AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Are the State and Defense ready to proceed?
MR. OSER: The State is ready, Your Honor.
MR. DYMOND: The Defense is ready, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Mr. Frazier, these test firings you conducted, where were they conducted?
A: The first two were on the indoor range.
Q: Whereabouts in the United States?
A: In Washington, D.C., the first two tests, and the last test was in Quantico, Virginia, at the U.S. Marine School.
Q: The first two tests, was that in the FBI Firing Range in Washington, D.C.?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: From your examination and reconstruction, isn't it true you testified from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository down to the approximate location of where the limousine was in the Zapruder Film Frame 313, that was approximately 265 feet, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you tell me how far you were from the ground level on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
A: Approximately 60 feet. A little over 60 feet.
Q: While you were at the firing range, the indoor firing range, were you 60 feet above the target you were shooting at?
A: No, sir.
Q: How far were you above the target you were shooting at?
A: We were firing horizontally.
Q: Why weren't you 60 feet above the target which you were shooting at?
A: I conducted tests at Quantico, Virginia, at the request of the Commission.
Q: I am speaking about the two tests you had inside now. Why didn't you shoot at a 60- foot elevation?
A: That was not the purpose of the test.
Q: In other words, the Warren Commission didn't want to know this, is that right?
A: There was no Warren Commission at that time.
Q: The representative of the Warren Commission or the Federal Government didn't want to know it at that time?
MR. DYMOND: We object. How can the Federal Government want to know anything? The Federal Government is not a person.
THE COURT: Rephrase your question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: No one told you not to shoot at 60 feet?
A: No, sir.
Q: Then why didn't you?
A: I selected the ranges on the indoor range inside the building at Washington, D.C., for the purpose of firing time, rapid fire and accuracy tests with this rifle to determine at that point in this investigation whether or not three aimed shots could be fired from this rifle in a matter of six seconds. There was no other purpose for this firing, and it was done horizontally at 45 feet and 75 feet, because that is the position on the range where there are lights to illuminate the targets.
Q: You say you were trying to ascertain whether or not this rifle could fire within six seconds. Why the figure of six seconds?
A: According to information which had come to me from various sources I was asked to conduct this test to see if it could be fired in that length of time accurately.
Q: Am I correct in stating that only you of the three marksmen there could do this in six seconds?
A: I was the only one that fired 75 feet. I don't know if the others could or not.
Q: How about 45 feet?
A: My time was five and nine-tenths seconds at 45 feet.
Q: What was Mr. Cunningham's?
A: Approximately eight seconds.
Q: What was Mr. Killion's?
A: Nine seconds.
Q: Above six seconds. Eight and nine are above six, is that right?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Two marksmen firing at 45 feet couldn't shoot it at less than six seconds?
A: That is not so. Their tests were made to see if they could fire it accurately under those conditions. Their targets were primarily accuracy targets. However, they were timed to see how long it took.
Q: Didn't you say your purpose was to ascertain the time of firing and accuracy? Now you are telling me the only reason you were firing was because of accuracy. Which was it?
A: I didn't just tell you that. I said we fired these tests to determine whether we could fire this weapon three times in six seconds with aimed shots, that is for accuracy. The primary purpose was to determine the accuracy under rapid fire conditions.
Q: At the outdoor range was the target some 300 feet away?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was the elevation at that time off the ground?
A: I don't recall, but approximately three or four feet.
Q: Why didn't you set up a range where you would have been 60 feet off the ground if you were trying to simulate the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
A: We selected our conditions under the instructions of the President's Commission. They said fire the shots at a stationery target at a horizontal distance of 100 yards. Why they selected those values I don't know.
Q: At any time, Mr. Frazier, did you conduct any of these firing tests with this particular rifle in any close proximity to what is alleged to have happened on November 22, 1963? By that I mean, the elevation of approximately 60 feet off the ground at 265 feet downrange of a moving target?
A: No, sir.
Q: When you were testing this rifle at the indoor range and outdoor range, I believe you said one bullet was already in the chamber, two in the clip, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When did you start the timing? When was the time started and when was the time stopped?
A: The time was started at the time of the first shot and stopped at the sound of the last shot.
Q: May I have the rifle, please? Mr. Frazier, on the outdoor range I believe you said one bullet was in the chamber, two of them in the clip and the time was started at the sound of the first shot and stopped when?
A: At the sound of the last shot, the third shot.
Q: At that time I believe you said your times were 5.9 seconds, 6.2 seconds, and 5.6 seconds, am I correct in that?
A: Yes, sir, that is correct.
Q: Mr. Frazier, can you tell me whether or not those calculations of time took into consideration how long it took to draw the first bead?
A: They did not.
Q: So if it was calculated, sir, from the time it took you to take the first bead and then go all the way through to the last shot, the times would have been much more than 5.9, 6.2 and 5.6, am I right?
A: It would take somewhat more time to aim the first shot, yes, sir. How much I have no idea of knowing. You could take an hour to aim the first shot.
Q: An hour?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Therefore, as an expert in ballistics and a rifleman, would you say if someone was shooting from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, before that individual got the first shot off he had to take aim?
A: Not necessarily.
Q: He would if he had to hit a moving target.
A: That was not part of your question, sir.
Q: Then I add to it, to hit a moving target, whether or not he would have to take aim?
A: Yes, he would.
Q: Mr. Frazier, can you give me an approximation of time as to how long it took you on the 300 foot range to aim and then get off three shots?
A: I can give you no estimate because that was no part of our test. We paid no attention to the time required, since we were instructed to time the shots from the sound of the first shot and end it at the sound of the last shot. There was no point in recording an unknown aiming time before the test began.
Q: Did you not deem it important to ascertain exactly how long it took an individual to shoot from the sixth floor, including the aiming of the rifle and going all through three shots?
MR. DYMOND: We object on the ground Counsel is arguing with the witness at this time.
THE COURT: I think, Counsel, he has answered the question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I believe your answer was that the Warren Commission didn't want you to ascertain
this. They wanted you to ascertain from sound to sound, is that right, basically?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Frazier, in speaking of this particular gun, am I not correct in stating this particular gun doesn't contain one thing the gun you examined contained, and by that I mean the strap?
A: State that over again please.
Q: Did the gun you examined contain a sling strap or not?
A: Yes, it did.
Q: Can you describe the sling strap to us using the gun, approximately where it was attached?
A: The sling strap attachments on this rifle are not like those on the rifle I examined. It would be difficult to describe on this rifle. However, one was attached near the butt of the weapon and one near the front of the hand guard, approximately half-way between the chamber and the muzzle of the weapon.
Q: Now this gun that you examined containing this strap, would this help in any way in steadying the gun to make the shooting more accurate?
A: I would say yes, it would assist in accurate shooting of the rifle but not necessarily under rapid fire conditions.
Q: When you shot the rifle were you able to find this assisted you in your accuracy in shooting this particular rifle?
A: No, I didn't find that.
Q: Why was that, Mr. Frazier?
A: I found it difficult for me to use this sling, therefore, I didn't use it.
Q: Therefore, because you found this particular strap on the gun difficult to use it was of no benefit to you in using it when you shot this particular gun on the range, is that correct?
A: Yes, to the best of my recollection I never fired the rifle under rapid fire conditions using the sling. I never fired it at any time using the sling.
Q: When you were test firing the rifle, Mr. Frazier, on the 300 foot range, can you tell us how long it took you to get off the first two shots? In other words, the first shot, the reloading and the second shot?
A: Not exactly, no, I cannot. We did not time the two, the two-shot interval.
Q: Why not, sir?
A: I saw no purpose in it.
Q: Can you tell me approximately how fast you got off two shots on the 300-foot range? Let me correct that question and ask you if you can tell me approximately how long it took you to get off the first two shots on the 300-foot range?
A: I would say it would approximate half the total time, not exactly half, possibly, but in the neighborhood of three seconds.
Q: In the neighborhood of three seconds?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: If you took into consideration, Mr. Frazier, how long it took you to aim the first shot, how long would you say approximately it took you to get off the first two shots on the 300-foot range?
A: I couldn't estimate that. I don't know how long it took to aim the first shot.
Q: On Direct Examination, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Dymond was asking you some questions about the sounds or reports from a rifle, about sonic boom. Being a ballistics expert can you tell me whether or not the locality or the type of topographical area in which a rifle may be shot, would this cause the sound of a rifle to vary in any degree?
A: It can, yes.
Q: In other words, if I were out in a prairie, no trees, and I shot this rifle, would this sound from this rifle sound different from if I shot this rifle in the downtown of the City, say downtown New Orleans, where all the buildings are?
A: I would say the quality of the sound might change. There may be echoes from the buildings, but I still think you would hear the bullet report, that is the sonic report of the bullet and the muzzle report of the exploding gases, but there could be echoes off the buildings.
Q: In the reconstruction that you took part in, Mr. Frazier, was there any effort made on your part, or anybody present, to test any other originating point the rifle may have been shot from other than the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
A: I don't know.
Q: Did you test any other originating point from where the rifle may have been shot?
A: I didn't test any and I don't know anyone else did.
Q: Why didn't you test any other originating point other than the Texas School Book Depository Building?
A: I was not asked to.
Q: Mr. Frazier, when you test fired the rifle that you had at the time you did all your tests, can you tell us what the condition of the sight was, as to whether or not it was securely fastened to the rifle itself?
A: It was.
Q: Can you tell me what the condition of the sight was when you received the rifle as to whether or not it was securely fastened to the rifle itself?
A: It was not. The screws were loose.
Q: Because of the screws being loose, am I correct or safe in saying, the sight wobbled to some extent or moved?
A: Yes, when I received the weapon that is the situation.
Q: As an expert in the field of ballistics, the fact that a telescopic sight is on a rifle and in such a condition that it moves because it is not securely fastened, would this in any way affect the accuracy of the shooting of this rifle, sir?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In shooting this rifle, Mr. Frazier, or the rifle you shot rather on the range, when you shot this rifle, after you shot the first shot can you tell us whether or not in rebolting the gun you had to move your eye away from the scope.
A: Yes, sir, that was necessary.
Q: Why was that necessary?
A: To prevent the bolt of the rifle from striking me in the face as it came to the rear.
Q: You have to draw a bead, fire, remove your eye from the sight you had on the target every time you rebolted, is that right, sir?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you fired that particular rifle on the range, was the scope sufficiently fastened tightly to the gun?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: How did you accomplish that, sir?
A: With a screwdriver.
Q: You tightened the telescopic sight to the gun before you shot it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Frazier, before you tightened the telescopic sight of the rifle, did you have occasion to shoot that rifle.
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you know whether or not anyone shot the rifle in the condition you received it first? By that I mean, the telescopic sight being loose?
A: No one in the F.B.I. Laboratory fired it. I don't know if anyone else did or not.
Q: Mr. Frazier, I show you what the State has marked for the purpose of identification as S-64, and I ask you to view this exhibit and tell me whether or not you have had occasion to see anything similar to what is depicted in this exhibit?
A: Yes, sir, I have.
MR. OSER: At this time the State wishes to offer, introduce and file in evidence that which the State has marked for the purposes of identification as S-64.
MR. DYMOND: Same objection.
THE COURT: My ruling is the same.
MR. DYMOND: Same bill, except making the exhibit No. S-64.
(Whereupon, the document offered by Counsel was received in evidence.)
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Mr. Frazier, I believe you testified on Direct Examination that you had an occasion to run a test on a pellet, an intact pellet, involved in this investigation you were
conducting, is that correct?
A: No, sir, I didn't testify that it was an intact pellet.
Q: Did you test a pellet?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Can you describe the pellet for me, please?
A: I tested three. One of them was a bullet in practically original condition, except at the base of the bullet it was flattened sideways, lead had been extruded from the base to a small amount. The rest of the bullet was in practically original condition, except for the rifle impressions from the barrel of the rifle. Other pellets consisted of jacket fragments, that is the nose portion of the bullet, and base portions of the bullet, being the jacket portion in the one instance and jacket and part of the lead core in the other instance.
Q: This pellet you described as being slightly smashed or bent on the back side of it, was this Commission Exhibit 399?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I show you, and ask you again to refer to State Exhibit 64, whether or not that photograph of that particular pellet is similar to the pellet, Commission Exhibit 399, that you examined?
A: Yes, I would say it shows it fairly well.
Q: Did you also testify that you examined various cartridges that were submitted to you for examination in regard to the rifle you had, is that right?
A: Just one cartridge and three cartridge cases.
THE COURT: Mr. Oser, I think you should make a correction. When the witness described the cartridge, I believe he means the pellet still being in the casing. When he describes the cartridge casing he means the cartridge without the pellet.
MR. OSER: I will straighten that up right now.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: I show you what the State marks as Exhibit S-66 for identification, and ask you to view this exhibit and say whether or not you can tell us what type of bullet this is?
A: This is a cartridge from which the powder has been removed. It consists other than that of a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, or an Italian military cartridge, which are made at East Alton, Illinois.
Q: Can you describe for the Gentlemen of the Jury what parts make up this cartridge?
A: The part of the cartridge which leaves the barrel consists of the bullet or forward portion of the cartridge which is fastened into the neck of the cartridge case, the cartridge case being the brass rear portion of the cartridge which contains in its base the primer which serves to ignite the cartridge when the firing pin strikes the primer.
Q: In referring to Commission Exhibit 399, or the bullet you examined, can you point out what area that is you are speaking of?
A: The nose portion.
Q: In regards to the test you made on the casings that were submitted to you, can you point out what area of that cartridge is known as the casing area?
A: That is the larger brass portion which holds the bullet.
Q: I believe you said when you tested the casing in your opinion the casing was fired from that particular rifle you were examining at that time, is that correct, sir?
A: Yes, sir, all three of the casings, cartridge cases.
Q: You tested all three of the cartridge cases and they were all fired from that particular rifle?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: From your examination, Mr. Frazier, would you tell the Gentlemen of the Jury whether or not those three cartridge cases having been fired from that rifle, whether or not they were fired on November 22, 1963, October 22, 1963, or September 22, 1963?
A: I have no way of knowing when they were fired.
Q: In regard to Commission Exhibit 399, the pellet that you examined, I believe it was your testimony that particular pellet was fired from the rifle you examined, is that also correct?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Are you able to tell us when that particular bullet may have been fired from that Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, whether on November 22nd or any other date in 1963?
A: I have no information as to that.
Q: During your various tests and examinations, did you have an occasion to weight the pellet of a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bullet?
A: I weighed several cartridges of that type, yes.
Q: Can you tell us what weight you arrived at, sir, in those you weighed?
A: The weight varied around 161 grains. It may be half a grain above or half a grain below. It averaged 161 grains.
Q: How many of these pellets did you weigh?
A: I only have notes here of three, as I recall I weighed more of them.
Q: Can you give us the three weights in your notes?
A: 160.84, 161.5, 161.1.
Q: Also during your various tests and examinations, Mr. Frazier, did you have an occasion to weight Commission Exhibit 399, or the pellet you had in your possession?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you give me the weight of the pellet at the time you examined it?
A: 158.6 grains.
MR. OSER: At this time the State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence, that which has been marked as S-66 for the purpose of identification.
MR. DYMOND: No objection.
THE COURT: Let it be received.
(Whereupon, the document offered by counsel was received into evidence.)
MR. OSER: I ask to display this to the Jury before I proceed.
THE COURT: They may be shown.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: How many places of pellet or fragments of pellet did you have in your possession at the time you were conducting these tests, do you recall?
A: I believe there were nine.
Q: Can you give me the weights of those individual pieces?
A: The first one I referred to as Exhibit 399, the weight was 158.6 grains. Another one, this is one of the jacket particles that had lead in it, weighed 44.6 grains. The base portion of the bullet jacket weighed 21.0 grains. The three fragments of lead taken from the floor board in the passenger section of the limousine weighed .9 grains, .7 grains and .7 grains. The two lead particles submitted to me as having come from the President's head, weighed 1.65 grains, and .15 grains. The fragments submitted as originating from Connally's arm weighed .5 grains. I believe that is all.
Q: Mr. Frazier, am I correct in stating in the field of ballistics, when a bullet such as the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano is fired through a rifle, does the pellet come out with a reduction in the weight because it passes through the barrel and is rubbed against the rifling of the barrel? Might there be a loss of weight?
A: There might possibly be a slight loss in weight, yes.
Q: From your tests, will you tell us what was the speed you found this particular rifle to shoot? I think you said something around 1,975 feet per second was the average.
A: If I said that I was in error. Our tests averaged 2,165 feet per second.
Q: Did you also have occasion to test what the muzzle energy was as the bullet came out of the muzzle? How much force was being applied behind a pellet?
A: No, I didn't perform any tests to determine that. I calculated that value from the muzzle velocity and bullet weight.
Q: What was the result of your calculations?
A: The calculated muzzle energy, and this muzzle energy term is used to express the relative energy produced when comparing one bullet with another, and it is a function of the weight of the bullet and its velocity, rather the square of its velocity under gravity conditions, I calculated that muzzle energy at 1,676 foot pounds of energy.
Q: Would I be correct or incorrect in stating from your calculations that a pellet coming out of that particular gun would have been coming out at a force the equivalent of if you took a 1,676 pound ball and dropped it one foot? Would that be a safe state- ment to make?
A: Yes, theoretically that would be an expression of that figure.
Q: The particular pellet you examined, Commission Exhibit 399, would you describe that particular pellet as a jacketed pellet?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Would you explain what you mean by a jacketed pellet?
A: The bullet consists of a copper alloy envelope, or outside layer, relatively then copper alloy which covers a lead core, relatively soft lead core. In this Exhibit 399 the nose of the bullet has a solid jacket, and the base of the bullet is open or exposed and the core is inserted from the base up into this copper jacket to form the bullet by the manufacturer.
Q: In the particular 399 exhibit, were you able to ascertain whether or not any of the copper jacketing was missing?
A: In my opinion there was not jacketing missing, no discernible amount of jacket missing.
Q: As a ballistics expert, Mr. Frazier, what, in, your opinion, if such a pellet as Exhibit 399 is shot, and during the shooting of this particular pellet, during its travel what could possibly remove the copper jacketing in order for the lead contained therein to be deposited into a particular target?
A: The bullet would have to strike some object with sufficient force to rupture the jacket either from striking head-on or if it were tumbling the striking of the side, or the other alternative would be if the bullet tumbled in flight and wound up in the base-first attitude, then the lead would be exposed at the point of impact.
Q: In Commission Exhibit 399, you found the copper jacketing intact, I believe you said?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you able to ascertain from Commission Exhibit 399 whether any parts of the particular pellet were missing?
A: There very easily could have been. I couldn't say how much.
Q: Did you remove any of the parts or any scrapings from Exhibit 399 to run any particular tests?
A: Yes, there were both particles of copper and lead base removed for a spectrographic analysis.
Q: From what area did you remove the copper alloy for your spectrographic analysis?
A: From near the rounded nose portion.
Q: Were you able to ascertain from your examination -- from a spectrographic analysis or any other tests of 399 -- whether there was any blood or flesh or fabric contained on Exhibit 399?
A: There was not. When I examined this bullet it was relatively clean.
Q: Can you tell us when you got Commission Exhibit 399 in your possession?
A: I don't seem to be able to find that figure. From memory I would say Exhibit 399 was received at about 6:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963.
Q: Approximately some six hours after the President was killed you came into possession of it, if your recollection is correct?
A: Yes, sir, that is about correct.
Q: I now show you that which has been marked for the purpose of identification as S-65. I ask you whether or not you have ever seen what is contained in this photograph as being similar to something you have seen before during your investigation of this case?
A: Yes, sir, it is similar to something I have seen in a photographic way and also as physical evidence.
MR. OSER: At this time the State wishes to offer, introduce and file into evidence that which is marked as S-65 for the purpose of identification.
MR. DYMOND: Same objection.
THE COURT: Same ruling.
MR. DYMOND: Same bill of exception except the Exhibit will be numbered S-65.
(Whereupon, the document offered by Counsel was received into evidence.)
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Mr. Frazier, can you tell the gentlemen of the Jury and the Court, where you have seen a physical piece of evidence similar to that which is depicted in the right-hand
half of State Exhibit 65?
A: In the F.B.I. Laboratory.
Q: Can you tell me, Mr. Frazier, whether or not during the examination and investigation that you were assisting in, whether or not you had an occasion to view a pellet of a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano that had been fired into a wrist area and the resulting effects to this pellet?
A: I don't recall ever seeing that pellet in that connection. When I saw this pellet it was delivered to me by the President's Commission for the purpose of photographing it. I had all of the Commission's exhibits photographed in which we had any interest, and made special photographs for the Commission of those items submitted by other individuals than the F.B.I., and that is the only occasion I recall seeing a pellet of that type.
Q: Mr. Frazier, during your career in the area and field of ballistics, have you had occasion to see a pellet that has struck the wrist area of an individual?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Have you had occasion to see a pellet that has struck a rib and wrist of an individual?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: What is your expert opinion, Mr. Frazier, from you specialty in ballistics, as to what the condition of a pellet that strikes a rib and a wrist would be?
A: That would depend on the type of ammunition being used. It would also depend on the hardness of the bone, the portion of the rib which was contacted, the type of bone in the wrist which was struck, and various other factors such as the velocity of the bullet and so on.
Q: I believe you said before in answer to one of Mr. Dymond's questions under Direct Examination, that from your investigation you found nothing inconsistent with a bullet being fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building and going through President Kennedy and Governor Connally, is that correct, sir?
A: Yes, sir, I believe I did testify to that.
Q: I believe you also testified that in examining the Governor's clothes, that the type of hole you found in the Governor's coat was an irregular type of hole. Am I correct in stating that?
A: No, I don't recall I testified to that with reference to the coat. With reference to the shirt I did.
Q: What type of hole did you find in the Governor's coat?
A: There was a hole approximately 1/4 inch in width and slightly elongated, that is oval in shape, in the back of the Governor's coat, about 1-1/8 inches in from the sleeve seam, and this had slightly torn edges. Beyond that it had no physical characteristics of value to me.
Q: And the hole in the Governor's shirt, I believe you testified you examined his coat cuff area, the sleeve of his cuff?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was that a ragged type hole?
A: In the shirt it was, yes, particularly in the bottom side. The top side was not excessively ragged.
Q: In referring to State Exhibit 62, the lower right-hand corner, Mr. Frazier, the area of the front of President Kennedy's shirt that you have circled in red, the hole area in the front of president Kennedy's shirt, can you tell us whether that was an irregular type of hole in the shirt at that point?
A: No. I would say it was fairly regular rather than being irregular. It was an elongated slit in the cloth. It didn't have side tears coming out from the slit.
Q: What type of hole was in President Kennedy's shirt in the back?
A: That was a regular round hole approximately 1/4 inch in diameter.
Q: And the hole was about the same in the coat also at the back, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: If an individual would shoot a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle carrying an average velocity of 2,165 feet per second, packing a force of approximately 1,676 foot pounds, and this particular pellet hits one person in the back, as you found in President Kennedy's back, his shirt and coat, exits the shirt in the area where you found the slit and goes into another individual where you found the holes in the Governor's back of his coat and shirt and sleeve, and the sleeve of his shirt, and remains intact as in 399, can you explain for us why there would be the slit-type of hole in the shirt and not the regular round hole as you found it as it went into his back, and why there would be the ragged hole in the sleeve of his shirt and not a round type of hole if the pellet remains intact, as Commission Exhibit 399?
A: Are you speaking of the Governor's clothing now?
Q: I am speaking of both the President's clothing and --
MR. DYMOND: We object. There are a number of questions there. We ask the question be divided up.
MR. OSER: The witness can answer that question.
MR. DYMOND: If you have the question read back you will see how impossible it is to answer.
THE COURT: Read the question back.
THE REPORTER: Question: "If an individual would shoot a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle carrying an average velocity of 2,165 feet per second, packing a force of approximately 1,676 foot pounds, and this particular pellet hits one person in the back, as you found in President Kennedy's back, his shirt and coat, exits the shirt in the area where you found the slit and goes into another individual where you found the holes in the Governor's back of his coat and shirt and sleeve, and the sleeve of his shirt, and remains intact as in 399, can you explain for us why there would be the slit-type of hole in the shirt and not the regular round hole as you found it as it went into his back, and why there would be the ragged hole in the sleeve of his shirt and not a round type of hole if the pellet remains intact as Commission Exhibit 399?"
MR. DYMOND: You are speaking there of two people and one shirt.
THE COURT: I didn't understand it that way. I think the question can be answered, if you know how to answer it, Mr. Frazier.
THE WITNESS: With reference to the slit-type hole in the shirt as compared to the round hole in the back, this often occurs because there is no substance backing up the shirt at the exit point, whereas at the entrance point the person's body backs up the garment and causes a round hole. On the exit side, however, the shirt tends to be carried away from the victim and the fibers break along the weakest part of them. In my opinion the slit-type hole in the front of the shirt is because the shirt has less strength in a vertical direction causing it to tear more rapidly in the vertical direction. With reference to a hole in the Governor's sleeve, in his shirt, this could be due to a number of factors. This bullet apparently passed through the sleeve of the Governor's coat. At that point it may have removed considerable cloth material from that coat. It could have carried that through into the shirt and slightly enlarging and tearing the shirt on the sleeve. A second factor is that by the time under this hypothetical situation this bullet had passed through the President and through Governor Connally, its velocity would be gradually reduced, tumbling end over end at that time, in which case if it struck partially sideways it would leave an enlarged hole.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: From your examination of 399, can you tell us whether or not you found any type of
fabric contained on any part of this exhibit which you examined?
A: No, sir, I did not.
Q: Heretofore, Mr. Frazier, in speaking about the fact if you line up President Kennedy and Governor Connally where one bullet passed through both of these men at the particular time, can you show us the relative position from your examination that President Kennedy had to be in from knowing where the holes were in the coat and shirt and nick in the tie in order for this to happen?
A: I could show you with reference to where the hole was in the President's body but not necessarily where it was with reference to his coat, because his coat could have been hunched up at the back and not be anywhere near the same position as the hole in his body.
When you sit with your coat in a car it wrinkles at the collar and the back, and a bullet passing through that area, when the coat straightens down, could be several inches lower than the point of impact in the back of the individual. In our reconstruction in Dallas, the hole was marked on the President's body according to medical testimony and not according to his clothing. In that instance it was located just at the base of the neck, 5 inches below the mastoid area of the right area, and 5 inches in from the shoulder. There is no photograph here which represents that. I could show you on the photograph Exhibit 63, which shows the back of the President, I could indicate the spot which was marked as the point of impact on the President's body.
Q: Are you referring to this particular exhibit, Mr. Frazier?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you step down, Mr. Frazier, and show us the area to which you are referring?
A: The spot was marked on the President's body about 5 inches down from the right mastoid area at the base of the neck. In the back or at the base of the neck, and 5 inches in, which would put the bullet impact on this photograph about where I am indicating here, about 4 inches above and 3 inches to the right of the white spot on the back of the coat.
Q: Mr. Frazier, you said all this was done, this particular area was marked because of the fact the President's coat might have been tucked up or creased in some way, is that what you are saying?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Were you able to view any photographs during your investigation that showed the President's coat was puckered up?
A: I don't recall if that detail was shown or not.
Q: Did you see it?
A: I don't recall whether I did or not.
Q: Didn't you all take into account that Governor Connally's coat might have been puckered up also?
A: Sir, I didn't take any of this into account. This was decided by the Commission, not by me.
Q: You were there to do just what the Commission asked you to do, is that right, sir?
A: I didn't catch that question?
Q: You were just there doing what the Commission asked you to do?
A: Yes, sir, assisting them.
Q: Before, Mr. Frazier, you demonstrated to Mr. Dymond in regard to the area of one bullet passing through the President and the Governor, that the President had to be in some position of bending over or down or forward, is that correct? Did you give some testimony to that effect?
A: No, sir.
Q: You are saying the President could be seated erect and that bullet still could have passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally?
A: The question was asked, and my answer in that regard was, there was a time during this reenactment, according to the Zapruder film, at which the President's stand-in and Governor Connally's stand-in were in line, the path of the bullet through the President's body, was generally in line with the impact area on the back of Governor Connally, and the angle of the bullet through the President's body both horizontally and vertically coincided with the angle of the projectile, through Governor Connally's body both horizontally and vertically so it was possible for this event to have occurred. I didn't testify it did actually occur.
Q: What frame of the Zapruder film could this have happened in?
A: From Frame 207 to a few frames possibly after Frame 225.
Q: Can you see the President and Governor Connally between Frame 207 up to Frame 223?
A: Yes, sir. They have cleared the tree as I saw them from the sixth floor in the reenactment.
Q: I'm not asking you about the reenactment, I am asking you if you can see them in the Zapruder film?
A: I don't know what the frame numbers were. I didn't make a note of those particular frame numbers with reference to my study of the film.
Q: You don't recall which frame numbers of the Zapruder film shows President Kennedy and the Governor between frame 207 and 223?
A: No, I don't know what the film shows with reference to the President and Governor Connally.
Q: If I tell you this particular area, from where Mr. Zapruder was standing, that the presidential limousine was behind a sign and you couldn't see the President or the Governor at this particular time, would that refresh your memory as to what took place during that span in the Zapruder film?
MR. DYMOND: This is irrelevant. I don't think anyone has suggested Mr. Zapruder shot the President.
THE COURT: I understand the question. I overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS: According to my recollection from what I saw from the sixth floor window, and as the car was placed from the Zapruder film and other films, from what I saw there was a clear air line view from the window to the car during these various frames. I didn't make a detailed study and place the car in the street.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Who placed the bodies in their position during the reconstruction?
A: They were placed according to the Warren Commission members' instructions.
Q: Mr. Frazier, you said before you were not using the President's limousine, you were using a Cadillac, and you calculated a 10 inch difference between the car you were using and the actual car in which the President was shot. How did you accomplish this 10 inch difference? What did you do to calculate for this 10-inch difference?
A: The mark on the back of the President at the base of his neck was marked and in plain view from the window. I looked through the telescopic sight at a ruler held on his back. I had them move the ruler to the 10-inch distance and mark another spot down on the automobile.
Q: Isn't it a fact, Mr. Frazier, you had stand-ins that were acting for President Kennedy sitting on some blankets in that car?
A: Only the Presidential stand-in was sitting on a blanket because the rear seat in the Cadillac was considerably lower with reference to the jump seat than the rear seat in the Lincoln or the car in which the President was assassinated.
Q: As an expert in the field of this type of investigation, can you tell me why you all didn't use the President's car and used another car when you had to calculate some 10 inches and sit one person on a blanket?
MR. DYMOND: We object on the ground it is repetitious and argumentative.
THE COURT: I think you have covered that subject matter.
MR. OSER: Your Honor, can we take a coffee break? I'm going to a new area now.
THE COURT: Very well, we will take a 10-minute recess.
(SHORT RECESS.)
AFTER THE RECESS:
THE COURT: Are the State and the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. DYMOND: We are ready.
MR. OSER: Yes, Your Honor.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Mr. Frazier, is it correct from your testimony, sir, that when you examined the coat, from the back of President Kennedy's shirt and his coat, that you found traces of copper on the fibers in the area of the hole?
A: There were, yes.
Q: Did you find any such copper traces on the front slits or the tie area of President Kennedy's shirt and tie?
A: No, sir.
Q: Now, pursuant to your investigation, did you have occasion to examine a piece of concrete removed from the curbing in Dealey Plaza, to ascertain whether or not this was a nick from a bullet containing any metallic substance?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And did your examination of this piece of concrete reveal any metallic substances thereon?
A: Yes, there was a slight smear on the -- on this object, which purportedly was a piece of curbing.
Q: Was there any copper alloy or any metallic consistency or chemical analysis of copper on this piece of curbing?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you know, sir, where this curbing was removed from?
A: I do not.
Q: Mr. Frazier, from your examination in Dealey Plaza, from reviewing what you reviewed, are you able to ascertain as to what the angle, the downward angle of entry that a bullet may have made into the back of President Kennedy?
A: At certain points, yes.
Q: At what point did you first calculate this, sir, and what was the angle?
A: I did not calculate it. As I recall, a surveyor placed a transit on the street and read the angle with his transit. He wrote these figures down, I did not write them down.
Q: Well, do you know the angle at approximately Frames 223 or 224?
A: I could approximate it but I don't know the angle.
Q: Would you give me that approximation?
A: Between 17 and 20 degrees, in that neighborhood.
Q: And when you were conducting your examination and arriving at the results that you arrived at upon the instructions of the Warren Commission, which you were doing, did you have available any information from two agents, one by the name of O'Neill and one by the name of Sibert, who were present at the autopsy and stated that the angle of entry was between 45 and 60 degrees into the President's back?
A: No, I don't recall that information.
Q: Did you have available, sir, during your investigation the fact that Agents Sibert and O'Neill (stated) that at the time of the autopsy the opening in the President's back, the hole in the President's back, could be felt by the autopsy operator with the tip of his finger and that it wasn't a through-and-through gunshot wound? Did you have that available, sir?
A: I don't understand.
MR. DYMOND: If Your Honor please, we object. There is no evidence to this effect at all, that there is such a report even. Counsel is referring to a report here. We don't even know whether such a report exists, and he is purportedly quoting from it.
MR. OSER: I am asking if he had it at his disposal, the quoted --
MR. DYMOND: He is asking whether he had a report to that effect from certain named agents.
MR. OSER: As I say, we don't --
THE COURT: I think to be fair with the witness, instead of quoting from any report you should ask him first did he have any reports available to him; if he says yes, then you can go into specific reports, but, if he didn't have any of them available, then you shouldn't quote from five or six different --
MR. OSER: All right.
BY MR. OSER:
Q: Did you have the report of Special Agents Sibert and O'Neill available to you during
your entire investigation?
A: No, sir.
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, before you testified in front of the Warren Commission, and I ask you whether or not you made the particular statement in front of the Warren Commission with regard to whether or not one bullet could have passed through president Kennedy and Governor Connally between Frames 207 and 225. I ask you whether or not you made this particular statement: "I myself don't have any technical evidence which would permit me to say one way or the other, in other words, which would support it as far as my rendering an opinion as an expert. I would say, I would certainly say it was possible but I don't say it probably occurred because I don't have the evidence on which to base a statement like that." Did you make that statement in front of the Warren Commission in regards to one bullet passing through the President and the Governor at Frames 207 to 225?
A: (Referring to volume) Page 172. That is part of the discussion concerning a hypothetical question which was asked me, and I did make that statement with regard to those assumptions they asked me to make.
MR. OSER: That is all.
MR. DYMOND: Is that all, you said?
MR. OSER: Yes, sir.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Mr. Frazier, with reference to the piece of material purporting to be a piece of curbing on which you say that you found lead smears, was this lead smear consistent in
metallic composition with the cartridge particles which you examined?
A: I don't have that information available.
Q: You do not?
A: No, sir.
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, have the opinions which you rendered in this case been your honest objective opinions, or have they been influenced in any way by any supposed desires of the Warren Commission or anybody else?
A: No, sir, absolutely not.
Q: Are these your honest professional opinions?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now referring to State Exhibit No. 34, Mr. Frazier, you were asked on direct examination whether or not there would have been a clear shot at the President's vehicle while it was going on Houston Street in the direction of the School Book Depository. When the vehicle was going in that direction in the reenactment, would anyone have been sitting between President Kennedy and the School Book Depository?
MR. ALCOCK: Your Honor, we are going to object, because the witness's testimony was that the vehicle never went in that direction on the reenactment, it only went down Elm Street, he said it did not approach Elm and Houston.
MR. DYMOND: If that is so, I will change the form of the question.
THE COURT: Mr. Dymond, may I suggest that you use the microphone. Then if you turn away from the court reporter, she will be able to hear you.
BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Referring to your answer on direct, that there would have been a clear shot at the
President's vehicle from the School Book Depository as it was going on Houston Street toward the Depository, at the time would there have been anything between President Kennedy and the School Book Depository in the line of fire?
A: Yes, sir, there would, two things, three things: The windshield of the automobile, Special Agent Delman of the Secret Service, and Governor Connally. However, with the elevation of the School Book Depository it may have been possible to fire over these individuals without hitting them, but I did not make that determination nor did we reconstruct that part of the journey.
Q: Now, with reference to the similarity in the gun, which is in evidence here as State Exhibit 18, and the gun which was examined by you, after having examined both of these weapons, Mr. Frazier, is there any difference in the mechanical operation of the two weapons, that is, the manner in which --
A: Yes, sir, yes, sir, I would say this weapon operates more difficultly than the one which I examined in the laboratory. It is more difficult to open the bolt and draw the bolt back and to close the bolt.
Q: Now with reference to the test which you performed on the speed and accuracy of firing the rifle which you examined, as an expert in the field of ballistics would you say that practice with a particular rifle would be helpful in increasing the speed and accuracy of such firing?
A: Yes, it would.
Q: Now in connection with your reenactment of the assassination scene with the aid of the Zapruder film, which is State-37, prior to the time that the Presidential vehicle got to the position indicated at Frame 13, was there a clear shot at the vehicle?
A: Yes, sir. At any stage back through this film, through all the frames back to Frame No. 207 as the car was placed on the street by the Commission with reference to the film, with the assistance of Special Agent Shaneyfelt, and beyond 207 the car would be underneath a live oak tree growing along the street. At that point you could see the individuals in the car through the tree, but you could not clearly see them, that is, see their entire outlines.
Q: For approximately how many frames before Frame 313 was there sufficient clearing to enable a person to draw a bead on President Kennedy from the sixth floor Depository window?
A: (Computing) I would say approximately 106 frames.
Q: And approximately what length of time would those 106 frames consume, Mr. Frazier?
A: Slightly over six seconds.
Q: Would that be sufficient time to draw a bead on President Kennedy before he reached the position indicated by frame 313?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now with reference to the telescopic sight on the gun which you examined, do you know of your own knowledge whether that sight was loose and not firmly secured to the gun at the time that the gun was originally recovered, before it was turned over to you?
A: No, sir, I have no knowledge of the gun prior to the time when I received it.
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, would it have been within the scope of your expertise to examine and analyze any particles of flesh or blood which might have been on Exhibit 399 when it was turned over to you?
A: No, sir, I do not make that type of examination in the laboratory.
Q: (Indicating photograph) Mr. Frazier, referring to the exhibit marked for identification "State-63," the point which was marked on the back of the stand-in for President Kennedy, was that estimated or was it taken from the point of the wound on President Kennedy's remains?
A: From the point of the wound by measurement taken at the time of the autopsy.
MR. DYMOND: That is all, sir.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: Mr. Frazier, can you tell us whether or not anybody in the F.B.I., or the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, made any tests on 399, and whether or not it was ascertained whether there was any blood or flesh on that particular pellet?
A: Yes, sir, I can. There was no such test. I saw no debris on this bullet and therefore I decided there was no need for any test since there was nothing on it.
Q: Not even microscopically you didn't examine this bullet?
A: There was not anything but a slight stain which would be insufficient for any examination.
Q: Mr. Frazier, you said that the shot from the sixth floor was a relatively easy shot to hit President Kennedy while he proceeded on Elm Street. Can you name anybody in the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any expert rifleman under the Bureau's direction who could accomplish the same feat that is alleged to have been accomplished, by the Warren Commission, namely, that the rifleman was in the sixth floor some 60 feet off of ground level at a distance of 265 feet away at frame 313, and with a moving target?
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object to this on the grounds, number one, that it is argumentative, number two, it is not proper re-cross-examination. Nothing was brought out on re-direct which permits such a question as this.
THE COURT: You needn't argue, Mr. Oser, it is within my discretion to permit it, and I will overrule your objection.
THE WITNESS: I know of no such tests or individuals.
MR. OSER: That is all.
MR. DYMOND: That is it.
(WITNESS EXCUSED.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, the undersigned, Helen R. Dietrich, do hereby certify:
That the above and foregoing (195 pages of typewritten matter) is a true and correct transcription of the stenographic notes of the proceedings had herein, the same having been taken down by Charles A. Neyrey, Clifford Jefferson, and the undersigned, and transcribed under our supervision, on the day and date hereinbefore noted, before the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, in the matter of the State of Louisiana vs. Clay L. Shaw, 198-059 1426 (30) Section C on the 21st and 22nd days of February, 1969, before the Honorable Edward A. Haggerty, Jr., Judge, Section "C", being the testimony of Robert A. Frazier.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of February, 1969.
/s/ Helen R. Dietrich
HELEN R. DIETRICH,
REPORTER