(AFTER THE RECESS.)
THE COURT: Is the State ready?
MR. OSER: We are ready, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is the Defense ready?
MR. DYMOND: The Defense is ready, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: How long have you been an F.B.I. Agent?
A: Approximately 26 years.
Q: Approximately how many scenes of crimes have you investigated for the F.B.I. during that period?
A: Very few. Three or four.
Q: Have you assisted State authorities in investigating scenes of crimes?
A: No, sir.
Q: At the time you investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, can you tell us whether or not that was a Federal offense the killing of a president at that time?
MR. DYMOND: We object. We don't see the relevancy of this at all.
THE COURT: What is the objection?
MR. DYMOND: We object on the grounds of relevancy.
THE COURT: Everyone knows it was a State offense and it is now a Federal offense. That is a matter of law.
MR. OSER: I'm trying to ascertain how the evidence got out of the State of Texas where the offense occurred and into Washington.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Can you tell me what State official of Texas ordered the removal of the evidence from the scene of this homicide to Washington, if you know?
MR. DYMOND: That is quite irrelevant, and we object.
THE COURT: What is the relevancy of this with respect to an expert on ballistics?
MR. ALCOCK: There is the matter of the chain of evidence, and it would be --
MR. DYMOND: It has nothing to do with ballistics, and this witness is an expert on ballistics.
MR. ALCOCK: Certainly it does. Whose hands did it pass through? Certainly the element of the chain of evidence is important in that area. The State has the right to examine the evidence of chain since Mr. Dymond has asked the witness about material and objects that were in Dallas on the 22nd of November, and on which he performed tests later on in Washington, D.C.
MR. DYMOND: I think if the State wants to come out and charge the Federal Government with fraud they ought to say so. I don't think this has any relevancy at all to the testimony of a ballistics expert who is testifying as to the results of certain tests performed by him. THE COURT: My ruling yesterday with respect to Mr. Frazier's testimony was that I did not permit him to testify that what was given to him was the gun but that he made tests on a gun. Do you recall that was my ruling yesterday?
MR. ALCOCK: I also recall he was able to testify as to the ownership of the coats and shirts as being the coat and shirt of President Kennedy and the presidential limousine.
MR. DYMOND: First of all there was no objection by the State to that. It is in the record. If a foundation had to be laid perhaps we could have laid it and perhaps we could not. However, that was the time to object to it.
THE COURT: I sustained the objection.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Do you know when the President's limousine got called back to Washington, D.C.?
A: No, not definitely.
Q: When did you first see the car?
A: Approximately 1:40 a.m. on November 23, 1963.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not the Presidential limousine, while it was at Parkland Hospital, was under guard the entire time?
A: I don't know.
Q: In your part of the investigation, Mr. Frazier, did you have at your disposal the various reports of the F.B.I. regarding the assassination? Did you consider all the evidence?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did you attempt to get all the F.B.I. reports involving what may or may not have happened after the particular time or what may or may not have happened at Parkland Hospital, and what may or may not have happened in regard to various pieces of evidence that were found in Dealey Plaza?
THE COURT: You have asked about five questions in one. Break it down, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you make an attempt to obtain any F.B.I. reports regarding the Presidential
limousine while it was in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963?
MR. DYMOND: Objection. Our objection is that it has not been established yet that any such reports were then in existence. I think before he asks this witness whether he attempted to get reports it should be first determined whether there were any reports in existence at that time, which I doubt, the day after the assassination.
THE COURT: Mr. Oser, your question assumes there were reports. Can you preface your question by asking Mr. Frazier whether there were any reports?
MR. OSER: I asked him if he attempted to obtain any of these reports, if there were any.
MR. DYMOND: That was not the question. We do not object to the question in that form.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you attempt to obtain any F.B.I. reports regarding the Presidential limousine
while it was in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963?
MR. DYMOND: Objection, that is not the question which Mr. Oser said he would ask.
THE COURT: Will you rephrase your question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you attempt to obtain any F.B.I. reports which may have been written at the time
you conducted your investigation in regard to the Presidential limousine in Dallas,
Texas, on November 22, 1963?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Are you familiar with the -- with a supplemental F.B.I. report filed on January 13, 1964, regarding the Presidential limousine and disclosing there was a dented area in the --
MR. DYMOND: We object to Counsel stating what an F.B.I. report discloses. This amounts to Counsel testifying.
THE COURT: If it is a prior contradictory statement I will permit it. You cannot read from a report.
MR. OSER: The witness is under cross-examination. He has testified about this complete and exhaustive examination he did, and I want to know if he found a dent in the chrome above the windshield.
THE COURT: Ask him that instead of reading the report.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: You examined the car, didn't you, Mr. Frazier, the President's car?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did you find any dent in the chrome area above the windshield?
A: Yes, there was.
Q: You didn't refer to this on Direct Examination, you referred to the windshield.
A: Only indirectly, when he asked me if I found any other bullet impact areas and I said that I found none that I could identify as such.
Q: You don't know whether any other members of the F.B.I. Ballistics Department made a determination about this area that it would have been caused by bullet fragments, do you?
A: I was aware of the F.B.I. firearm and ballistic examinations.
Q: Were you familiar with such a report of January 13, 1964?
MR. DYMOND: If he has the report I ask that it be submitted to Mr. Frazier.
THE COURT: He has stated that he was familiar with all the reports, as I understand it.
MR. DYMOND: He's being asked now whether he was familiar with the report of a certain date, which I think is an unfair question. If Counsel has a report I ask it be shown to the witness and he be asked if he is familiar with it.
THE COURT: I cannot tell the State how to run their case, nor can I tell you how to run yours, Mr. Dymond. You may proceed, Mr. Oser. Ask him if he is familiar with the report.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Are you familiar with the report I am speaking about?
A: I don't recall any reports by date.
Q: Were you the only ballistics expert from the F.B.I. involved in the investigation of President Kennedy's death?
A: No, sir, there were two others.
Q: Who were they?
A: Cortlandt Cunningham and Charles Killion.
Q: In examining the car did you have occasion to take the measurements of the jump seats and the rear seat area of the President's car?
A: I don't recall that I did.
Q: You are not able to state how far in front of the rear seat were the jump seats in the President's car?
A: I don't recall taking that measurement or testifying concerning it.
Q: I believe you testified, Mr. Frazier, the Presidential limousine was not used in the reconstruction, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why?
A: I don't know why of my own knowledge. I understand it was being reconstructed and refurbished inside.
Q: You all didn't perform a reconstruction until May 24, 1964, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir, that is correct.
Q: Which is some five or six months after the date of the shooting, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you tell me which car did you all use for the reconstruction?
A: We used a Cadillac limousine.
Q: Can you tell me whether or not the measurements of the Cadillac limousine corresponded to the Presidential limousine in regard to the jump seats and the rear seat?
A: It is my impression they did not correspond exactly to the measurements either in height -- well, I don't know about the lateral displacement.
Q: As an expert in the field of ballistics, can you tell me why you didn't call for the Presidential limousine to be used in your reconstruction which would have been the best piece of evidence to be used at that time?
MR. DYMOND: I object to Counsel passing upon the quality of evidence.
THE COURT: He doesn't know why the original car wasn't used.
MR. OSER: I am asking why he didn't call for the original car to be brought to Dallas, Texas, for the May 24, 1964 reconstruction.
MR. DYMOND: I object to Counsel labeling that car as the best evidence.
MR. OSER: I will ask him why he didn't call for the limousine the President was in at the time he was shot to be brought to Dallas on May 24, 1964 for his reconstruction.
THE COURT: Did you have authority to make such a request, Mr. Frazier?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: Let us go to another subject.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: For anything that you may have needed in your reconstruction you had to go to someone higher up to get permission to use it, is that so?
A: No, sir, that is not quite right. This reconstruction was handled in its entirety by members of the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. All facts, details, and the entire reconstruction was in their care and they handled it the way they specified and desired. I was there merely as a consultant to the President's Commission.
Q: You were merely carrying out the directions of what the Warren Commission wanted and you conducted your tests according to that, is that what you are saying?
A: Generally speaking, yes.
Q: During your reconstruction, Mr. Frazier, can you tell us whether or not you had available to you, and did you use, any FBI reports of an interview with Mr. and Mrs. William Newman?
A: I don't recall any reports I saw. Are you speaking of Field Office reports or Laboratory reports?
Q: I am speaking of any reports containing an interview with Mr. and Mrs. Newman.
THE COURT: He told you he didn't recall any reports he saw. If he didn't recall any, then he didn't recall that particular one, obviously.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you see at any time any statements made by any of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963?
A: Are you speaking of any reports or did I talk to any witnesses?
Q: First, I am asking you if you saw any statements alleged to have been made by any of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963?
A: I don't recall.
Q: I believe you testified the people that were used in the reconstruction were placed in their relative positions by the Warren Commission, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir, according to the Zapruder film and other films.
Q: Did you place them?
A: No, but I was present at that reconstruction.
Q: You were in the sixth floor window, were you not, of the Texas School Depository Building?
A: During the time the reconstruction was run I was in that window. However, I was at other places at other times.
Q: How much of the Zapruder film did you see?
A: All of it.
Q: What type of examination did you make of the Zapruder film?
A: I made three examinations of it. I saw the film run several times at normal speed through a normal projector. I then examined the film generally, that is, I looked at each frame in the film, frame by frame. Then I examined enlargements which had been made of this film of each frame of the film. In that regard I concentrated mostly on particular frames which had been selected by the President's Commission.
Q: Am I correct in stating you did testify in front of the Warren Commission?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you recall testifying in front of the Warren Commission and making a statement to them, "I have not made a very thorough study of the Zapruder film"?
A: That's right, I didn't consider my study of the Zapruder film a thorough study.
Q: You said you had occasion to measure President Kennedy's coat and his shirt, is that right, sir?
A: No, sir, I did not make any measurement of his coat or shirt. I made a measurement of a hole appearing in the back of these items and a hole appearing in the front of the shirt.
MR. OSER: May I show this to Defense Counsel on the other side of the bar?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, at this time the State wishes to display to the witness exhibits that are fairly large.
THE COURT: I can't hear.
MR. OSER: The State wishes to display to the witness certain exhibits that are fairly large at this particular time.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: To which we object. I think the Jury should be excused during this argument.
THE COURT: Sheriff, would you mind taking the Jury out.
(Whereupon, at this time the Jury was taken out of the courtroom.)
THE COURT: What is it you have there, Mr. Oser?
MR. OSER: I show the witness what the State marks as "S-61," and ask him if he would view this exhibit.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I ask you whether or not you are familiar with what is depicted in that exhibit.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: To which we object on the grounds that this is a picture of a picture, as I understand it, and Mr. Oser can correct me if I am wrong, it is a picture of a picture out of the Warren Commission section on exhibits. If you are going to put part of the Warren Commission in, we ought to put it all in. We cannot pick out a picture here and a picture there and claim it is admissible. This is a picture for which no foundation has been laid other than the fact the witness may be familiar with the coat which is --
THE COURT: If the witness can identify the picture I will permit him to be examined on the photograph. I will permit the question. I am not letting the Warren Commission Report come in in any way.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Are you familiar or can you recognize what is depicted in this exhibit?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: You have to trace the history of the picture. You cannot merely ask him if he recognizes --
THE COURT: All I want to know is if the witness can recognize it. If he can, he can be examined on it.
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: I think the witness should be instructed he has to recognize the contents of the picture and not the exhibit number which is shown on the bottom of the picture.
THE COURT: Do you recognize the picture without knowing what exhibit number it may or may not be?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, I do not. I could not recognize the objects shown, nor have I seen this exhibit before. As to whether it portrays something I saw before, it is beyond my knowledge at this time. I wouldn't say this is an accurate reproduction of any photograph I ever saw.
THE COURT: When you were making your ballistic tests on the coat which you have described as President Kennedy's coat and Governor Connally's coat, from that photograph would you say that is similar? Does that photograph represent a similar coat to the one you examined?
THE WITNESS: I think I could go that far; it is generally similar, yes, sir.
THE COURT: If the photograph is offered as being similar to the coat, then I will admit it.
MR. DYMOND: All coats are similar.
THE COURT: Let us see the rest of the pictures at this time so we don't have to bring the Jury in and out.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I show you what the State marks for identification as "S-62," and ask you if you can recognize what is depicted on this photograph and whether it is similar to the shirt and tie you have testified to as having examined on direct examination?
A: It is generally similar to the items which I examined, yes, sir.
Q: I show you what the State marks as "S-63" for purposes of identification and ask you if you can identify what is depicted in that photograph as being similar to the type of pellet you examined during your investigation and to which you testified on direct examination in reference to Commission Exhibit 399?
A: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: You have given them a number but you have not marked them.
MR. OSER: That was 63.
THE COURT: This is 64 coming up?
MR. OSER: Yes, sir.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I now show you what the State marks as "S-64" for purposes of identification. I ask
you if you can recognize what is depicted in that exhibit as being similar to the reconstruction, or part of the reconstruction you participated in on or about May 24, 1964?
A: I don't recall that situation at all. I don't recall seeing that photograph.
MR. DYMOND: May I see that, Mr. Oser?
THE WITNESS: I would say that represents generally the situation that existed, but the angle of the dotted line across the photograph is entirely out of proportion to what actually existed.
THE COURT: What you could say is that it is similar and generally represents, aside from the dotted line, it generally represents the reenactment?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I could be incorrect in this, but I don't think so, and I will ask Mr. Oser to tell me if I am wrong, but I would think the line is the primary purpose for the use of that picture.
MR. OSER: No, it is not.
THE COURT: Don't say what the purpose is.
MR. OSER: I am not going to, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The witness cannot agree or disagree with what the purpose is.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I show you what the State now marks as "S-65" for the purpose of identification, and ask you if you are familiar with what is contained in this exhibit with anything you
have seen before?
A: I have seen a bullet similar to that before, yes.
THE COURT: I understand the legal situation, you wanted to go into this out of the presence of the Jury so they would not see the photographs. I understand the State now wishes to bring the Jury back and examine the witness and make an offer of "S-61, 62, 63, 64, and 65," as being similar, and the witness has so stated they generally represent the objects and they are similar.
MR. OSER: Similar, that is right, Your Honor.
THE COURT: With that understanding, I will admit those as being similar. You may make your objection at the proper time, Mr. Dymond.
MR. DYMOND: As to which ruling we object at this time on the ground the proper foundation has not been laid for these exhibits and the statement by the Court that they are similar --
THE COURT: I cannot hear you.
MR. DYMOND: And the statement by the Court that they are merely similar is not sufficient ground for the introduction or use in evidence, making the offer, testi- mony and record up to this time, together with the Exhibits S-61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 and the ruling of the Court all part of the bill.
THE COURT: You will have to renew your objection in the presence of the Jury. Bring the Jury back.
(Whereupon, the Jury was escorted back into the courtroom.)
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Oser.
MR. DYMOND: We at this time would like to renew our bill in the presence of the Jury, with all of the component parts which I have set forth previously.
THE COURT: You will have to do it in the presence of the Jury over again, Mr. Oser.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: You have testified you conducted various measurements involving President Kennedy's coat concerning a hole in his coat, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I show you what the State marks for the purposes of identification as "S-61" and ask you to view this exhibit, and tell me whether or not you have ever seen this exhibit before, and if this exhibit shows a coat which is similar to the coat you examined during your investigation, and about which you have testified, sir?
A: No, I have not seen this exhibit before today. However, it appears to represent a coat similar to the one which I examined.
MR. OSER: At this time the State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence that which is marked for the purposes of identification as "S-61," being a coat similar to the type examined by Mr. Frazier.
MR. DYMOND: To which offer we object on the ground that proper foundation has not been laid and the mere similarity is not sufficient to permit it to be introduced and used in evidence.
THE COURT: I will admit it as being similar to the object it purports to be.
MR. DYMOND: To which we object, making the entire testimony up to this time, the offer, S-61, together with the ruling of the Court and the reasons for the objection part of the bill.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I believe you also testified you had occasion to examine the shirt and the tie of
President Kennedy with respect to certain holes and tears in these particular items, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I show you what has been marked as S-62 for the purposes of identification, and ask you whether or not you can tell the Court what is depicted in this particular exhibit is similar to the shirt and tie which you examined during your investigation, sir? A: Yes, it is similar?
MR. OSER: At this time the State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence that which is marked for the purposes of identification as S-62 as being similar.
MR. DYMOND: Same objection for the same reasons, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The ruling is the same.
MR. DYMOND: Same bill except the exhibit number will be different.
(Whereupon, the document offered by counsel was received into evidence.)
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Mr. Frazier, I think you also testified a reconstruction was performed in which two
men or two stand-ins were used for the President and Governor Connally in the car you photographed, is that correct, sir?
A: No, that is not, sir. I didn't take the photographs.
Q: While you were on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository did you have any occasion to view a car that was proceeding in the direction the Presidential limousine was proceeding on November 22, containing two people in the relative positions that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were on that particular day?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I show you what the State marks for the purposes of identification as S-63, and I ask you whether or not what is depicted in this photograph is similar to what you have seen during the reconstruction that you assisted in performing?
A: I would say the individuals are similar, I don't recall the dotted line across the photograph as being in the proper plane with reference to the horizontal, if the photograph itself was taken with a horizontal line along the bottom of the photograph. Other than that it is similar.
MR. OSER: At this time the State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence that which is marked as S-63 for the purposes of identification.
MR. DYMOND: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Same ruling.
MR. DYMOND: Same bill of exception except the exhibit number will be different.
(Whereupon, the document offered by counsel was received into evidence.)
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, referring to State Exhibit 61, the one on the far right, I ask you
can you tell us how or whether or not that picture of that coat is dissimilar to the
coat you examined?
A: The photograph doesn't show the detail which was observed at the time of the examination since this shows some printing process as being a copy of a photograph or a copy of a copy of a photograph. I can't tell, it may even be from a magazine article, since this is a picture that shows the printing process and not the details of the coat. But generally speaking, it represents the coat.
Q: With regard to State Exhibit 61, can you point out for us on that particular visit using the coat depicted in that exhibit the location where you found the hole measureing, as you testified, 5-3/8 inches down from the collar and 1-3/4 inches to the right of the mid-line of the coat?
A: No, sir, that coat doesn't show the full collar and it would not be possible to point out the hole.
Q: Can you give us the 1-3/4 inches to the right of the mid-line approximately?
A: No, sir, the mid-line isn't shown in the photograph, therefore I cannot locate the hole for you.
Q: You cannot approximate it for me, Mr. Frazier?
A: There is no reference point in this photograph.
Q: I show you what appears to be a white line on this particular exhibit, and I'm pointing to the top part of the end of this white line, and ask you whether or not that would not be the approximate location of the hole that you found in President Kennedy's coat?
A: There is no way for me to determine that since neither the collar from which I took one measurement is shown nor is the mid-line shown from which I took the other measurement.
Q: You cannot approximate the location?
A: No, sir.
Q: The point I am pointing to now, do you say you cannot find the hole there?
A: Are you referring to the top of the right shoulder?
Q: That is correct.
A: No, sir, I cannot.
Q: Referring to the shirt, can you tell us the measurements with regard to the hole in the back of the shirt?
A: 5-3/4 inches below the top of the collar in the back and approximately 1-1/8 inches to the right of the center of the shirt.
Q: Using State Exhibit 62, I direct your attention to the far right-hand quadrant, and ask you whether you can point out on this exhibit the approximate location of the hole you found in President Kennedy's shirt when you measured it and examined it?
A: No, sir, because the photograph doesn't represent the back of the collar sufficiently accurately to locate it, nor is the center line of the shirt shown. I can give you the approximate area but I couldn't point it out exactly.
Q: Would you give me the approximate area if you would, please?
A: There is no way to describe actually this area I am pointing out, except to measure it on photograph.
Q: Would you please with this pen circle the general area you have just described by pointing?
A: Yes, sir. (The witness drew a circle with the pen on the exhibit.)
Q: May I ask you to point it out with a red pencil? I think it may show it a little better.
A: (The witness drew a red circle on the exhibit.)
Q: With regard to the front part of the shirt which you examined, can you use State Exhibit 62, the lower right-hand quadrant, and point out there the approximate location of the slit or tear in the shirt as you found it when you examined it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you mark it with a pen, please?
A: (The witness marked it with a pen.)
Q: I also ask you in regard to the tie which you examined, and refer you to the lower left-hand quadrant of State Exhibit 62, and ask you whether or not you can point out the general area where you located the nick or tear in the President's tie when you examined it, and if you can will you circle that with a red pencil, please?
A: Yes, sir. (The witness circled it with a red pencil.)
Q: The hole as you found it in the coat, Mr. Frazier, was that a single hole through and through the coat?
A: Yes, sir, it was.
Q: Would your answer be the same as to the hole in the back of the shirt, being a single through and through hole in the garment?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you tell us, Mr. Frazier, during your reconstruction on May 24, 1964, whether or not the coat and the shirt were worn by the stand-in at the time you all were conducting this reconstruction?
A: Only the stand-in for the Governor who was at that time wearing the Governor's coat. The stand-in for the President was not wearing the President's coat.
Q: And the coat that the stand-in for the Governor was wearing had been worn by the Governor?
A: Yes, sir, that is correct.
Q: While you were conducting the reconstruction did you have occasion from your position at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository, using the telescopic sight, to have your attention drawn to the stand-in of the President by a mark on any particular thing?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was that?
A: While looking through the telescopic sight a person on the ground placed his finger against the back of the Presidential stand-in on a particular point. I lined up the telescopic sight on that point. This point was determined from the medical testimony. They placed a mark on the coat at that point and measured approximately 10 inches below that point, and placed another mark this time on the car which represented the spot with reference to the ground at which the bullet struck, since the Cadillac, that is the President's stand-in, was seated approximately 10 inches higher during the reconstruction in the Cadillac than the surveyor said he would have been riding in the Presidential limousine. Therefore they placed a mark to represent the actual bullet impact point on the car. This was true for both the President's stand-in and the Governor's stand-in.
Q: Can you describe the type of mark that was placed for us in relation to the President's stand-in?
A: I recall on the coat was a chalk mark and a piece of white tape on the car, if I remember correctly.
Q: Am I correct in saying that in regard to the stand-in for President Kennedy you were using the skin hole in President Kennedy's back as opposed to the coat hole, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: In regard to Governor Connally, you were using the coat hole and not the skin hole of Governor Connally in your reconstruction, is that correct?
A: That I don't know. I don't know whether they took that into consideration with reference to the Governor or not.
Q: In regard to the Governor, you were using the Governor's coat that he wore that day, presumably?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Frazier, can you tell us why the skin hole of the President, if I may call it that, was used in regard to the President's stand-in and the coat hole of the Governor was used?
A: I just testified I don't know if they used the coat hole of the Governor, therefore I can have no opinion as to this question. I know they used the hole determined by the distance below the mastoid and the distance the doctor said the hole occurred on the President's body to locate that hole. As far as the Governor is concerned, I don't know if they did that or not.
Q: Was there a mark on the back of the Governor's stand-in for you to view from the sixth floor?
A: Yes, there was.
Q: That particular mark that was placed on the Governor's stand-in, did that correspond to the hole in the jacket or coat the stand-in was wearing?
A: I couldn't tell from the sixth floor. I couldn't see that well.
Q: At any time did you have an occasion to make a close observation of these two stand-ins at any time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: At the time you had an occasion to view these gentlemen close up, did you see any mark on the back of the Governor's stand-in?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not it was in the approximate location of where the bullet hole or hole was in the back of the Governor's jacket?
A: No, I don't recall whether it was or not.
Q: Did you attempt to find out whether it was or not?
A: Did I?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: No, sir.
Q: In referring to State Exhibit 63, what I am now pointing to, can you tell us whether or not this appears to be similar to the scene as you saw it on that particular day during part of the reconstruction?
A: No, sir, it does not.
Q: What is dissimilar about it, sir?
A: In the photograph the President is approximately on the same level with the Governor, whereas during the reconstruction he was located slightly higher than the Governor. Secondly, the location of the white dot on the President's stand-in with the line through it is located too far down on the person. I don't recall whether or not there was a chalk circle on the Governor's stand-in's coat.
Q: When you viewed the Governor's stand-in through the telescopic sight, did you see any mark on this particular person?
A: Yes, sir, I did. I don't recall what type mark, whether it was a piece of white tape or chalk.
Q: Could it have been a piece of white tape or chalk mark on the coat?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Frazier, you testified on direct examination with regard to the Zapruder Frame 313, in answer to one of Mr. Dymond's questions, that you had a clear shot of the President at Frame 313 from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In referring to State Exhibit 36, this mock-up, I would ask you to step down and ask you whether or not you can recognize what this depicts. It is not made to scale. I ask you whether or not it is similar to any location you have seen before.
A: Yes, sir, I recognize the general scene.
Q: Can you tell us what that general scene depicts to you, sir what location in the United States?
A: The location of Dallas, Texas.
Q: Would that be a location commonly known as Dealey Plaza, sir?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In using State Exhibit 36, can you point out what location you were, or what window you were in when you were constructing your part of the reconstruction?
A: In the window just below the cornice and one floor down from the seventh floor, which would be the sixth floor window, the window on the corner nearest the adjacent building.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not on Frame 313 of the Zapruder film, if there was not a clear shot at the President's head or President's body from the top of the Records Building?
A: I was not on the Records Building, so I have no way to judge that.
Q: Did you have occasion to view the Records Building?
A: I don't know what the Records Building is.
Q: If I point to this particular building, this light gray or light blue building and ask you whether or not there was a clear shot of the Presidential limousine at Frame 313 from this location --
A: I couldn't tell you, I was never there.
Q: Do you recall any obstructions that would have prevented anyone having a clear shot at the Presidential limousine from that position?
A: Only a few trees along the pond or pool along the street there. I don't recall how high they were or where they were located.
Q: I also ask you whether or not in referring to the red building, which is next to the Texas School Book Depository in which you were, whether or not from this particular building, from the roof or top floor, whether or not there was a clear shot into the Presidential limousine at approximately Frame 313 of the Zapruder film?
A: I cannot answer that, since I was never in that building or on it.
Q: Do you recall any particular obstructions that would have prevented such a shot?
A: No, sir.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not there was a clear shot at the Presidential limousine at Frame 313 from the area of the grassy knoll, more specifically the picket fence area?
A: I don't know to what you are referring.
Q: I point on this particular plat to an area of Dealey Plaza containing a small building, and to the right of that particular building between the railroad tracks a small picket fence area on a rise higher than the ground level of the street, and ask you whether or not from that particular location there could have been a clear shot at the Presidential limousine at approximately Frame 313?
A: I can't answer that unless I had been over there and walked along that area.
Q: At any time during your investigation and reconstruction did you take any views or do any investigation in the area I have described, namely, the light blue colored building, the red building or the area of the picket fence?
A: No, sir.
Q: Mr. Frazier, can you tell us from the position you were in at the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, what the vertical angle, the angle from the window to the street area at Frame 313 was? Can you calculate that? If so, can you give me the approximate angulation downward?
A: As I recall it was approximately 17 degrees.
Q: Mr. Frazier, can you tell me if the Presidential limousine was in the position it was in at Frame 313, whether or not you all took a perpendicular line and drew that perpendicular through the Governor and through President Kennedy back up Elm Street, and then calculated the lateral angle from the sixth floor window down to the Presidential limousine at Frame 313?
A: I don't know what you mean when you refer to a perpendicular line.
Q: Assuming Mr. Dymond is the Governor and I am the President, would you say we are in relatively the same position? By that I mean I am in back of him. Did the Zapruder film show that to you, one behind the other?
A: No, sir, the Governor was sitting more to the left.
Q: Would you say basically we were one behind the other?
A: No, sir, I would say the Governor was sitting more to the left of the President, not completely in front of him but partway over.
Q: Then if you take a line, and using myself as the President, and drew a line straight through me, all the way back, and placing the car at Frame 313, and drew that line all the way back, did you calculate the lateral angle from the sixth floor window down to where that car was?
A: I don't know whether it was actually recorded or not. It was plotted on a plat which showed the horizontal angle.
Q: The horizontal angle?
A: That's right, between the axis of the car, but in that reference the axis created between the center of the President's body and the center of the Governor's body, it was not the same as the axis of the vehicle.
Q: Did you calculate it with regard to the skin hole in the President's back which you were using in your reconstruction, drawing a line through the skin hole in the President and back this way and calculate that angle down for the lateral angle?
A: I don't understand what you are talking about. The angle of the President in the car, the angle of the car in the street?
Q: You are at the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building looking down at this car which you are using in this reconstruction. As you are looking down at that car and the individual representing the President, when you saw this white spot or chalk mark or white tape on the back of the stand-in of the President, which represented the skin hole, did you take a straight line and draw it through that individual straight back and calculate how far to the right you were, by that I mean the lateral angle?
A: You mean the lateral angle of the axis of the automobile to the building?
Q: No. Did you all draw a line through there and calculate --
MR. DYMOND: I object. In order to have an angle you have to have two points, and he has not asked that.
THE COURT: I think the question was very confusing. I don't think the witness understands it. I don't understand what the question is either.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: How many lateral angles did you all measure?
A: As I recall the angles were plotted. I don't know whether they actually measured the angles or not. That was not part of my job.
Q: If they were measured you couldn't tell us at this time what those angles were?
A: That is correct.
Q: Mr. Frazier, directing your attention to State Exhibit 34, I ask you whether or not you can see this particular exhibit from where you are, sir?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I ask you whether or not you recognize what this is?
A: It represents the Dealey Plaza area in Dallas.
Q: Am I correct in pointing to a window in a building as being where you were at the time of the reconstruction on the sixth floor?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Are you familiar also with the fact the street that passes in front of the Texas School Book Depository is known as Elm Street and the street approaching the Texas School Book Depository is known as Houston?
A: One of the streets at the front of the depository was Elm Street. There is a very short dead-end street in front of the building.
Q: What about the street that is approaching the Texas School Book Depository, is that Houston?
A: I believe it was, yes, sir.
Q: From the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, were you familiar with the parade route the Presidential motorcade took that particular day?
A: Only a portion of it. That is, when they entered Houston and made the turn onto Elm and proceeded down under the underpass.
Q: Were you familiar with the fact that parade came down Houston towards the School Book Depository, turned onto Elm Street and went under the triple underpass, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: While you were in the Texas School Depository sixth floor window, can you tell us whether or not there was a clear shot into the Presidential limousine as the President approached?
A: There would have been, yes, sir.
Q: From your view from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us whether or not the view from that window down to Houston Street gave you a fuller view of the Presidential stand-in's body than it did looking down Elm Street as the car moved away from you?
A: I don't know whether it would or not.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not, sir, the reconstruction car drove down Houston Street towards the Texas School Book Depository and turned left onto Elm Street at any time you were in the sixth floor window?
A: No, sir, it did not.
Q: Do you have any opinion as to whether or not, having been there, having done this reconstruction, whether more of the President's body as seated in the Presidential limousine would have been exposed as the car came to the sixth floor window down Houston Street as opposed to going away from the sixth floor on Elm Street?
A: No, sir, I don't.
Q: Speaking of the examination of the gun, I believe you testified, Mr. Frazier, that the gun you examined was similar to this particular gun, is that correct?
A: Only in certain features. It is different in other features.
Q: I believe you said one of the differences was this gun was blued and the other gun was not.
A: No, sir, I said this gun appeared to be polished and blued, whereas the gun I examined had a rough surface.
Q: What about the color?
A: The stock is brown.
Q: What was the color of the gun you examined?
A: Black.
Q: I think you also made reference to the fact there was something different with regard to the telescopic sight of the particular gun I am holding in my hand, State Exhibit 18, as opposed to the gun you examined?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you describe what the difference was?
A: The mount of the telescopic sight on this exhibit has four screws in it, whereas the mount of the gun I examined only had two screws in it. It had in addition one hole which had not been used in the mount for which there was no hole in the gun. Secondly, this mount is located too far forward of the gun as compared with the mount of the gun I examined. With reference to the scope, it is moved too far to the rear. Those are about all the differences with regard to the telescope.
Q: The gun you examined, Mr. Frazier, when was the first time you saw that particular gun?
A: I don't recall the exact time. It was on the 23rd of November. I don't recall the exact time. I think it was about 7:00 o'clock in the morning of the 23rd of November, 1963.
Q: You do recall it was the next day after the assassination?
A: That's my recollection, yes.
Q: Mr. Frazier, can you tell me how the gun came into your possession from Dallas, Texas, the scene of the homicide, when Lee Harvey Oswald was still alive at this time?
A: No, sir, I can only tell you I received it from a field agent of the F.B.I.
Q: He was stationed at Dallas, is that right?
A: I don't know where he was stationed.
Q: But he was from the Dallas F.B.I. Office?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Since you conducted firing tests with the rifle you had, the first set of tests were shot at 45 feet, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How many men were shooting?
A: Three.
Q: What were those men's names?
A: Cortlandt Cunningham, Charles Killion and myself.
Q: I believe you testified the time to get off three shots at 45 feet distance was 5.9 seconds, is that right, sir?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How did you arrive at that figure?
A: Both Cunningham and Killion had stop watches. They began timing the firing from the sound of the first shot and ended it at the sound of the third shot. Their watches agreed.
Q: I take it each one of you shot at different times? Either you shot first, Cunningham second and Killion third, or something of that sort, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you conducted this test at 45 feet, how was the gun loaded? What did it have in it?
A: Three cartridges, two in the clip and one in the chamber.
Q: So before you started firing at 45 feet, Mr. Frazier, the gun you had had a clip in the rifle with two live cartridges and one cartridge in the chamber with the bolt closed, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Ready to fire?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In that time you began firing, you squeezed off the first short and got off three shots in 5.9 seconds?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who got off the shots in 5.9 seconds?
A: I did.
Q: What was Cunningham's speed?
A: Approximately 8 seconds.
Q: What was Mr. Killion's?
A: Approximately 9 seconds.
Q: Then you all moved to 75 feet away, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who shot then?
A: I did.
Q: Did anyone else shoot?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why not?
A: No particular reason that I can recall.
Q: When you shot at 45 feet, Mr. Frazier, or when the three of you shot at 45 feet, why didn't you take the average time between the three men of 9 seconds, 8 seconds and 5.9? A: I have never done that.
Q: You have not -- have never done that?
A: We only fired, each of us only fired three shots at 45 feet and we didn't average the times.
Q: You can't tell us why Cunningham or Killion didn't fire at 75 feet?
A: No, sir.
Q: Could it be because their time was way off at 9 seconds and 8 seconds at 45 feet?
A: No, sir. I don't know what the reason was.
Q: Those two agents that were firing with you at 45 feet, do they hold a rating of a ballistics expert in the F.B.I.?
A: Yes, they do.
Q: What were your two times at 75 feet?
A: 4.8 and 4.6.
Q: Then if I recall your testimony, you all moved outside to approximately 300 feet away, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who did the shooting outside?
A: I did.
Q: Killion and Cunningham didn't shoot outside?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why?
A: I don't know.
Q: What were your times outside, Mr. Frazier at 300 feet?
A: 5.9 seconds for one series of three shots. 6.2 seconds, 5.6 seconds and 6.5 seconds, all being a series of three shots.
Q: At the time that you all where conducting these various tests, who was the highest ranking agent at that particular time? Was it you, Mr. Cunningham or Agent Killion?
A: I don't understand what you mean by highest ranking.
Q: Were you over the other two agents? Could you order them what to do?
A: Could I tell them, instruct them what to do?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: No, sir.
Q: Could they order you what to do?
A: No, sir.
Q: In other words, you all were the same rank in the Bureau?
A: We all held the same position, special agent, firearms identification, F.B.I. Laboratory.
Q: What type of targets were you using?
A: At 45 feet we used a silhouette target. At 75 feet we made a round spot on the back of a paper target. At 300 feet we used black pasters forming a square, as I recall, on a white background.
Q: Will you tell me, I think you testified before the distance from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository to the approximate location of the President's car in frame 313, was 265 feet, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Why did you not use the distance of 265 feet as opposed to 300 feet?
A: I don't recall, except the Warren Commission asked us to conduct these tests at 100 yards or 300 feet. Their reasons for this I don't know.
Q: As an expert in this particular field, and as an investigating officer with all your years of experience, would you not have deemed it more reasonable to have shot the gun at 265 feet, the distance you measured from the Texas School Book Depository down to the President's car, rather than 300 feet?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why not?
A: All the shots were not fired at 265 feet, therefore it had no bearing on the situa- tion.
Q: Were any of them fired at 45 feet?
A: I don't know.
Q: Were any of them fired at 75 feet?
A: I don't know.
Q: Were any of them fired at a still target?
A: No, sir.
Q: Why did you all use a still target and not a moving target?
A: Because we were conducting accuracy and speed tests at the same time in order to determine how fast three aimed shots could be fired from this weapon, and recording that time.
Q: You were not interested in ascertaining whether or not someone on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository could have gotten off three shots with the alleged accuracy you talked about at a moving target at the respective distance?
A: That was not the purpose of our test, otherwise we would have fired at moving targets.
Q: But you didn't, did you?
A: No, sir, we did not.
THE COURT: Mr. Oser, I know you are on a second train of thought, but it is about two minutes after 12:00. I hate to interrupt at this moment, but I expect you will have more questions of Mr. Frazier.
MR. OSER: I surely will.
THE COURT: Then we will take a recess for lunch. Mr. Oser, will you need these exhibits in the same position they are in when we come back from lunch?
MR. OSER: I probably will, Your Honor. I don't know whether we will or not. I will say yes at this time.
THE COURT: Gentlemen, I must admonish you and instruct you not to discuss the case amongst yourselves or any other person until it is given to you for your decision and verdict.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, will you also instruct the witness he has a right to talk to the Defense Attorney and no one else during the recess.
MR. ALFRED: That includes the Government Attorneys.
THE COURT: He can certainly speak to his own attorney. I understand the Assistant U.S. Attorney is in Court, Mr. Oser. If he wants to converse with the witness, certainly he may.
MR. OSER: No objection to that.
THE COURT: Don't discuss your testimony with any other witness who has already testified or who will be called to testify. You may discuss it with the Defense Attorney or the U.S. Attorney.
(Whereupon, at 12:05 o'clock p.m., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 o'clock p.m.)