where did that come from? We heard Agent Frazier tell you that there was a crack or a shatter of the windshield on the inside and that it had lost its force and expended itself into fragments and merely cracked the window, because he told Mr. Dymond that he found lead traces on the inside of the windshield. But how does a fragment that doesn't have enough force to crack the windshield all the way through, get from this area all the way over to here (indicating)? From this area all the way over to here (indicatng).
Then we have the testimony of Dr. Nichols again in regards to what was found by Colonel Finck at the autopsy in regard to the head injury. You heard Dr. Finck, or Colonel Finck, tell you absolutely every time you find that beveling and cratering it is positively a hole of entrance. You heard Dr. Nichols tell you that this is not always the case. In the case of a 22-caliber he said he's even used the same Exhibit that Mr. Dymond had, the one that was drawn by Colonel Finck, prepared by Colonel Finck. And you heard Dr. Nichols tell you in the area of 6.5 projectiles it doesn't always have to be beveling or cratering. And in answer to one of Mr. Alford's questions, Dr. Nichols said that the beveling or cratering effect could be caused by secondary missiles. By that they mean fragments of bone flying through or moving through this compressed area that your head is in, or at least a fragment coming out, because all throughout the testimony of Dr. Finck -- Colonel Finck, "pathologist," there is left a great amount to be desired, gentlemen, as to what type of autopsy was performed on the President of the United States.
There was some three-quarters by one-half inch rectangular object in his brain. The left side of his brain wasn't even examined. I know Dr. Finck tells us that he thinks maybe Commander Humes did that, but he doesn't know. You know what else he told us? He told us that the brain of the President was removed through the hole in the head. This is really preserving the brain for examination, taking it through a five-inch hole in the head. This was some autopsy! This was some autopsy!
Having spoken, gentlemen, about the head of the President, I submit to you that because of what you yourself can see in the Zapruder film -- and if you don't think -- take one moment of your time -- the President was in fact moving backwards -- may I have the screen put up, Your Honor, please? I'm going to show you a few slides, gentlemen, of frames 312 through 317.
THE COURT: I would assume that when you are ready you will tell me and I will have the lights doused. Is that right?
MR. OSER: Yes, if Your Honor, please. Now, gentlemen, this purports to be frame 312 of the Zapruder film. At this particular time, I call your attention to the distance between the back of the President and the seat of the limousine, which Shaneyfelt did not measure. He said it was his impression that he was shot from the back, but the photographic experts did not measure the distance between the Presidents' shoulder and the back of the seat.
Now I call to your attention this white area right here that I am pointing to -- now you can see the white of this area right here is beginning to be a little larger. Still notice the area between the left shoulder of the President and the back seat of the automobile.
THE COURT: Don't you mean the right shoulder?
MR. OSER: No, sir, I mean the left shoulder right now, Your Honor, closest to Jackie Kennedy's arm as well as his right shoulder. Of course, this is frame 313. Notice now, gentlemen, the white area or the reflection on the leather upholstery to the back of the President, 1/18.3 of a second after he's shot, and what happens to that area. Look at the position now that the President's shoulders are in, if he is not being driven back and to the left. His right shoulder is further forward in this area. He's now gone. Look where the President's shoulder is now burrowing back into the leather upholstery where that reflection was seen in that photograph. It's now gone. The next slide indicates the President, besides the movement of his shoulders -- after close examination of these slides made from the original film -- proved that he is moving backwards and to the left as indicated in his position on the back of the seat in this particular frame. Look where his shoulders are now, gentlemen. His right arm is now raised in this position. His left shoulder you cannot see, because it's dug into the seat. That's it. Lights, please.
I submit to you, gentlemen, besides the viewing of the Zapruder film in motion indicating the back and to the left, I also submit to you what you just saw on the slides in reference to the motion of the President's shoulders coming around, his hand going up, his left shoulder burrowing into the back of the limousine or the leather upholstery, and that shiny reflection from the sun disappearing when his body covers it.
So, gentlemen, from what we have presented in regard to the head area, the testimony of Dr. Nichols, the testimony of the Zapruder film, the testimony of the witnesses, what do we have now? We now have three people and we now have three guns. From what you have heard from this witness stand by the witnesses presented to you from Dealey Plaza, I submit to you, you have, in answer to that question, three people and three guns, and in having three people and three guns, you have, gentlemen, a triangulation of fire, a triangulation of fire that was testified to from this witness stand that is exhibited by all of this evidence, all the photographs, the Zapruder film. We have the triangulation of fire, because who expressed it better than a person who was there? A person, who, in my opinion, was the most believable witness in this entire case. And of course, that was Mrs. Gayle Newman, who is a housewife with two children. You can see them in this particular picture protecting their children (indicating). And what did she say from the witness stand, not in answer to a question by the State, but in answer to a question by the Defense? "We were caught in a cross fire, we were caught in a cross fire," and that's exactly what they were caught in. That's exactly the results of three people with three guns causing the three types of wounds as I have described here, because otherwise it is mathematically and scientifically impossible for one person with one gun to do the results that happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, by what I showed you before as to where the location of one gun had to be. Mathematically and scientifically, it was not the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, it couldn't be, and if this case was reconstructed with all the evidence that was available and the lateral angles were found out, it would be shown that one of the guns was certainly not in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and one of the guns was certainly the cause of a frontal shot. You saw it in the Zapruder slides just now. And we have, gentlemen, the triangulation, the triangulation (demonstrating), and where have you heard the triangulation before? You have heard the triangulation testified to in this particular trial prior to, before we got to the area of Dealey Plaza, a triangulation described when the Defendant, Clay Shaw, was present when it was being talked about.
Again, it seems a strange circumstance, as Mr. Alcock pointed out to you some odd happenings about what Perry Russo said, evolved from this witness stand. It seems strange, doesn't it, gentlemen, that a triangulation of fire was talked about, and I submit to you we have proven a triangulation of fire resulted from the conspiracy and the agreement that was hatched with the defendant Clay Shaw present.
Thank you.