.... Pursuant to the adjournment, the proceedings herein were resumed at 9:00 o'clock a.m. on Friday, February 21, 1969 [sic], appearances being the same as heretofore noted in the record. ...
THE COURT: Mr. Frazier, the oath you took yesterday is still binding. The witness is still on direct. You may proceed.
ROBERT A. FRAZIER, having been sworn and having testified previously, resumed the stand and was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Frazier, was a live round of ammunition turned over to you in connection with the rifle that was given to you for examination?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You have testified then an almost intact --
MR. OSER: You are starting off with a leading question. We object, Your Honor.
MR. DYMOND: This is an expert witness and this is merely to correlate and lay a foundation for another question.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Frazier, you have testified that you received an almost intact projectile; that
you recovered some fragments from the Presidential limousine; that some other fragments were turned over to you and that there was a lead smear on the interior of the windshield of the Presidential vehicle. Was there any similarity in metallic composition as among the metal found in these various fragments and the live round of ammunition turned over to you?
A: Yes, sir, they all had the same metallic composition as far as the lead core or lead portions of these objects is concerned.
Q: Now what would this similarity in metallic composition indicate?
A: Only that they may have originated from the same source. It does not prove it actually did, but they do have the same composition and could have originated from the same or similar source.
Q: Am I correct in saying there is a similarity in metallic composition or they are identical?
A: It was identical as far as the metallic elements are concerned.
Q: All right. Now, Mr. Frazier, did you have occasion to examine the clothing of President John F. Kennedy?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What items of clothing did you examine, sir?
A: I examined all that was submitted, the suit coat, shirt, tie, underwear, the socks, shoes, and a back support that was included with the other materials.
Q: I see. First, taking the coat or jacket worn by President Kennedy, would you tell us what you learned upon your examination of this garment?
A: I found only one hole in this garment which was a small hole approximately a quarter of an inch in diameter. This was located five and three-eighths inch below the top of the collar in the back of the coat and one and three-quarters inches to the right of the mid-line.
Q: Mr. Frazier, if I were to have Mr. Wegmann stand before the Jury, could you point out on his coat approximately where this hole was?
A: I think so.
THE COURT: I suggest you do it in that area over there, Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: Step down here, Mr. Frazier.
(Witness complies with request of Counsel, demonstrating to the Jury.)
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Thank you, sir. Now, did you make a professional examination of this hole in the President's jacket?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Would you describe to the Jury what, if anything, you observed in connection with these fibers?
A: The cloth was torn in very short radial splits or rips so that a hole approximately a quarter of an inch in diameter was formed on the garment. Fibers were pushed inward, that is, both the appearance on the outside where the fibers were smooth, whereas on the inside surface the fibers were standing out indicating that an object has passed through from the outside to the inside.
Q: Mr. Frazier, as an expert in the field of ballistics, what would the condition of these fibers surrounding the hole in the back of the coat indicate?
A: This hole and fibers had the appearance of a bullet entrance hole.
Q: Now, did you also examine the shirt worn by President Kennedy?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What, if anything, did you notice in connection with the examination of that shirt?
A: I noticed the same situation to exist, that is, there was a hole in the shirt approximately five and three-quarter inch below the top of the collar and about one and one-eighth inch to the right of the mid-line in the back of the shirt.
Q: Did you make an examination of the fibers of the shirt in the area surrounding this hole?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did that examination reveal to you?
A: It showed the fibers to be pressed inward. The hole was approximately one-quarter inch in diameter and had very slight radial tears on the margin of the hole and indicated in addition, it had all the appearance of a bullet entrance hole.
Q: Mr. Frazier, I know you had throat trouble over the night and would you like to have a drink of water?
A: Yes.
MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, could we get a glass of water instead of that cup.
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, did you have occasion to -- strike that, please -- in connection with your examination of the President's shirt, did you notice anything unusual about the front portion of the shirt?
A: Yes, there was a very short slit approximately one-half inch in length which was located in the button line and also in the button- hole line, that is where the buttonhole strip and button strip overlap at the front. This hole was located just below the collar button and had no other physical characteristics so that you could determine the nature of the object that caused it except that the object exited at that point, but I could not determine the nature of the object.
Q: What led you, as an expert, to believe that the object exited there?
A: From again the shape of the fibers being pressed from the inside of the shirt outward.
Q: Now, did you make a comparison between the hole in the back of the shirt and the hole in the back of the coat, and, if so, did the two holes coincide in position?
A: Yes, they did.
Q: Was there any difference in alignment at all?
A: No. There could have been a slight difference in alignment because the hole in the coat was approximately three-eights of an inch higher, that is, it was only five and three-eighths inches below the collar, whereas the hole in the shirt was five and three-quarters inches down, but since the collar cloth of a shirt stands up above the coat, I would judge they were corresponding holes.
Q: Doctor, did you have occasion to examine the neck tie worn --
MR. OSER: He is not a doctor.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did you have occasion to examine the neck tie worn by the President, Mr. Frazier?
A: I did.
Q: Would you tell us what, if anything, was revealed by your examination of this neck tie.
A: The neck tie had been cut, that is, the neck band was cut to remove it --
MR. OSER: I object, unless he cut it himself.
THE COURT: When he received it it appeared to be cut, Mr. Oser.
THE WITNESS: Besides these marks that indicated it had been cut, there were fibers broken along the left side of the knot of the tie and, of course, they were in the area where the slit appeared in the President's shirt. These fibers were broken and that is they were slit at the knot and in the same position as the slit in the President's shirt, but they showed no other characteristics to indicate the nature of the object or the direction of the object.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Did the fibers of the neck tie indicate anything?
A: No, sir.
Q: They did not?
A: No, sir.
Q: As an expert, Mr. Frazier, what was your opinion as to whether or not the same projectile had caused the hole in the coat, the hole in the shirt, in the back of the shirt, the hole in the front of the shirt, and damage of the neck tie which you examined?
A: I could say it may have been caused by the passage of a single projectile, however, I could not substantiate this form technical knowledge, and, therefore, it is only a possibility.
Q: Did you determine any possibility or probability of its having been caused by more than one projectile having been fired in the back?
A: There was only one fired into the back that struck the coat and the shirt. I could not say whether the same object came out the front because this was a slit. I might say that the strength of the material in this shirt is such that you would normally get a slit vertical rather than horizontal in this area.
Q: Did this slit produce any characteristics that it had not been made by the exiting of a projectile?
A: No, sir.
Q: Now, as an expert, from what direction would you say that the bullet which entered the President's back came?
A: It came from the rear. As far as the angle of the direction, this would depend on the position of the President's body at the time he was shot, and I have no knowledge of that specific angle, however, the hole in the back was considerably higher than the hole in the front, I would say 20 to 30 degree downward angle.
Q: Mr. Frazier, could you demonstrate to the Jury why you say that the position of the body of the President would have a bearing upon the bearing of the entrance of this bullet?
A: Normally, angles of entrance are stated with reference to the ground or horizontal plane. Whereas a person's body is free to move with reference to that plane, and any movement forward or back in the fashion of bending over, dipping to the right or left, would affect the angle with reference to the ground and would not, of course, affect the angle with reference to the axis of the individual.
Q: From your observation of the Zapruder film were you able to determine the exact time the President was hit in the back?
A: Not in the coat, no, only in the head.
Q: Only in head?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Would that be the reason for not being able to determine the exact position of his body when he was hit in the back?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Frazier, did you have occasion to examine the coat of Governor Connally?
A: I did.
Q: Would you tell us what, if anything, you found as a result of this examination?
A: I found two holes in the coat, one of which was located in the back near the seam where the right sleeve attaches to the coat and the other was located in the front of the coat in the right chest area. This coat had been cleaned and pressed when I examined it and I could arrive at no conclusions concerning whether or not these holes were bullet holes and if so the direction of travel.
Q: The coat had been cleaned and pressed before you examined it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: With respect to the position of these holes, that is the location of these holes and the area or position in the car where the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting during the reenactment, as an expert, did you find anything inconsistent with the possibility that the same bullet which went through President Kennedy also penetrated Governor Connally?
MR. OSER: I am going to object to this question, to anything this witness might testify to because it necessarily would be as a result of hearsay because this witness testified the purposes of the reenactment was to find out what could have happened as a result of what the Warren Commission told him as to what the witnesses testified to before the Warren Commission and, therefore, it is based on hearsay.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, this witness has testified he has seen the Zapruder film. If he has seen the Zapruder film, certainly he knows the relative position in the automobile of Governor Connally and President Kennedy. Experts have been able to testify throughout this trial on positioning in that Zapruder film and that is the only question we are interested in here.
MR. OSER: Will your Honor hear the State once more?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. OSER: This witness already testified he has no technical knowledge in this area and we don't know how much of the Zapruder he had seen, but certainly he is not a photographic expert and everything he is testifying to here is based on hearsay because he said the Warren Commission told him what they testified to, and that is obviously is hearsay.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
MR. DYMOND: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: I would like to have it repeated.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Based upon your knowledge -- Mister, would you please read the question back?
(Whereupon, the question was read back by the Reporter.)
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Frazier --
THE COURT: It's such a long question and such a short answer, I think you better repeat the question. The witness understood the question, but --
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, as an expert, what were your reasons for arriving at that conclusion?
MR. OSER: I am going to object to this as this is again based on hearsay.
THE COURT: I overrule your objection.
THE WITNESS: Based on my examination of the Presidential limousine and the location of the individuals in it as shown in the film, the Governor's body or person was located nearer the center of the car than the President. The President was sitting out actually with his arm on the side rail of the car as shown in the film. The Governor was spaced inward several inches from the door. Therefore, the angle at which a bullet fired from above and to the right would strike the President, pass through his body, was such that it could have also entered the Governor's body at the place where there was a hole located in his coat.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Frazier, did you also have occasion to examine the shirt of Governor Connally?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Would you tell us what you found as a result of this examination?
A: I found a hole located in the back of the shirt which is a slightly elongated hole, that is, not a regular round hole, generally corresponding in the area to the hole in the back of his coat. In the front of this shirt there was an irregular tear in the material, being an egg-shaped hole very irregular in nature.
Q: Had this garment been laundered before you had an opportunity to examine it?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you able to determine anything from the fibers of that garment if you made such an examination?
A: No, sir.
Q: Mr. Frazier, does laundering or dry-cleaning essentially remove the characteristics from which a ballistic expert can determine from the fibers of materials a point of entrance or exit?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you have occasion to examine the sleeves of the coat and the shirt of Governor Connally?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Did you learn anything unusual as a result of this examination?
A: On the sleeve of the coat I found a hole irregular in shape in the top position of the right sleeve near the inside or edge of the sleeve penetrating both the outside layer, the lining, and the inside layer of the sleeve, and a similar damage was present in the cuffs of the Governor's shirt, which, as I recall, was French cuffs that had four layers of material, and all four layers were torn by the passage of some projectile. I could make no conclusions as to whether or not this damage was caused by a bullet or some other object.
Q: Based upon your studies of the Zapruder film and your studies of the relative positions of the occupants of the Presidential limousine, did you find anything incon- sistent with the holes in the cuffs of Governor Connally's coat and shirt having been made by one and the same projectile which penetrated his body?
A: No, sir.
Q: However, I take it, you cannot testify this is a fact because of not being able to determine the entrance and exit points because of the laundering of the materials?
A: That is correct, yes.
Q: Did you have occasion to examine the trousers of Governor Connally?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: What, if anything, did you determine by that examination?
A: I found in the trousers at the left knee area a hole which is roughly circular in shape approximately one-quarter inch in diameter. There was a slight elongation, possibly due to tearing of the cloth and this particular hole did not have any characteristics which would permit to determine whether or not it was caused by the passage of a bullet, and, if so, whether it was an entrance or exit hole.
Q: Had this garment also been laundered or dry-cleaned before you examined it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Based upon your study and knowledge of the relative positioning of the occupants of this limousine, Mr. Frazier, and with particular reference to the hole in the trousers of Governor Connally, if this wound or this hole had been inflicted by a gun fired from in front of the automobile would it or would it not have had to penetrate the windshield of the automobile?
A: It would have had to either penetrate the windshield or metal portion of the car, and in addition the back of the front seat of the car.
Q: Did you find any evidence of such penetration?
A: No, sir, there was none.
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, the -- with reference to the rifle which was examined by you, and the live ammunition that was turned over to you, that is, one round of live ammunition, could you tell me, as an expert, what would be the approximate speed of the projectile of that live round of ammunition if fired from the rifle you examined?
A: The velocity at the muzzle would be in the neighborhood of 1,965 feet per second. This velocity can vary as much as 50 feet per second, I would say closer to 40 feet per second, in either direction from this average. However, I tested ammunition similar to this, made by the same company, and it did average 1,965 feet per second at the muzzle.
Q: Now, to what extent would this peed diminish over a distance, say, of 265 feet?
A: A rule-of-thumb estimate would give you a decrease in velocity of 265, that is, it reduces approximately one foot per second in velocity for each foot traveled.
Q: So that at the end of 265 feet, it would be going approximately how fast?
A: The actual figures which I have calculated on that I do not have with me, but generally speaking it would be traveling 1,800 feet per second.
Q: How would that compare with the speed of sound?
A: Above the neighborhood of sound which is in the neighborhood of 1,100 feet per second.
Q: Are there any particular acoustical characteristics of a high velocity bullet, that is, one that travels faster than the speed of sound?
A: Yes, sir.
MR. OSER: I am going to object unless he can testify to what area Mr. Dymond is talking about because in different areas there are different indications.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, this witness is subject to cross-examination.
THE COURT: What was your question?
MR. DYMOND: I wanted to know whether there are any particular acoustical characteristics of a high-speed projectile that travels faster than sound, and, if so, what they are.
THE COURT: I will permit it.
MR. DYMOND: He has been qualified as an expert in ballistics.
THE COURT: I overruled it, Mr. Dymond.
A: Yes, sir. These characteristics are that when a person is standing in front, in the general area in front of a firearm which fires a bullet faster than the speed of sound, that they will hear the report, or a sound wave, a sonic boom from the bullet itself prior to the time they will hear the report since the bullet creates a sonic boom which reaches the ear of the person before the explosion of the gun powder and muzzle blast reaches them. The speed of sound travels at about 1,100 feet per second, so it would require one second to travel 1,100 feet, whereas a person standing at 1,100 feet would hear the report of the bullet as it went over and one second or a fraction of a second later they would hear the sound of the report of the weapon.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Would you liken this to the sonic boom made by a jet plane traveling faster than sound?
MR. OSER: I object, as he is not an aeronautical engineer, he is a ballistics expert.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: It is the same process in physics in that you hear a sonic report from the object traveling faster than the speed of sound.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Frazier, as an expert, would you say that this sonic noise is easily distinguishable from the noise made by the explosion of the cartridge or can they be confused?
A: They are very easily confused unless you are particularly listening for it at the time and you are in addition familiar with what they sound like and have heard it repeatedly before.
Q: Mr. Frazier, you have testified that you found damage to the interior of the windshield of the Presidential vehicle, is that correct, sir?
A: Yes, sir, no, the damage was to the exterior as there was a lead smear on the interior.
Q: As I understand, you examined this area of damage.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you concluded that this damaged area had been caused by what, sir?
A: By a lead projectile striking the windshield on the inside surface.
Q: Now, is there any explanation as to why a lead projectile from a Mannlicher-Carcano --
MR. OSER: There is no testimony that this piece of lead came from a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano.
THE COURT: The objection is well taken. I don't believe the expert can tell you where the lead came from.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, let me examine him on that right now.
THE COURT: O.K.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: How many fragments did you find in the automobile, Mr. Frazier?
A: I found three lead fragments.
Q: Three lead fragments. Did you perform any tests on these lead fragments for the purpose of determining what gun these had come from?
A: No, sir, these lead fragments do not possess any barrel markings and it would not be possible to determine that.
THE COURT: May I interrupt you a second. I remember his testimony about the lead fragments to the extent that he said they were similar in composition to what was found under the drop seat, but at no time did he say where they came from.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Let me give you a hypothetical question on this: If a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter rifle were fired from a distance of 265 feet, would it ordinarily penetrate an automobile windshield?
A: Yes, it would.
MR. OSER: I am going to object to the hypothetical question by Defense Counsel because the hypothetical question contains facts that have not been testified to. He said, "If a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle had been fired from 265 feet," and there was no testimony to that effect.
MR. DYMOND: I asked a hypothetical question.
MR. OSER: A hypothetical question must contain facts brought out during the trial and these facts have not been proven.
THE COURT: I will permit the question.
MR. DYMOND: Would you read the question, please, Mr. Neyrey?
(Whereupon, the question was read back by the Reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Yes, it would.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: If upon hitting such a windshield it would not penetrate that windshield, what, if any, explanation could you give as a reason for that?
A: The velocity of the projectile had dropped very drastically to the point that it would not even break the glass on the inside surface. Some object, it must have passed through some object, ricocheted through some object or in some other way slowed its velocity.
Q: Would its having gone through the skull of a normal individual be consistent with its having lost velocity to that extent?
A: I think so, yes.
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, you actually stood in the window of the sixth floor Depository window in Dallas and observed the spot where from the Zapruder film the Presidential vehicle was located in Frame 313 of the film?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: As an expert in ballistics, would you say that it was a difficult shot from the window of that Depository to that location in trying to hit a human being?
A: Are you assuming the use of the rifle examined in the laboratory?
Q: That is correct.
A: It would not be a difficult shot with this rifle mounted with a four-power telescopic sight.
Q: Now we have mentioned the distance at 265 feet and what effect of the use of the type of telescopic sight which you found on that rifle have upon the ease or difficulty of that shot?
A: The effect of the telescopic sight would be to cut the distance by three-quarters, that is, the effective target size would be the same as if you were shooting at one-fourth that distance, a little over 80 feet, therefore making it easier to line up the cross hairs of the telescopic sight on the target because in addition with this rifle it is only necessary to pull the trigger while the cross hairs are lined up on the target and you do not have to bring them together, you don't have to line up two separate sights but only the cross hairs on the target and therefore, in my opinion, it would be a relatively easy shot, slightly complicated, however, if the target were moving at the time, it would make it a little more difficult.
Q: During the course of your entire examination, Mr. Frazier, as an expert, did you find anything inconsistent with all the shots having been fired from the right rear of the Presidential vehicle and from the sixth floor Depository window?
MR. OSER: Your Honor, I am going to object because this man is not qualified in the field of photography or as a photographic expert and the testimony would be the result of a photograph expert which he is not qualified to express.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
A: No, sir, there was nothing inconsistent that I found to preclude or indicate that the shots came from anywhere except above and beyond.
THE COURT: Mr. Frazier, what you are testifying to wouldn't the shooter, whomever would have the gun, say when shooting ducks, don't you have to lead with the crosshairs if a vehicle were moving at 12 miles an hour?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, he would have to lead a vehicle moving at 12 miles an hour and to shoot approximately six inches over his target so that by the time the bullet reached the target it and the vehicle would be at the same place.
THE COURT: Wouldn't he have to be proficient in shooting firearms in knowing how much to lead?
THE WITNESS: In my opinion, 12 miles an hour wouldn't require too much proficiency in estimating lead. I think, and in fact I would have taken very little consideration in my own position.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: While on that subject, Mr. Frazier, from the sixth floor Depository window, with the
reenactment vehicle moving along Elm Street, as the Presidential vehicle was shown in
the Zapruder film, was this 12 miles an hour movement laterally or partially going away from the sixth floor?
A: It was largely going away from the window.
Q: Would that make it an easier or more difficult shot than had it been completely lateral movement?
A: It would make it considerably easier, it would have cut the lead from two feet from a lateral target to approximately six inches.
Q: From all of the evidence you have viewed, Mr. Frazier, and everything you have examined, did you find any evidence within your field that would indicate that the shots at the Presidential vehicle came from any place other than the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository?
A: No, sir.
MR. DYMOND: We tender the witness.