"RECLAIMING HISTORY" ERRORS (PART 2)

Here's my take on this "ragged" thing that conspiracy theorist Ben Holmes just will not let go of:

At one point when discussing the issue of President Kennedy's throat wound in his book "Reclaiming History", author Vincent Bugliosi is definitely incorrect when he used the word "ragged" while describing what Dr. Charles J. Carrico's opinion was of the OUTER (SKIN) WOUND in President Kennedy's throat. That error occurs on Page 413, when Vince says this:

"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges."

But Bugliosi is not incorrect on Page 60 of his book when he uses the word "ragged" in conjunction with Carrico's statements. Because on Page 60, Bugliosi is talking only about the trachea damage, and not about the wound on the outer skin of JFK.

BTW, Dr. Malcolm Perry also used the word "ragged" when describing the trachea wound. Perry said this in his Warren Commission testimony:

"I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side."

But, just like Carrico, Perry described the outer skin wound in the President's throat in a different manner:

DR. PERRY -- "This was situated in the lower anterior one-third of the neck, approximately 5 mm. in diameter. It was exuding blood slowly which partially obscured it. Its edges were neither ragged nor were they punched out, but rather clean."

But we must also realize that Dr. Perry also said this:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"

DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."


Interestingly, I found another page in Bugliosi's book where Vince is putting the word "ragged" in a doctor's mouth where I do not think it belongs. It's on Page 207, when Vince says this about the conversation that Dr. Humes had with Dr. Perry on Saturday morning, November 23rd:

"The light flashes on for Humes when Dr. Perry tells him that he performed his surgery on an existing wound there, a small, round perforation with ragged edges."

There are two possible references given for the above quote from Page 207 in "Reclaiming History". One of them is ARRB MD58, p.9, and the other is Page 257 of HSCA Volume 7. Neither source, however, includes the word "ragged" in it anywhere.

My opinion is that Vince has somehow confused himself into thinking that the "ragged" quotes that definitely did come from both Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry are quotes that he feels confident enough to utilize in his book to explain the way the wound in JFK's throat (on the whole) looked to each of those doctors (Carrico and Perry).

When, in fact, Vince is incorrect when he tries to merge the two wounds. Because he surely also knows (or he should know by reading the testimony of both Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry) that those doctors were referring to two DIFFERENT wounds in the President's throat when they testified and when the Parkland Hospital report was written.

I must say, though, that I was also confused about the "ragged" remarks when I went to the official records to check up on this matter the other day. In fact, I had a nice long message ready to post at this forum (complete with citations and Warren Commission page numbers, etc.) that I was going to use to try and counter Ben Holmes' assertion that Vince Bugliosi had "lied" about Carrico's description of Kennedy's throat wound.

But I then looked at more passages of testimony, and I realized that Carrico was talking about TWO separate wounds in the President's throat/neck. The wound that he definitely did describe as "ragged" was the wound of the trachea itself (under the skin, of course, of JFK). But the wound that would have been visible to the naked eye on the outer skin of Kennedy was described by Carrico as having "no jagged edges or stellate lacerations" [6 H 3].

Ben Holmes, however, was not entirely clear in a thread-starting post that he made recently [this Internet post], in which he asserted that Mr. Bugliosi was a liar and that Dr. Carrico had never once used the word "ragged" to describe a wound in JFK's throat. And that declaration, as stated by Holmes, just simply is not true.

Holmes should have been more precise about WHICH wound he was referring to--the wound in the skin of JFK, or the wound in the underlying trachea.

In the final analysis of this "ragged" matter -- Vince Bugliosi is definitely wrong in at least two places in his book regarding the purported testimony of the Parkland doctors concerning the nature of JFK's outer-skin throat/neck wound.

But I also truly believe that these errors are not intentional "lies". Given the fact that there was, indeed, a wound associated with President Kennedy's neck/throat injury that was described by more than one doctor as being "ragged" in nature [and also see the Addendum at the bottom of this article concerning the testimony of another Parkland doctor], Bugliosi's utilization of the word "ragged" as it relates to the comments made by Drs. Perry and Carrico could very well be--I'm sorry to say--a bit of a "senior moment" on the part of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi.

Why do I say that?

Well, if anyone has ever listened to any of Mr. Bugliosi's several radio interviews that he did when he was on his book tour for "Reclaiming History" in 2007, then my above "senior moment" comment just might make a little more sense and have a bit more credence.

Because on many occasions, Vince just loses track of his line of thought and simply cannot remember a question that was asked a minute earlier. (I will say, too, that even I, at age 49, have had many similar "senior" moments myself. My memory sucks lately, and it bothers me a lot sometimes. It drives me crazy when I can't for the life of me remember the name of a particular witness in the JFK case, or what a witness said, etc.)

Now, I'm not excusing any "ragged" errors that Vince Bugliosi has made in his JFK book, I'm merely attempting to provide a POSSIBLE explanation for why those errors appear on Pages 207 and 413 of "Reclaiming History".

And I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was) an outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to print something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE. I will never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr. Vincent Bugliosi. Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from that sort of devious cloth.

If certain conspiracy theorists want to disagree with my last comment, so be it. But I'll always stand by what I just said.

Also:

I can point to multiple additional errors in Vincent's JFK book that could (conceivably) be the result of simply a failing memory, or (quite possibly) a result of the way in which I know Vince wrote "Reclaiming History", which is a book that was written over the course of 20 years and was written so that large chunks of "yellow page inserts" (as Vince calls them) had to be included into almost every chapter of the book after a period of time had elapsed since the chapter was initially written.

That type of "inserting" of additional material could very well be the reason we find a few inconsistencies and incongruities within the huge tome known as "Reclaiming History".

Yes, such errors should have been caught in the proofreading process before the book went to print. But, people being what they are (human, and not robots or machines), mistakes can occur. And Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is no exception.


AN AMUSING "SENIOR MOMENT" ADDENDUM:

As an illustration of a possible "senior moment" involving author and lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, I can point to something that Bugliosi said during a radio interview in 2007. And this one is a real doozy, too, but it's obviously not an illustration of a "lie" or of Bugliosi's ignorance of the subject matter; it's more of a temporary "brain cramp", for lack of a better term:

On November 21, 2007, on a program called "Culture Shocks", radio host Barry Lynn asked Vince a question about New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. The question was: "How did Garrison get into this?"

And Vince Bugliosi's answer, incredibly, was this:

Vince said that Jim Garrison, like millions of other Americans, had seen the Zapruder Film being shown on Geraldo Rivera's ABC-TV late-night talk show, "Good Night America", in 1975, and after seeing the violent rearward movement of President Kennedy's head in the Zapruder home movie, Garrison then went off "half-cocked" about conspiracy in the JFK case, with Garrison ultimately prosecuting an innocent man (Clay Shaw) on the charge of conspiracy to murder the President of the United States.

Now, quite obviously, if Vince had thought about his answer for a few more seconds before responding to the interviewer's question, Vince would have realized that his answer was totally crazy -- because the Clay Shaw trial had taken place more than six years before the Zapruder Film was broadcast on Geraldo Rivera's 1975 TV show. The Shaw trial ended in early 1969.

The 11/21/2007 radio program that I've been talking about can be heard here.

That was an embarrassing moment for Vincent Bugliosi. But, however, it probably wasn't too embarrassing for Vince, because his answer about Garrison first getting involved in the JFK case in 1975 sailed right over the head of the interviewer, Barry Lynn. I have no idea how many listeners picked up on Vincent's obvious gaffe about Garrison, but it's something I noticed right after he said it.

But, again, that tends to illustrate how even a person who knows a topic's details inside and out can sometimes say something that's very bizarre and inaccurate concerning that particular topic. But it certainly cannot be labelled a deliberate "lie" that was designed to deceive anyone who was listening to Bugliosi. It was merely an inexplicable brain cramp. Because there can be no doubt that Vince Bugliosi knows that the Clay Shaw trial actually occurred six years prior to America first being shown the Zapruder Film on television in 1975. We know that Vince knows the date of the Shaw trial, because he has a long chapter on that trial and Oliver Stone's movie in his book, including this passage on Page 1375:

"The all-male jury returned its verdict of not guilty at one in the morning on March 1, 1969, two years to the day after Shaw had been arrested in the case."

And I'm thinking that Vincent's use of the word "ragged" in a couple of places in his JFK book could also be placed in the "brain cramp" category as well.

David Von Pein
July 14, 2011
July 15, 2011


===============================

A "RAGGED" ADDENDUM:


In early July 2014, Brock T. George e-mailed me and provided some additional information concerning the testimony of another Parkland Hospital physician, Dr. Gene Akin.

Quoting from two separate e-mails I received from Brock George on July 5th, 2014:

"I was just trying to solve the mystery of VB's [Vincent Bugliosi's] ragged throat wound comments when I see that not only has he put those words in Perry and Carrico's mouth, but also a Dr. Gene Akin on page 414 [of "Reclaiming History"]. This time he gives 216 as a reference.

Well I can't find "216" but I did find the Page 414 Endnotes reference to 6 H 71. When I went to History Matters, I couldn't find that per se, but searching for Gene Akin showed his testimony to Arlen Specter [to] be in Volume VI of the HSCA Volumes [DVP Interjection: Brock really meant to say "Warren Commission Volumes" here, not HSCA]. The relevant..."ragged around the edges" comment occurs on page 65 thereof.

So it can be seen that a Parkland doctor can indeed be quoted as describing the "wound" in precisely that manner even though he only saw it partially after the trach incision had been made. (This also supports the same observations of the Clark and HSCA Panels who saw remnants of the wound that the 3 autopsists had missed.) Check it out for yourself.

[...]

IMO, that testimony makes the case tighter that VB merely had a senior moment/brain burp. Because in fact he HAD seen a Parkland doctor use that very term about the wound and not just the trachea. Thus it is an easy "brain burp" to merge that statement by Akin with the "ragged trachea" comments made by Carrico and Perry and start putting "ragged neck wound" in the mouths of the wrong Parkland doctors." -- Brock T. George

[End E-Mail Quotes.]

Yes, indeed. Brock George is absolutely correct. Dr. Gene C. Akin did, indeed, say "slightly ragged" when describing the OUTER throat wound (in the skin, not the trachea) of President Kennedy.

I just checked Mr. Bugliosi's book for the passage quoting Dr. Akin (and it is on page 414 of VB's book, just as Mr. George said). And the "216" source note checks out perfectly too, leading the reader to page 65 of Warren Commission Volume 6, which is Dr. Gene Akin's testimony.

Here is exactly what Vince Bugliosi says on page 414 of his book:

"Dr. Gene Akin: "[The wound] was slightly ragged around the edges . . . The thought flashed through my mind that this might have been an entrance wound. I immediately thought it could also have been an exit wound."" -- Page 414 of "Reclaiming History"

The Warren Commission source used by Bugliosi -----> 6 H 65.


Here is an extension of Dr. Akin's above comments to the Warren Commission about the throat wound:


ARLEN SPECTER - And as to the neck wound, did you have occasion to observe whether there was a smooth, jagged, or what was the nature of the portion of the neck wound which had not been cut by the tracheotomy?

Dr. GENE AKIN - It was slightly ragged around the edges.

Mr. SPECTER - And when you said that--

Dr. AKIN - No powder burns; I didn't notice any powder burns.

Mr. SPECTER - What was the dimension of the punctate wound, without regards to the tracheotomy which was being started?

Dr. AKIN - It looked--it was as you said, it was a puncture wound. It was roughly circular, about, I would judge, 1.5 centimeters in diameter.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you mean when you just made your reference to the academic aspect with the wound, Dr. Akin?

Dr. AKIN - Well, naturally, the thought flashed through my mind that this might have been an entrance wound. I immediately thought it could also have been an exit wound, depending upon the nature of the missile that made the wound.

Mr. SPECTER - What would be the circumstances on which it might be one or the other?

Dr. AKIN - Well, if the President had been shot with a low velocity missile, such as fire[d] from a pistol, it was more likely to have been an entrance wound, is that what you mean?

Mr. SPECTER - Yes.

Dr. AKIN - If, however, he had been shot with a high velocity military type of rifle, for example, it could be either an entrance wound or an exit wound.

------------

Thank you, Brock George, for providing this extra piece of testimony from Dr. Gene Akin regarding this "ragged" throat wound topic. I had not been aware that yet another Parkland doctor (Akin) had used that very same word ("ragged") when discussing the nature of President Kennedy's throat wound. So I appreciate this added information very much.

David Von Pein
July 5, 2014


===============================


HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A VINCENT BUGLIOSI "BRAIN CRAMP"
IN THIS 2009 VIDEO CLIP:







===============================


"RECLAIMING HISTORY" ERRORS
(PART 1)



"RECLAIMING HISTORY" ERRORS
(PART 3)


===============================


ALSO HAVE A LOOK AT THESE SITES:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1237)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's my take on this "ragged" thing that conspiracy theorist Ben Holmes just will not let go of -----> CLICK HERE.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You're lying, David Von Pein. YOU'RE LYING! .... You've outright lied that these sources don't include the word "ragged". One does not - Dr. Humes didn't mention it. But Perry did.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're an idiot. And apparently you're an idiot who can't read at all.

The sources I mentioned don't include the word "ragged" anywhere. I checked them carefully before I ever posted what I wrote last July.

The page you linked to (MD 58; Pg. 15) is irrelevant, because it is not the same source page I discussed in my July 2011 post on this subject.

The source note that appears in Bugliosi's book at that point in his "Four Days" chapter is this one:

1069. ARRB MD 58, Interview of Malcolm Perry by Andy Purdy and T. M. Flanagan on January 11, 1978, p.9; 7 HSCA 257.

A specific page within MD58 is mentioned by Bugliosi there, and only ONE specific page, and that is page 9. And nowhere on Page 9 of MD58 does the word "ragged" appear.

Therefore, I am 100% correct in my original July 2011 post regarding this matter.

And (as always) Ben Holmes is dead wrong.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

It's certainly credible to explain this, not as a lie, but as sheer ignorance and stupidity about the medical evidence. You can even dress it up nicely by describing such ignorance as a "senior moment". But the sad truth is that it's not going to be very credible that he didn't know that the original bullet wound *LOOKED* like an entry.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're nuts.

You're acting as if Bugliosi never ONCE mentions in his book that Dr. Perry said the throat wound looked like an entry wound.

When, in point of fact, Mr. Bugliosi discusses the "entry vs. exit" controversy concerning the throat wound in multiple places in his book, e.g.:

"Perry...thinks the wound in the throat they enlarged for the tracheotomy was an entrance wound." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 128

"Dr. Perry testified before the Warren Commission that he did not know whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound. However, at a press conference at Parkland Hospital commencing at 3:16 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he told the assembled media that "the wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat." Confronted with this apparent contradiction when he was interviewed by the HSCA, he tried to explain his press conference remarks by saying that "I thought it looked like an entrance wound because it was small, but I didn't look for any others, and so that was just a guess"." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 412

It's also rather humorous to note that at one point in Holmes' tedious essay, he yells at me multiple times ("YOU'RE LYING!")...but it's about an issue in which I am essentially AGREEING with him -- i.e., I am saying that Bugliosi is wrong (at least with respect to the precise word "ragged") when Vince cited "MD58, p.9" at one point in his book. But Holmes, incredibly, decided to call me a liar at that particular point in his argument--even though I was saying that Bugliosi was, indeed, wrong about something. Amazing.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

David Von Pein has clearly refused to defend his website post - it's not defensible. He did exactly what Bugliosi did - he lied.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I didn't lie at all, and Holmes knows it. He's nuts (as usual).

Holmes is just too stupid to figure out that "brain cramp" does not equal "lie" -- and it never has.

I wonder if Holmes even bothered to take a look at (and listen to) the amazingly silly "brain cramp" of Bugliosi's in Nov. 2007 that I talked about earlier (for which I also provided an audio file [the one linked below]).



Here's another "VB Brain Cramp" example:

In November 2009, Mr. Bugliosi made a personal appearance someplace, and at the end of his presentation he was talking to a bunch of conspiracy freaks about various stupid conspiracies that these kooks believe in [see the video below] -- and at one point Vince says that "after the first shot, one Secret Service agent left the Presidential limo and went back [to the Secret Service car?]", with that agent being "left behind" in Dealey Plaza after the assassination. In reality, of course, no Secret Service agent ever left the President's car at any time in Dealey Plaza.

That was a "brain cramp". It had to be. Because Vince really knows full well that no SS agent who was riding in JFK's car (and there were only two in that car--Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman) vacated the President's limousine in Dealey Plaza. It didn't happen.

Vince, in the video below, might be confusing Lem Johns with other SS agents in the Queen Mary follow-up car or in JFK's car.



So it's quite clear to me that Vincent's memory isn't what it used to be, and he forgets things and conflates other things. But he isn't "lying" with the "intent to deceive" -- ever.

And nobody will ever get me to believe that Vince has said or written anything about the JFK case that is a deliberate "lie" (with the intent to deceive someone).

In other words -- When Vince says something (even in a "brain cramp" or "senior moment" mode), he truly believes he is telling the truth about that subject matter. He might be wrong, but he's not lying. He's just having a brain cramp. And I proved in the video above (and via my other "Garrison/Z-Film" example) that Vince DOES, indeed, have such memory lapses.

And the "ragged" thing is one such brain cramp that made its way into "Reclaiming History".

Another one can be found on Pages 423 and 424 of "RH", when Vince is, in essence, saying that JFK's throat wound was located both above AND below the wound in Kennedy's upper back.

Footnote Regarding That 2009 Video Clip ---

The conspiracy kooks talking to Bugliosi in that video don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about either, with one of the kooks saying that the Secret Service "standdown" took place just "50 yards" prior to the time JFK was shot. When, of course, the video footage the kooks are referring to is really the WFAA footage taken at Love Field, which shows Don Lawton shrugging as he stops running alongside JFK's limo.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

It is, however, a fact that Lem Johns WAS left behind.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But Johns wasn't in the President's car. Nor was he riding in the Queen Mary SS follow-up car either. I mention the latter point just in case Bugliosi really was referring to an agent leaving the Secret Service car in Dealey Plaza, instead of the President's car, because there is the report of SS Agent John Ready, who was riding on the right-front running board of the Queen Mary follow-up car. Ready said this in his SS Report:

"The President's car slowed, someone in the follow-up car stated he was shot, and I left to run to the President's car. At that time I was recalled to the follow-up car and took the right front seat aside of ATSAIC Roberts, and proceeded to a hospital several miles distant." -- John D. Ready

But, as we can see, Ready was not left behind in Dealey Plaza.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

So you added "The" and removed the fact that Bugliosi was speaking of the SAME bullet track, and merely moving the body. There's not even a *HINT* that he's doing what you claimed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you think the photo on the left (below) shows Kennedy leaning forward, eh? In other words, if we're to believe the HSCA (and Page 423 of Bugliosi's book), JFK isn't even close to being in the "anatomic" or "autopsy" position in the left-hand autopsy picture here:



Because, according to the HSCA (and according to Bugliosi on Page 423), the ONLY WAY to get the throat wound in a position that is LOWER than the back wound is by having JFK lean forward 11 to 18 degrees.

But how can the deceased John Kennedy be leaning forward AT ALL in an autopsy photo which shows him lying flat on his back on a table?

I'd love for an HSCA member to answer that last question (after looking at the two autopsy photos above).


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Nice of you to agree with me. It's NOT going to be credible explaining that Bugliosi didn't know the correct description [of JFK's throat wound].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Therefore, Ben, you think Bugliosi would have intentionally put into his book some things that directly contradict each other. Right?

Why did he do that, Ben? Didn't he know that people like you would scour his work and bring up the contradictions?

And it would be particularly silly for a person like Bugliosi to do something underhanded like that, for he is a man who has repeatedly said: "Credibility means everything to me. If you've lost the confidence of the jury [or the people reading my book], then you've lost the case."

There are no DVP "lies" associated with Ben Holmes' obsessive "ragged" discussions at all. Holmes can't even read a source note properly. He thinks "MD58, p.9" is the exact same thing as "MD58, p.15". Curious.

But, maybe Holmes had a brain cramp. :-)

David Von Pein
July 14-15, 2011
May 29-31, 2012

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1148)

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Released material, particularly by the ARRB, has shown just how much the WCR was a house built with a deck of cards.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Give me a link to just ONE document that was released by the ARRB that proves a conspiracy or cover-up in the JFK assassination case. Just one.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Certainly. Just as quickly as you provide just ONE document provided by the Warren Commission that proves that Oswald was the lone assassin. Just one.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nice dodge, Holmes.

I knew you'd have to dodge my direct question regarding the ARRB documents, because is there no "smoking gun" document that was unearthed by the Assassination Records Review Board. Period.

What a hypocrite.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

[Vincent Bugliosi] flatly *LIED* about Carrico and Perry's testimony.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's your own interpretation, Ben. Mine is, of course, much different.

Vince Bugliosi was wrong about the "ragged" topic, yes. [Click here for details.] But was it a deliberate and calculated "lie" with the intent to deceive? No way. And the reason is two-fold why I believe Vince didn't "lie" about this matter:

1.) Because, as I've stated before, it's my belief that Mr. Bugliosi is just not cut from that sort of devious cloth.

and:

2.) Just think about this PARTICULAR so-called "lie" for a couple more seconds (the "ragged" comments) -- Vince just flat-out does not NEED to tell any tales out of school regarding this matter concerning the size and shape of JFK's throat wound.

Why?

Because Vince already has Perry's AND Carrico's Warren Commission testimony to buttress his argument that the throat wound was a wound of exit [emphasis is DVP's]:

MR. SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"

DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."

------------

MR. SPECTER -- "Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?"

DR. CARRICO -- "Yes."

MR. SPECTER -- "Or, did it look to be more one than the other?"

DR. CARRICO -- "No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck."

------------

Given the above testimony from two of the actual doctors who were THERE in Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland Hospital on November 22, why on Earth would Vincent Bugliosi want to put his reputation on the line by deliberately lying about something that he just simply DOES NOT NEED TO LIE ABOUT AT ALL (assuming Vince was the sort of person who likes to tell an occasional lie in his books to deceive his readers) in order to advance the very logical and almost certainly TRUE proposition that the wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was an exit wound instead of an entry wound?

My #2 item above, in conjunction with #1, should make even a hardened conspiracy theorist realize that Mr. Bugliosi did not tell a deliberate "lie" (with the intent to deceive) when it comes to the subject of the "ragged" nature of President Kennedy's throat wound.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Just what credibility does Bugliosi have? Indeed, were he a politician, everyone would be talking about his flip-flopping... for as I'm sure you know, he stood up in court and argued that THIS WAS A CONSPIRACY.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now who is the one telling falsehoods, Benjamin? Looks like it's you. Because your last statement above gives anyone reading those words the impression that Vincent Bugliosi, at some point in time in the past, had advocated a conspiracy in the JOHN KENNEDY MURDER CASE.

But I know that that is not true at all. What you really meant to say is that Vince Bugliosi, in the 1970s, believed that ROBERT KENNEDY'S murder might very well have been a conspiracy involving more than just Sirhan Sirhan.

Were you attempting to "deliberately deceive" the readers here, Ben? Or should I give you the same benefit of the doubt when evaluating your wholly misleading and inaccurate "he [Bugliosi] stood up in court and argued that THIS WAS A CONSPIRACY" statement that you refuse to give Mr. Bugliosi when evaluating and assessing Vince's inaccurate "ragged" statements?

Maybe Ben was having a "senior moment" when he wrote that Vince Bugliosi previously argued (in court) that the JFK case was a conspiracy. Ya think?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You know, every time DVP learns that I don't say things I can't back up, he seems to forget the lesson. Then he learns the lesson all over again...

Vincent Bugliosi [To the Judge]: "I think the court can take judicial notice that the whole tone, the whole tenor in this country at this particular moment is that there is a tremendous distrust, there is a tremendous suspicion, there is a tremendous skepticism about whether or not people like Oswald and Sirhan acted alone, and many, many people, many substantial people -- I am not talking about conspiracy buffs who see a conspiracy behind every tree -- many, many substantial people feel that Sirhan did not act alone, that he did act in concert."

Now, will we see an apology and a retraction from DVP? For I *KNOW* he's seen this quote before. Anyone care to bet?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Holmes is hilarious.

Holmes thinks that quote from Bugliosi is the same as BUGLIOSI HIMSELF advocating a conspiracy in the JFK case.

But, that's typical of kooks like Holmes. He has absolutely no ability to properly assess and evaluate evidence and statements (like the Bugliosi statement quoted by Ben above).

Bugliosi was talking about how OTHER PEOPLE (not Vince, himself) distrusted the Government regarding the Oswald and Sirhan cases. And, yes, the "lawyer" side of him took over in that plea to the judge in the 1970s. He was trying to make a case for some kind of conspiracy in the BOBBY KENNEDY case, and so he utilized America's GENERAL DISTRUST of the conclusions of the Warren Commission in the JACK KENNEDY case to try and bolster his arguments regarding the Bobby Kennedy case.

But that's not the same thing as Vince Bugliosi HIMSELF saying that the JFK case was a conspiracy. And Vince was not arguing in favor of a conspiracy in the JOHN KENNEDY assassination in that quote. He was arguing in favor of a plot in the BOBBY KENNEDY case.

So, as usual, Holmes is wrong. Bugliosi did not advocate the stance that Holmes claimed he was advocating, and even the quote provided by Hypocrite Holmes proves it.

But even if Bugliosi HAD BEEN advocating (via his own personal beliefs) a conspiracy in JFK's murder when he made that statement to the judge that was cited by Holmes -- so what? Vince made that statement in the 1970s, years before he ever got involved in studying the JFK case in any depth at all. (Vince didn't get deeply involved in the JFK assassination until the mock trial of Oswald in 1986.)

So, quite obviously, even if Vince had been suggesting in the 1970s that he, himself, believed that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy (which he was not doing in that statement quoted by Holmes), it would only go to show that Mr. Bugliosi, after studying the evidence in the JFK case in depth in later years, had reached a different conclusion regarding that murder case.

IOW -- big deal. So what?

And Benji wants an APOLOGY out of me on this issue?? He must be cracked in the cranium.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Yep... didn't think you'd be able to retract your statement.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep, I knew my explanation would go zooming straight over your silly head. But what can I expect from someone who, as I said, has no ability to properly evaluate anything dealing with this case. You're a howl.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

I'm guessing that DVP must think that Bugliosi was lying to the judge... intentionally lying. Bugliosi had no such opinion, and was merely lying to help his client.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why would I believe something stupid like that? Bugliosi told the truth about what OTHER PEOPLE believed -- i.e., about how people all over the country were displaying "a tremendous distrust" and "a tremendous suspicion" and "tremendous skepticism about whether or not people like Oswald and Sirhan acted alone".

That's no lie. It's the truth. Vince was merely utilizing OTHER PEOPLE'S distrust in the official Lone Assassin story regarding Oswald's guilt to add more weight to his pro-conspiracy arguments in front of the judge concerning the Bobby Kennedy investigation.

I would think that even an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy clown like you, Benjamin Holmes, would be able to figure that one out. But, evidently not.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Now, as usual, be sure to watch how DVP will run from most of the points I've raised, cherry-pick something he thinks will sound good, and ignore everything else." [And indeed, DVP ran...]


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Already explained this in my last two posts, Holmes. It's not my fault you have no capacity for assessing what Bugliosi said. Don't blame me. Blame your genes.

Addendum:

It always amuses me when I hear conspiracy kooks like Ben Holmes trying to bash Vincent Bugliosi by using Vincent's 1975 beliefs regarding the RFK assassination to suggest that Bugliosi must have ALSO believed that John Kennedy's death was a conspiracy too. As if the two cases are melded and fused together in some way.

But instead of bashing Mr. Bugliosi when bringing up his stance in the 1970s on the RFK assassination, a reasonable and sensible person would be admiring Vince.

Why?

Because by advocating in a court of law a conspiracy in RFK's murder, Vincent T. Bugliosi forever should have silenced any critics who might want to say that Vince was merely a "Government shill" or a "CIA stooge", etc., and that he would never, under any circumstances, postulate the possibility of a conspiracy when it comes to any of the major assassinations of the 1960s.

But such a stance cannot be utilized by Vince's critics against Mr. Bugliosi, because Vince DID take a stand (in a court of law) FOR CONSPIRACY in the Bobby Kennedy case.

So instead of acting as if Vince Bugliosi is worse than Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer, the conspiracy theorists should wake up and realize that Vince WILL argue for "conspiracy" if he thinks that a conspiracy did exist in a particular case.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Please let me know of any citations you have that will back up the assertion that [Gerald] McKnight has little credibility in the academic world. That's after you've finished vomiting upon reading my post, of course.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The vomiting might never end this time, Puffer. (I'm glad you saw my "vomit" remark before I decided to delete it from one of my recent posts [at Amazon.com]. Good catch. And fast.)

In short, yes, I'll take the word of Vincent T. Bugliosi over the word of ANY conspiracy theorist ("professor" or otherwise) when it comes to ANYTHING connected with THIS CASE (the JFK case). Period.

And that's mainly because I know the CORE EVIDENCE AND FACTS that exist in this case...and those facts have NOT changed since the Warren Commission opened its doors in November 1963. Not a single fact concerning the CORE of physical evidence (and most of the circumstantial evidence) has changed one single bit in the last 49 years. And nobody can prove that any of that evidence has changed, or was altered, faked, or manufactured.

And since every bit of that core evidence points to only one man named Oswald as the culprit, the logical answer is pretty easy to arrive at. (Except if you've been reading too many conspiracy books, including this one by the great Gerald D. McKnight.)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

You are a total phony, Mr. Von Pein. You know it and we know it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not a phony at all, Mr. Puffer. You're the phony. And you have proven in the last few days that you are every bit as big a hypocrite as Ben Holmes, for it was the same Garry Puffer of Riverside, California, who said this just twelve days ago in this very thread:

"To Mr. John Reagor King, If DVP had remained silent, I would have been happy to study your posts and reply to you, as I indicated. However, his noxious presence here is so offensive to me that I will no longer post on this thread. Sorry." -- Garry Puffer; October 11, 2012

Apparently my "noxious presence" isn't so bad after all. Eh, Garry?

David Von Pein
October 23, 2012

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 603)

BEN HOLMES SAID:

"When Rowland testified before the Commission on March 10, 1964, he claimed for the first time to have seen another person on the sixth floor." (WCR 251)

What's amusing about this lie, is that the Warren Commission itself, ON THE SAME PAGE(!!), demonstrates that it lied.

"The only possible corroboration for Rowland's story is found in the testimony of Roger D. Craig, a deputy sheriff of Dallas County, whose testimony on other aspects of the case has been discussed in chapter IV. Craig claimed that about 10 minutes after the assassination he talked to a young couple, Mr. and Mrs. Rowland, "...and the boy said he saw two men on the sixth floor..." " (WCR 251)

Now, either Mr. Rowland was, for the first time, telling someone that he saw two people on the sixth floor on March 10th, 1964, or he was doing so just 10 minutes after the assassination on November 22nd, 1963. They both cannot be true.

In their efforts to discredit eyewitnesses who had damaging testimony to offer, the Warren Commission would *ALWAYS* either ignore their testimony, refuse to take their testimony, lie about their testimony, or discredit their testimony.

But no-one can dispute that in this case, the Warren Commission Report itself demonstrated that they lied.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben Holmes is now implying that the Warren Commission was so stupid that they "lied" one minute and then went ahead and started telling the truth the next minute -- with the "truth" therefore negating the so-called "lie" they told on the very same page of the WCR.

Yes, Holmes, that does indeed appear to be an inconsistent statement made by the WC concerning Arnold Rowland on page 251. But it certainly would be really, really WEIRD (not to mention DUMB) if they deliberately "LIED" on the very same page where they also had to know they were EXPOSING THAT "LIE".

Right, Ben?

[EDIT -- Plus, the Commission does seem to be casting some doubt over the person who provided the "only possible corroboration for Rowland's story" -- Roger D. Craig -- who we all know was a liar when it comes to other aspects of the JFK case.]

The bottom line is (as it always is) -- Kook Holmes is nitpicking the 888 pages of the excellent Warren Commission Report to death, in order to dredge up some kind of inconsistencies that he (Kook Holmes) can prop up as alleged "lies".

And, naturally, if someone spends all of their days and nights going over some type of very lengthy and intricate document (like the Warren Report) with a fine-toothed comb, searching for things to gripe about....they're probably going to end up finding a few things to gripe about -- especially when that lengthy document is the WCR, which is a report that was written in a fairly-short amount of time (when considering the vast amount of material that had to be weighed, considered, and placed into the report in about a 9-month time period).

Yes, it's true that the Warren Commissioners and staff members have always said they were not really "rushed" in any way to get their work done. But, let's face facts, there was a LOT of stuff to go through before those 888 pages were typed up and put in print in September 1964, including the task of having to assess the testimony of 552 witnesses!

Good gosh, it takes most authors several YEARS to write lengthy books (and I doubt that any of those authors had to weigh and consider the testimony of 552 witnesses before publishing their books). The Warren Commission completed its work in just nine months. So a few ragged edges can be expected here and there. And, in my opinion, the number of "ragged edges" in the Warren Commission Report is a very small number indeed.

But a kook named Ben Holmes, though, undoubtedly considers all 888 pages of the WCR to be "ragged". Right, Mr. Chaff?

David Von Pein
June 28, 2009
February 1, 2014

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 486)

TOM ROSSLEY SAID:

David doesn't know that John Connally's own doctor made that ["in the chest"] statement.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As I said before, you (Rossley) can't even use your common sense (if you've got any left after wading through conspiracy myth after conspiracy myth for over 40 years now) to figure out the really, really easy-to-figure-out stuff regarding the evidence surrounding the events of November 22nd, 1963.

If you ever came up against something really difficult, you'd probably implode.


TOM ROSSLEY SAID:

David doesn't know that that statement is in the 26 volumes.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So what?

What did Robert Shaw say about JBC's wounds on live TV on 11/22/63?

Did Shaw say that Connally's chest wound was a wound of ENTRY?

Answer: No, of course not. Nor did Shaw EVER claim in his WC testimony that Connally's chest wound was a wound of entry.

Rossley, as always, is making shit up.

Whatever "in the chest" comment you're talking about that may be in "the 26 volumes" is not relevant to proving where the ENTRY vs. EXIT wounds were located on Governor Connally's body. Because it couldn't be more obvious where the specific entry and exit holes in JBC were located by just glancing briefly at Dr. Shaw's WC testimony:


Mr. SPECTER - When did you first have an opportunity then to examine Governor Connally's wound on the posterior aspect of his chest?

Dr. SHAW - After the Governor had been anesthetized. As soon as he was asleep so we could manipulate him--before that time it was necessary for an endotracheal tube to be in place so his respirations could be controlled before we felt we could roll him over and accurately examine the wound entrance. We knew this was the wound exit.

Mr. SPECTER - This [indicating an area below the right nipple on the body]?

Dr. SHAW - Yes.

Mr. DULLES - How did you know it was a wound exit.

Dr. SHAW - By the fact of its size, the ragged edges of the wound. This wound was covered by a dressing which could not be removed until the Governor was anesthetized.

Mr. SPECTER - Indicating this wound, the wound on the Governor's chest?

Dr. SHAW - Yes; the front part.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound on the posterior side of the Governor's chest?

Dr. SHAW - This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.

Mr. SPECTER - What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated to you that it was a wound of entrance then?

Dr. SHAW - Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaw1.htm

David Von Pein
April 10, 2009

THE 1968 CLARK PANEL REPORT

1968 Clark Panel Review of Photographs, X-Rays, Documents, and Other Evidence Pertaining to the Fatal Wounding of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas:


At the request of The Honorable Ramsey Clark, Attorney General of the United States, four physicians (hereafter sometimes referred to as The Panel) met in Washington, D.C. on February 26 and 27, 1968, to examine various photographs, X-ray films, documents, and other evidence pertaining to the death of President Kennedy, and to evaluate their significance in relation to the medical conclusions recorded in the Autopsy Report on the body of President Kennedy signed by Commander J.J. Humes, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy; Commander J. Thornton Boswell, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy, and Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, Medical Corps, U.S. Army, and in the Supplemental Report signed by Commander Humes. These appear in the Warren Commission Report at pages 538 to 545.

The four physicians constituting The Panel were:

1.) William H. Carnes, MD, Professor of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

2.) Russell S. Fisher, MD, Professor of Forensic Pathology, University of Maryland and Chief Medical Examiner of the State of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland.

3.) Russell H. Morgan, MD, Professor of Radiology, School of Medicine and Professor of Radiological Sciences, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

4.) Alan R. Moritz, MD, Professor of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and former Professor of Forensic Medicine, Harvard University.

Bruce Bromley, a member of the New York Bar who had been nominated by the President of the American Bar Association and thereafter requested by the Attorney General to act as legal counsel to The Panel, was present throughout The Panel's examination of the exhibits and collaborated with The Panel in the preparation of this report.

No one of the undersigned has had any previous connection with prior investigations of, or reports on this matter, and each has acted with complete and unbiased independence, free of preconceived views as to the correctness of the medical conclusions reached in the 1963 Autopsy report and Supplementary Report.


PREVIOUS REPORTS:

The Autopsy Report stated that X-rays had been made of the entire body of the deceased. The Panel's inventory disclosed X-ray films of the entire body except for the lower arms, wrists and hands, and the lower legs, ankles, and feet.

The Autopsy Report also described the decedent's wounds as follows:

"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right, carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior sagittal sinus and of the right cerebral hemisphere.

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the suprascapular and the supraclavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body.

In addition, it is our opinion that the wound of the skull produced such extensive damage to the brain as to preclude the possibility of the deceased surviving this injury."


The medical conclusions of the Warren Commission Report (pages 18 and 19) concerning President Kennedy's wounds are as follows:

"The nature of the bullet wounds suffered by President Kennedy and the location of the car at the time of the shots establish that the bullets were fired from above and behind the Presidential limousine, striking the President as follows:

President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck, causing a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal. The President was struck a second time by a bullet which entered the right-rear portion of his head, causing a massive and fatal wound."


INVENTORY OF MATERIAL EXAMINED:

Black-and-White and Colored Prints and transparencies....

Head viewed from above:
#5(9JB), 8(7JB), 13(6JB), 16(10JB), 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

Head viewed from right and above to include part of face, neck, shoulder, and upper chest:
#3(14JB), 4(13JB), 11(6JB), 12(5JB), 26, 27, 28, 40, 41

Head and neck viewed from left side:
#6(3JB), 15(4JB), 17(2JB), 18(1JB), 29, 30, 31

Head viewed from behind:
#7(16JB), 14(15JB), 42, 43

Cranial cavity with brain removed viewed from above and in front:
#1(18JB), 2(17JB), 44, 45

Back of body, including neck:
#9(11JB), 10(12JB), 38, 39

Brain viewed from above:
#50, 51, 52

Brain viewed from below:
#46, 47, 48, 49

The black-and-white and color negatives corresponding to the above were present and there were also seven black-and-white negatives of the brain without corresponding prints. These were numbered 19 through 25(JTB) and appeared to represent the same views as #46 through 52. All of the above were listed in a memorandum of transfer, located in the National Archives, and dated April 26, 1965.


X-Ray Films....

(The films bore the number 21296 and an inscription indicating that they have been made at the U.S. Naval Hospital, Bethesda, Maryland, on 11/22/63.)

Skull, A-P view:
#1

Skull, left lateral:
#2, 3

Skull, fragments of:
#4, 5, 6

Thoracolumbar region, A-P view:
#7, 11

Chest, A-P view:
#9

Right hemithorax, shoulder and upper arm, A-P view:
#8

Left hemithorax, shoulder and upper arm, A-P view:
#10

Pelvis, A-P view:
#13

Lower femurs and knees, A-P view:
#12

Upper legs, A-P view:
#14


Bullets....

CE 399--A whole bullet
CE 567--Portion of nose of a bullet
CE 569--Portion of base segment of a bullet
CE 840--3 fragments of lead


Motion Picture Films....

CE 904--Zapruder film
CE 905--Nix film
CE 906--Muchmore film
Series of single frames (215 through 334) from Zapruder film


Clothing....

CE 393--Suit coat
CE 394--Shirt
CE 395--Neck tie


Documents....

The Warren Commission's Report and the accompanying volumes of Exhibits and Hearings. (Study of these Documents was limited to those portions deemed pertinent by The Panel.)


EXAMINATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF HEAD:

Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long axis of this wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The wound was judged to be approximately six millimeters wide and 15 millimeters long. The margin of this wound shows an ill-defined zone of abrasion.

Photographs 5, 8, 13, 16, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 show the top of the head with multiple gaping irregularly stellate lacerations of the scalp over the right parietal, temporal, and frontal regions.

Photographs 1, 2, 44, and 45 show the frontal region of the skull and a portion of the internal aspect of the back of the skull. Due to lack of contrast of structures portrayed and lack of clarity of detail in these photographs, the only conclusion reached by The Panel from study of this series was that there was no existing bullet defect in the supraorbital region of the skull.

Photographs 46, 47, 48, and 49 are of the inferior aspect of the brain and show extensive deformation with laceration and fragmentation of the right cerebral hemisphere. Irregularly shaped areas of contusion with minor loss of cortex are seen on the inferior surface of the first left temporal convolution. The orbital gyri on the left show contusion with some underlying loss of cortex. The sylvian fissure on the right side has been opened, revealing a rolled-up mass of arachnoid and blood clot which is dark brown to black in color. The mid-temporal region is depressed and its surface lacerated. The peduncles have been lacerated, probably incident to the removal of the contents from the cranium.

Photographs 50, 51, and 52 show the superior aspect of the brain. The left cerebral hemisphere is covered by a generally-intact arachnoid with evidence of subarachnoid hemorrhage especially over the parietal and frontal gyri and in the sulci. The right cerebral hemisphere is extensively lacerated. It is transected by a broad canal running generally in a posteroanterior direction and to the right of the midline. Much of the roof of this canal is missing, as are most of the overlying frontal and parietal gyri. In the central portion of its base, there can be seen a gray-brown, rectangular structure measuring approximately 13 x 20 mm. Its identity cannot be established by The Panel. In addition to the superficial and deep cortical destruction, it can be seen that the corpus callosum is widely torn in the midline.

These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity, the major portion of which passed forward through the right cerebral hemisphere, and which produced an explosive type of fragmentation of the skull and laceration of the scalp. The appearance of the entrance wound in the scalp is consistent with its having been produced by a bullet similar to that of exhibit CE 399. The photographs do not disclose where this bullet emerged from the head, although those showing the interior of the cranium with the brain removed indicate that it did not emerge from the supraorbital region. Additional information regarding the course of the bullet is presented in the discussion of the X-ray films.


Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41):

There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body.

A well-defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399.

At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body.


EXAMINATION OF X-RAY FILMS:

The films submitted included: an anteroposterior film of the skull (#1), two left lateral views of the skull taken in slightly different projections (#2 and 3), three views of a group of three separate bony fragments from the skull (#4, 5, and 6), two anteroposterior views of the thoracolumbar region of the trunk (#7 and 11), one anteroposterior view of the right hemithorax, shoulder, and upper arm (#8), one anteroposterior view of the chest (#9), one anteroposterior view of the left hemithorax, shoulder, and upper arm (#10), one anteroposterior view of the lower femurs and knees (#12), one anteroposterior view of the pelvis (#13) and one anteroposterior view of the upper legs (#14).

Skull....

There are multiple fractures of the bones of the calvarium bilaterally. These fractures extend into the base of the skull and involve the floor of the anterior fossa on the right side as well as the middle fossa in the midline. With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull, the traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive fragmentation of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind.

Above, the fragmentation extends approximately 25 mm. across the midline to involve adjacent portions of the left parietal bone; below, the changes extend into the right temporal bone. Throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have bean displaced outward; several pieces are missing.

Distributed through the right cerebral hemisphere are numerous small, irregular metallic fragments most of which are less than 1 mm. in maximum dimension. The majority of these fragments lie anteriorly and superiorly. None can be visualized on the left side of the brain and none below a horizontal plane through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull.

On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed. Also there is, embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment which on the anteroposterior film (#1) lies 25 mm. to the right of the midline. This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm. in diameter.

Immediately adjacent to the hole on the internal surface of the skull, there is localized elevation of the soft tissues. Small fragments of bone lie within portions of these tissues and within the hole itself. These changes are consistent with an entrance wound of the skull produced by a bullet similar to that of exhibit CE 399.

The metallic fragments visualized within the right cerebral hemisphere fall into two groups. One group consists of relatively large fragments, more or less randomly distributed. The second group consists of finely divided fragments, distributed in a posteroanterior direction in a region 45 mm. long and 8 mm. wide. As seen on lateral film #2, this formation overlies the position of the coronal suture; its long axis, if extended posteriorly, passes through the above-mentioned hole. It appears to end anteriorly immediately below the badly fragmented frontal and parietal bones just anterior to the region of the coronal suture.

The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent's head was struck from behind by a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm. to the right of the midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it emerged from the head.

In addition to the foregoing, it is noteworthy that there is no evidence of projectile fragments in the left cerebral tissues or in the right cerebral hemisphere below a horizontal plane passing through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull. Also, although the fractures of the calvarium extend to the left of the midline and into the anterior and middle fossa of the skull, no bony defect, such as one created by a projectile either entering or leaving the head, is seen in the calvarium to the left of the midline or in the base of the skull. Hence, it is not reasonable to postulate that a projectile passed through the head in a direction other than that described above.

Of further note, when the X-ray films of the skull were presented to The Panel, film #1 had been damaged in two small regions by what appears to be the heat from a spotlight. Also, on film #2, a pair of converging pencil lines had been drawn on the film. Neither of these artifacts interfered with the interpretation of the films.

Neck Region....

Films #8, 9, and 10 allowed visualization of the lower neck. Subcutaneous emphysema is present just to the right of the cervical spine immediately above the apex of the right lung. Also, several small metallic fragments are present in this region. There is no evidence of fracture of either scapula or of the clavicles or of the ribs or of any of the cervical and thoracic vertebrae.

The foregoing observations indicate that the pathway of the projectile involving the neck was confined to a region to the right of the spine and superior to a plane passing through the upper margin of the right scapula, the apex of the right lung, and the right clavicle. Any other pathway would have almost certainly fractured one or more bones of the right shoulder girdle and thorax.

Other Regions Studied....

No bullets or fragments of bullets are demonstrated in X-rayed portions of the body other than those described above. On film #13, a small round opaque structure a little more than 1 mm. in diameter is visible just to the right of the midline at the level of the sacral segment of the spine. Its smooth characteristics are not similar to those of the projectile fragments seen in the X-rays of the skull and neck.


EXAMINATION OF THE CLOTHING:

Suit Coat (CE 393)....

A ragged oval hole about 15 mm. long (vertically) is located 5 cm. to the right of the midline in the back of the coat at a point about 12 cm. below the upper edge of the collar. A smaller ragged hole, which is located near the midline and about 4 cm. below the upper edge of the collar, does not overlie any corresponding damage to the shirt or skin and appears to be unrelated to the wounds or their causation.

Shirt (CE 394)....

A ragged hole about 10 mm. long vertically and corresponding to the first one described in the coat, is located 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline in the back of the shirt at a point 14 cm. below the upper edge of the collar. Two linear holes 15 mm. long are found in the overlapping hems of the front of the shirt in a position corresponding to the place where the knot of the necktie would normally be.

Tie (CE 395)....

In the front component of the knot of the tie in the outer layer of fabric, a ragged tear about 5 mm. in maximum diameter is located 2.5 cm. below the upper edge of the knot and to the left of the midline.


DISCUSSION:

The information disclosed by the joint examination of the foregoing exhibits by the members of The Panel supports the following conclusions:

The decedent was wounded by two bullets, both of which entered his body from behind.

One bullet struck the back of the decedent's head well above the external occipital protuberance. Based upon the observation that he was leaning forward with his head turned obliquely to the left when this bullet struck, the photographs and X-rays indicate that it came from a site above and slightly to his right. This bullet fragmented after entering the cranium, one major piece of it passing forward and laterally to produce an explosive fracture of the right side of the skull as it emerged from the head.

The absence of metallic fragments in the left cerebral hemisphere or below the level of the frontal fossa on the right side--together with the absence of any holes in it, the skull to the left of the midline, or in its base, and the absence of any penetrating injury of the left hemisphere--eliminate with reasonable certainty the possibility of a projectile having passed through the head in any direction other than from back to front as described in preceding sections of this report.

The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck.

The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage, in part because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity. Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report.


SUMMARY:

Examination of the clothing and of the photographs and X-rays taken at autopsy reveal that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him, one of which traversed the base of the neck on the right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the skull from behind and exploded its right side.

The photographs and X-rays discussed herein support the above-quoted portions of the original Autopsy Report and the above-quoted medical conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.


[Signed:]

WILLIAM H. CARNES, MD
RUSSELL S. FISHER, MD
RUSSELL H. MORGAN, MD
ALAN R. MORITZ, MD


============================

SOME OF THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS
AND X-RAYS EXAMINED BY THE
CLARK PANEL IN 1968:




















============================

RELATED VIDEO...
(FEATURING DR. RUSSELL FISHER):

ROBERT FRAZIER

EXAMINING THE WARREN COMMISSION
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

FRAZIER'S 1964 TESTIMONY:

PART 1 --- PART 2 --- PART 3

---------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1964, Robert A. Frazier was a firearms identification expert
working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He examined much of
the ballistics and firearms evidence connected with the assassination
of President Kennedy and the murder of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit.

Conspiracy theorists often attempt to cast doubt on the validity of
the physical evidence (i.e., the ballistics evidence) that was tested
and examined by Mr. Frazier, with some conspiracists coming right out
and calling Frazier a liar when it comes to the extensive testimony
that he supplied the Warren Commission in 1964. Naturally, the
conspiracists who enjoy calling Mr. Frazier a liar can't prove the
allegation.

Plus, there's the fact that Frazier certainly wasn't the only firearms
expert to examine the ballistics evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder
cases. Multiple other FBI agents tested the evidence as well, in
addition to an independent (i.e., non-FBI) investigator, Joseph D. Nicol.

So, if Frazier was telling one falsehood after another regarding Lee
Harvey Oswald's rifle and the bullets that Frazier said came out of
that rifle, it means that several other people must have been telling
lies about the evidence too, because each one of the firearms experts
came to the same overall conclusions with respect to the two murder
weapons in the Kennedy and Tippit cases, with those conclusions
positively verifying that Lee Harvey Oswald's weapons were the weapons
that killed President John F. Kennedy and Officer J.D. Tippit on
November 22, 1963.

Below are some highlights taken from Robert Frazier's Warren
Commission testimony. (Frazier's complete testimony can be found
at the three links at the top of this post.)

These excerpts below paint a very clear picture with respect to the
firearms and ballistics evidence connected with JFK's assassination,
and it's a picture that almost all conspiracy theorists have no choice
but to either ignore or misrepresent in some fashion (if those conspiracists
actually want to continue to believe that Lee Oswald was just a "patsy").

My comments have been inserted in a few points below, denoted by a
"DVP" reference; and relevant Internet articles and photographs of
pertinent Warren Commission exhibits have been linked (or shown) in
various places as well:

================================

MELVIN A. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, will you give your name and
position?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Robert A. Frazier, Special Agent, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, assigned to the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And your education?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I have a science degree which I received from the
University of Idaho."

================================

MR. EISENBERG -- "Could you estimate the number of examinations you
have made of firearms to identify the firearms?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Thousands, I would say--firearms comparisons--I have
made in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000."

JOHN J. McCLOY -- "Have you written any articles on this subject?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes. I have predated an article for the "FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin" on firearms identification, which is published
as a reprint and provided to any organization or person interested in
the general field of firearms identification."

MR. McCLOY -- "Have you read most of the literature on the subject?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, I have."

MR. McCLOY -- "Is there any classical book on this subject?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "There are a number of fairly good texts. The basic
one, originally published in 1936, is by Major Julian S. Hatcher, who
later, as a general, rewrote his book 'Firearms Investigation,
Identification, And Evidence'. There are many other books published on
the subject."

================================

MR. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, I now hand you a rifle marked
Commission Exhibit 139. Are you familiar with this weapon?"



MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, I am."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And do you recognize it by serial number or by your
mark?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "By serial number on the barrel, and by my initials
which appear on various parts of the weapon."

MR. EISENBERG -- "For the record, this is the rifle which was found on
the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on
November 22nd [1963]. Can you describe this rifle by name and caliber?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "It is a caliber 6.5 Italian military rifle, commonly
referred to in the United States as a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano.
It is a bolt-action clip-fed military rifle." ....

MR. EISENBERG -- "Is there any reason that you can think of why this
Exhibit 139 might be thought to be a 7.35- or 7.65-caliber rifle?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "From outward appearances, it could be a 7.35 mm.
rifle, because, basically, that is what it is. But its mechanism has
been rebarreled with a 6.5 mm. barrel. Photographs of the weapons are
similar, unless you make a very particular study of the photographs of
the original model 38 Italian military rifle, which is 7.35 mm.

"Early in the Second World War, however, the Italian Government
barreled many of these rifles with a 6.5 mm. barrel, since they had
a quantity of that ammunition on hand. I presume that would be the
most logical way of confusing this weapon with one of a larger caliber."

================================

MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a
German-made Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest,
and the basic bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied.
And since this uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been
referred to as a Mauser for that reason."



RELATED ARTICLE

================================

MR. EISENBERG -- "Based on your experience with firearms, is the
placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined
to one weapon of a given type?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign
weapons particularly? The serial number consists of a series of
numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed
before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number,
consisting of a letter."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Have you been able to confirm that the serial number
on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is."


[DVP -- Many conspiracy theorists strongly disagree with Bob Frazier's
above "Yes, it is" answer regarding the "C2766" serial number that was
unique to Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. But, to date,
nobody has come up with a single Model 91/38 Carcano rifle, other than
CE139, that is stamped with the serial number C2766.]

RELATED ARTICLE

================================

MR. EISENBERG -- "Have you examined the sling on Commission
Exhibit 139?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, I did."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Do you feel that this is--that this sling was
originally manufactured as a rifle sling?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; it is not in any way similar to a normal
sling for a rifle. It appears to be a sling from some carrying case,
camera bag, musical instrument strap, or something of that nature.
We have made attempts to identify it, with no success."

================================

MR. EISENBERG -- "The cartridge cases which were...found next to the
window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository; can you
tell us when you received those cartridge cases?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; I received the first of the exhibits, 543
and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special
Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office. And the other one I
received on November 27, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents
Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office." ....

MR. EISENBERG -- "After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine
them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit
139?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. EISENBERG -- "When did you make the examinations?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "On the dates I mentioned, that is, November 23, 1963,
and November 27, 1963."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And what were your conclusions, Mr. Frazier?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I found all three of the cartridge cases had been
fired in this particular weapon."



================================

MR. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399,
which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a
bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the
assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me
in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963, by Special Agent Elmer
Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Does that have your mark on it?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it does."



MR. EISENBERG -- "The bullet is in the same condition as it was when
you received it?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and
the other examiners. There is a discoloration at the nose caused
apparently by mounting this bullet in some material which stained it,
which was not present when received, and one more thing on the nose is
a small dent or scraped area. At this area the spectographic examiner
removed a small quantity of metal for analysis."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you prepare the bullet in any way for
examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean
and it was not necessary to change it in any way."

MR. EISENBERG -- "There was no blood or similar material on the bullet
when you received it?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Not any which would interfere with the examination,
no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been
removed just in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually
clean blood or tissue off of the bullet."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you examine this exhibit to determine whether it
had been fired in Exhibit 139?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And what was your conclusion?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "It was. Exhibit 399 was fired in the rifle 139."

MR. EISENBERG -- "That is to the exclusion of all other rifles?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

RELATED ARTICLE

MORE "CE399" TALK

================================

MR. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the
exhibit-that is, 399?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains."

MR. EISENBERG -- "How much weight loss does that show from the
original bullet weight?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "We measured several standard bullets, and their
weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or
two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of
161 grains. One weighed---160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains."

MR. EISENBERG -- "In your opinion, was there any weight loss?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss
to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the
base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is
slightly flattened. There could be a slight weight loss from the end
of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because
158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at
least a 2-grain variation would be allowed. So it would be
approximately 3 or 4 grains."


[DVP -- The weight of CE399 when it was examined by the FBI's Robert
Frazier (158.6 grains) is perfectly consistent with the sum total of
evidence in the JFK case relating to the "Single-Bullet Theory", in
that only a very small amount of metal fragments were discovered
inside the bodies of either of the two men that Bullet 399 struck on
November 22, 1963, in Dallas' Dealey Plaza.

The total weight of the bullet fragments that CE399 deposited in the
bodies of President Kennedy and Governor Connally was certainly far
less than 2.4 grains (which would be the approximate amount of lead
missing from CE399, based on the average weight of 161 grains for an
unfired Mannlicher-Carcano/Western Cartridge Company bullet).]

RELATED ARTICLE

================================

MR. McCLOY -- "As a result of all these comparisons, you would say
that the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were
identified by you were fired from that rifle [CE139]?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. McCLOY -- "And you would say the same thing of Commission
Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. McCLOY -- "And the fragment [Commission Exhibit] 567...was
likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. McCLOY -- "You have no doubt about any of those?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "None whatsoever."

================================

MR. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment
[Commission Exhibit 569] with a view to determining whether it had
been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this
particular rifle, 139."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you weigh this fragment, Mr. Frazier?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, I did. It weighs 21.0 grains." ....

MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567,
and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir."

MR. EISENBERG -- "You cannot?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "There is not enough of the two fragments in
unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments
actually fit together. However, it was determined that there is no
area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding
area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one
bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets."

================================

MR. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet [Commission
Exhibit 573, a bullet connected with the assassination attempt against
General Edwin Walker in Dallas, Texas, on April 10, 1963] to determine
whether it was or might have been fired in Exhibit 139?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, I did."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And what was your conclusion?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I was unable to reach a conclusion as to whether or
not it had been fired from this rifle. The conclusion went slightly
further than that, in that we determined that the general rifling
characteristics of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found
on the bullet, Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the
bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land
and groove impressions.

"And, second, that all of the remaining physical characteristics of this
bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano
bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle, 139.

"However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated the
length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that Exhibit 573
is, in fact, a Western Cartridge Company product, but all of the remaining
characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the cannelure,
the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance, coloration, and so
forth, are similar to Western ammunition."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Is this a jacketed bullet?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is a copper-alloy jacketed bullet having a
lead core."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you think of any reason why someone might have
called this a steel-jacketed bullet?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer
to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact
just have a copper-alloy jacket." ....

MR. EISENBERG -- "But you do conclude that this was fired from a
Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38, or a rifle with similar barrel characteristics?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir." ....

MR. McCLOY -- "When you say you were able to determine it was fired
from this type of rifle or one similar to it, that would include a
number of different kinds of rifles besides the Mannlicher-Carcano?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. It could include a variety of weapons with
which I am not familiar in the foreign field."

MR. McCLOY -- "But it is definitely, according to your best judgment,
a 6.5-millimeter bullet?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. McCLOY -- "And the bullet, such as we find it, has now
characteristics similar to the type of bullet which was our Exhibit
No. 399?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it does. Placing them side by side [see photo below],
the cannelure, which is really the only physical characteristic apparent,
comes to exactly the same place on both 399 and 573, indicating that
this bullet was loaded to exactly the same depth in the cartridge--the
two bullets, both 399 and 573."



================================

CHAIRMAN EARL WARREN -- "Do the evidences that you see on this shirt
[CE394 -- FRONT AND BACK] indicate to you that this hole in the front
of the shirt that you have just described was made by the bullet which
entered in the rear."

MR. FRAZIER -- "I can say that this hole in the collar area could have
been made by this bullet, but I cannot say that the bullet which entered
the back actually came out here or at some other place, because I am not
aware of the autopsy information as to the path of the bullet through
the body."

MR. WARREN -- "I see."

MR. FRAZIER -- "But if the path of the bullet was such that it came
through the body at the right angle, then one bullet could have caused
both holes."

================================

ARLEN SPECTER -- "May the record show at this point that Mr. Frazier
is examining the shirt [worn by Texas Governor John B. Connally on
11/22/63] heretofore identified on the back side with a photograph
marked Commission Exhibit 685 and on the front side with a photograph
marked Commission Exhibit 686. Now, referring to that shirt, Mr.
Frazier, what, if anything, did you observe on the rear side by way of
an imperfection, hole, or defect?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I found a hole which is very ragged. An L-shaped tear
actually is what it amounted to in the back of the shirt near the
right sleeve, 2 inches from the seam line where the sleeve attaches to
the shirt, and 7-and-a-half inches to the right of the midline of the
shirt, the right side being as you look at the back of the shirt. This
tear amounted to a five-eights of an inch long horizontal and
approximately one-half inch long vertical break in the cloth, with a
very small tear located immediately to its right, as you look at the
back of the shirt, which was approximately three-sixteenths of an inch
in length. This hole corresponds in position to the hole in the back
of the coat, Governor Connally's coat, identified as Commission No. 683."


[DVP -- Frazier actually meant to say Commission Exhibit No. 684 above,
instead of CE683, because CE684 is a picture of the back of Governor
Connally's suit coat; whereas CE683 is a photo of the front of Connally's
jacket.]


MR. SPECTER -- "Were there sufficient characteristics observable to
formulate a conclusion as to the cause and direction of that hole?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir. There were no characteristics on which you
could base a conclusion as to what caused it, whether or not it was a
bullet and if it had been, what the direction of the projectile was."

MR. SPECTER -- "Could it have been caused by a 6.5-millimeter bullet
coming from the rear of the wearer toward his front?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

================================

MR. FRAZIER -- "We found three small lead particles lying on the rug
in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in
the area which would be underneath the left jump seat." ....

MR. SPECTER -- "May we assign to this group of particles Commission
Exhibit Number 840?" ....

ALLEN W. DULLES -- "It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit Number
840." ....

MR. SPECTER -- "Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are
contained within this vial, please?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed
immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a
grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain,
respectively. Since that time, small portions have been removed for
spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet
fragments."

MR. SPECTER -- "Has that comparison been made with a whole bullet
heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399 which...has been
identified as the bullet from the Connally stretcher?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. The comparison was made by comparing Exhibit
399 with a bullet fragment found in the front seat of the Presidential
limousine and then comparing that fragment with these fragments from
the rear seat of the automobile."

MR. SPECTER -- "For identification purposes, has that fragment from
the front seat been heretofore identified during your prior testimony?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it has. It bears Commission Number 567."

MR. SPECTER -- "Now, what did the comparative examination then
disclose as among Commission Exhibits 399, 567, and 840?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "That examination was performed by a spectrographer,
John F. Gallagher, and I do not have the results of his examinations
here, although I did ascertain that it was determined that the lead
fragments were similar in composition."

MR. SPECTER -- "...So that the fragments designated 840 could have
come from the same bullet as [the] fragment designated 567?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified
in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet
heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I would say that based on weight, it would be highly
improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that
bullet, since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was
158.6 grains...and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains,
and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--
2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small
part of the core of the bullet 399 missing."

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield
of the Presidential limousine?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, I did."

MR. SPECTER -- "What did that examination disclose?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "On the inside surface of the windshield there was a
deposit of lead. This deposit was located, when you look at the inside
surface of the windshield, 13-and-a-half inches down from the top, 23
inches from the left-hand side or driver's side of the windshield, and
was immediately in front of a small pattern of star-shaped cracks
which appeared in the outer layer of the laminated windshield."

MR. DULLES -- "What do you mean by the "outer layer of the laminated
windshield"?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "The windshield is composed of two layers with a very
thin layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the form
of safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the
outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a
very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of
glass missing from the outside surface."

MR. DULLES -- "And the outside surface was the surface away from where
the occupants were sitting?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "That is correct; yes."

MR. DULLES -- "And the inside surface was the surface nearest the
occupants?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes."

MR. SPECTER -- "What do those characteristics indicate as to which
side of the windshield was struck?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "It indicates that it could only have been struck on
the inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside
surface because of the manner in which the glass broke and further
because of the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear
in the outer layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at
the time of impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the
point where these small radial or wagon spoke--wagon wheel spoke-type
cracks appear on the outer surface."

MR. DULLES -- "So the pressure must have come from the inside and not
from the outside against the glass?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; that is correct."

MR. DULLES -- "As far as the car is concerned from the back to the
front?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. DULLES -- "Not from outside against the glass--from the front
against the glass."

MR. FRAZIER -- "That is right."

RELATED ARTICLE

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "I now show you Commission Exhibit Number 350
which has heretofore been identified as a picture of the windshield
of the Presidential limousine and I ask you if that is the crack about
which you have just testified?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. This Exhibit 350 is a photograph which I
took on the 23rd of November, showing a view from the front toward the
rear of the Presidential limousine and showing the crack in the glass
and the lead residue on the inside surface." ....

MR. DULLES -- "May I just ask a question of you, Mr. Specter, and
possibly of the witness. I assume that the windshield we are now
discussing is the windshield that was exhibited to the Commission
several weeks ago and which members of the Commission examined?"

MR. SPECTER -- "It was, Mr. Dulles, and we can establish that, of
record, through another Commission Exhibit which is 351, which was the
number given to the windshield and we have a reproduction here through
the photograph."

MR. DULLES -- "You don't have the windshield here today, though?"

MR. SPECTER -- "No, we do not."

MR. DULLES -- "It would be the same windshield that the Commission
saw."

MR. SPECTER -- "We can establish it through the witness, too. Mr.
Frazier, for that purpose can you identify what is depicted in a
photograph heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 351?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. This is a photograph of the very small
pattern of cracks in the windshield which was on the Presidential
limousine at the time I examined it, and which I also later examined
in the FBI laboratory."

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "Mr. Frazier, have you now described all of your
findings on the windshield of the Presidential limousine?"

MR. FRAZIER -- Yes, sir; that is, concerning the glass itself and not
the molding around the windshield."

MR. SPECTER -- "Will you then move to the molding around the
windshield and state what, if anything, you found there?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "On the strip of chrome which goes across the top of
the windshield and again on the passenger side of the windshield or
the inside surface, I found a dent in the chrome which had been caused
by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface."

MR. SPECTER -- "Was there one dent or more than one dent or what?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "One dent."

MR. SPECTER -- "Will you identify what is depicted by a photograph
heretofore marked as Commission Exhibit 349?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. This is a photograph which I took of this
dent at that time, showing the damaged chrome, just to the right of
the rearview mirror support at the top of the windshield."

MR. SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's limousine
disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been
caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir."

MR. DULLES -- "I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the
indentation in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the
windshield, but on the inside, could that have been caused by a
fragment of a bullet?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been
caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full
velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at fairly
high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome."

MR. DULLES -- "Could that have been caused by any of the fragments
that you have identified as having been found on the front seat or
near the front seat of the car?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, I believe it could have by either, in fact, of
the two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat."

MR. DULLES -- "Thank you."

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "Mr. Frazier, assume certain facts to be true for
purposes of expressing an opinion on a hypothetical situation, to wit:
that President Kennedy was struck by a 6.5-millimeter bullet which
passed through his body entering on the rear portion of his neck 14
centimeters to the left of his right acromion process and 14
centimeters below his mastoid process, with a striking velocity of
approximately 1,904 feet per second, and exited after passing through
a fascia channel in his body, through the lower anterior third of his
neck with an exit velocity of approximately 1,772 to 1,779 feet per
second; and that bullet had then traveled from the point where it
exited from his neck and struck the front windshield in some manner.
What effect would that have had on the front windshield and the
subsequent flight of the missile?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "It would have shattered the front windshield. It would
have caused a very large, relatively large hole, approximately three-
eighths to an inch in diameter with radiating cracks extending outward
into the glass for several inches, even to the side of the glass."

MR. DULLES -- "It would have penetrated the windshield?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. SPECTER -- "Would the missile then have proceeded in a forward
direction?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; it would."

MR. SPECTER -- "Do you have an opinion as to how far it would have
gone?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Until it struck some other object in the area of
approximately a mile."

MR. SPECTER -- "Now assume the same sequence with respect to exit
velocity from the point of the President's neck at the same rate of
1,772 to 1,798 feet per second, and assume still further that the
bullet had, the whole bullet had, struck the metal framing
which you have heretofore described and identified. What effect would
that have had on the metal framing?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "It would have torn a hole in the chrome, penetrated
the framing both inside and outside of the car. I can only assume,
since I haven't tested the metal of that particular car, I would
assume that the bullet would completely penetrate both the chrome, the
metal supporting the chrome, on the inside, and the body metal on the
outside which supports the windshield of the car."

MR. SPECTER -- "Now, assume the same set of factors as to the exit
velocity from the President's neck. What effect would that bullet have
had on any other portion of the automobile which it might have struck
in the continuation of its flight?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "In my opinion, it would have penetrated any other metal
surface and, of course, any upholstery surface depending on the nature
of the material as to how deep it would penetrate or how many
successive layers it may have penetrated."

MR. SPECTER -- "Was there any evidence in any portion of the car that
the automobile was struck by a bullet which exited from the
President's neck under the circumstances which I have just asked you
to assume?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; there was not."

MR. SPECTER -- "And had there been any such evidence would your
examination of the automobile have uncovered such an indication or
such evidence?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; I feel that it would have."

MR. SPECTER -- "Was your examination a thorough examination of all
aspects of the interior of the automobile?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; for our purpose. However, we did not tear
out all of the rugs on the floor, for instance. We examined the rugs
carefully for holes, for bullet furroughs, for fragments. We examined
the nap of the rug, in the actual nap of the rug, for fragments and
bullet holes.

"We pulled the rug back as far as we could turn it back and even tore
the glue or adhesive material loose around the cracks at the edges of
the rug so we could observe the cracks to see whether they had been
enlarged, and we examined all of the upholstery covering, on the back
of the front seat, on the doors, and in the rear seat compartment, the
jump seats, the actual rear seat, the back of the rear seat.

"And we examined the front seat in a similar manner, and we found no
bullet holes or other bullet impact areas, other than the one on the
inside of the windshield and the dent inside the windshield chrome."

MR. SPECTER -- "Had any of those portions of the automobile been
struck by the bullet exiting from the President's neck, which I have
described hypothetically for you, would you have found some evidence
of striking?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. DULLES -- "When was this examination made?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Between 2 and 4:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963."

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "Were any metallic fragments brought to you which were
purported to have been found in the head of President Kennedy?"

MR. DULLES -- "Or body?"

MR. SPECTER -- "Or body of President Kennedy?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, they were. On November 23, 1963, at 1:45 a.m.,
the two metal fragments in this container were delivered to me in the
FBI laboratory by Special Agent James W. Sibert, and Special Agent
Francis O'Neill of the Baltimore office of the FBI who stated they had
obtained these in the autopsy room at the Naval Hospital near
Washington, D.C., where they were present when they were removed
from the head of President Kennedy."

MR. SPECTER -- "Is there any specification as to the portion of the
President's head from which they were removed?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir. They told me that there had been numerous
particles in the head but only these two had been removed, the others
being very small."

MR. SPECTER -- "May it please the Commission, I would like to have
those marked and admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit Number
843."

MR. DULLES -- "It shall be so marked and admitted under those
numbers."

RELATED ARTICLE

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "Did you participate in the onsite tests at Dallas on
May 24, 1964?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes."

MR. SPECTER -- "What was your position during most of the time of
those onsite tests?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I was stationed at the window on the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository Building at the southeast corner of
the building."

MR. SPECTER -- "How far was that window open at the time the tests
were being conducted?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I estimated it as approximately one-third. It was
somewhat less than halfway open."

MR. SPECTER -- "Is that the distance depicted on Commission Exhibit
No. 482, which has heretofore been introduced in evidence?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."



MR. SPECTER -- "Is the distance open on that window about the same as
that which you had it open at the time these tests were run?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, I would say that this is very close. The window
was placed according to information already furnished to the
Commission as to how much it had been opened at that time."

MR. SPECTER -- "Did you handle the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle during the
course of the onsite tests?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. SPECTER -- "The rifle previously identified as Commission Exhibit
Number 139?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; I did."

MR. SPECTER -- "...What was the basis for your positioning of that
rifle during those tests?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "To position the rifle, we selected boxes of the same
size and contour as boxes shown in a photograph or rather in two
photographs, reportedly taken by the police department at Dallas
shortly after the assassination. We placed these boxes in their
relative position in front of the window spacing them from left to
right, according to the photographs which were furnished to us, and
also placing them up against the window, with one of them resting on
the window ledge as it was shown in the photographs."



MR. SPECTER -- "In addition to the placement of the boxes, were there
any other guides which you had for reconstructing the position of the
rifle to the way which you believed it to have been held on November
22, 1963?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. There was one physical obstruction in the
building which could not be moved consisting of two vertical pipes
located just at the left side of the sixth floor window. These prevented
me or anyone who was shooting from that window from moving any
further to the left.

"The position of the rifle, of course, had to be such that it could be
sighted out through the window, using the telescopic sight high enough
above the window ledge so that the muzzle of the weapon would clear
the window ledge, and low enough in position so that the bottom of the
window, which was only partially raised, would not interfere with a view
through the telescopic sight, which is approximately 2 inches higher than
the actual bore of the weapon."

MR. SPECTER -- "Did you position the rifle further, based on information
provided to you concerning the testimony of certain eyewitnesses at the
assassination scene concerning what they observed?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. We attempted to put the muzzle of the weapon
sufficiently far out the window so it would have been visible from below."

THE SECRET SERVICE RECONSTRUCTION FILM

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "I now hand you Exhibits Numbers 889, 890, and 891,
and ask you if you had the view on each of those depicted in the
"photograph through rifle scope"?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. Commission Number 889 represented by
[Zapruder Film] frame 166 is the adjusted position to account for the
fact that the Presidential stand-in on May 24 was actually 10 inches
higher in the air above the street than the President would have been
in the Presidential limousine."

MR. DULLES -- "Would you explain to us simply how you made those
adjustments?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. DULLES -- "I mean how did you get him down 10 inches as a
practical matter."

MR. FRAZIER -- "They had marked on the back of the President's coat
the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of
his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures.
They then held a ruler, a tape measure up against that, both the back
of the Presidential stand-in and the back of the Governor's stand-in,
and looking through the scope you could estimate the 10-inch distance
down on the automobile. You could not actually see it on the President's
back. But could locate that 10-inch distance as a point which we marked
with tape on the automobile itself, both for the Presidential and the
Governor's stand-in."

MR. DULLES -- "Thank you."



================================

MR. SPECTER -- "I now hand you Commission Exhibits Numbers 892 and
893, and ask you if you observed the views depicted in the "photograph
through rifle scope" on each of those exhibits?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "On Commission Exhibit Number 892, also marked
[Zapruder] frame Number 207, the car was moved forward under the tree
to the point where the spot on the Presidential stand-in's back just
became visible beyond the foliage of the tree. I had the car stopped
at that point so that this photograph could be made there.

"On Commission Exhibit Number 893, also marked frame 210, we have
the photograph made at the adjusted position to accommodate the
10-inch difference in height between the stand-in and the actual position
of the wound above the street and on the President's body."

MR. SPECTER -- "What was the alinement of President Kennedy's stand-in
with Governor Connally's stand-in at frames 207 and 210?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "They both are in direct alinement with the telescopic
sight at the window. The Governor is immediately behind the President
in the field of view. Was that your question?"

MR. SPECTER -- "Yes."

MR. FRAZIER -- "Alinement of people?"

MR. SPECTER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir." ....

MR. SPECTER -- "Based on the Governor's position then in frames 207
and 210, was he lined up so that a bullet fired from the sixth floor
would have passed through his body in about the way that the entry and
exit holes were described to you?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes. I would say that this could have happened at these
two frames. However, this would assume that the path of the bullet
through the Governor's body was the same as the path of the bullet
before it struck, that is, there was no appreciable deflection in the body
itself. Since I have no actual technical evidence available to me that
there was no deflection, I can only say that it is a possibility under the
circumstances as set up in these photographs."

MR. SPECTER -- "You would state that as a possibility based upon the
observations you made and the facts provided to you?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."


[DVP -- So, as can be seen in CE893 and CE894, President Kennedy and
Governor Connally, who were both shot in their respective upper backs
on 11/22/63 by a rifle bullet, were in a perfect position within the
President's limousine to be hit by the same bullet that was fired from
the sixth-floor window of the Book Depository at a point which is the
equivalent of frames 210 to 222 of the Zapruder Film.

My own opinion is that the single bullet hit both victims at precisely
Zapruder frame #224, which is a frame that is also within the Warren
Commission's "bracketed" range of Z-Film frames that the Commission
concluded was the approximate time that the "SBT" shot was fired from
Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. The Commission's "range" was Z210 to Z225.]





Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "Now, assuming certain factors, Mr. Frazier, to wit:
That the President and Governor Connally were seated in an open
automobile in the approximate positions taken by the President's stand-
in and the Governor's stand-in during the onsite tests, that a bullet
passed through President Kennedy entering at a velocity of 1,900 feet
per second, striking 14 centimeters below the right mastoid process and
14 centimeters to the left of the right acromion process, which is the
tip of the right shoulder; that the bullet passed through a fascia
channel, hitting no bones, and proceeded in a straight line, exiting
through the lower one-third of his neck, passing out of his shirt at
the position which you observed personally from your inspection of the
President's shirt, nicking the knot on the President's tie in the way
you observed from your examination of that tie -- do you have an
opinion as to whether it is probable, based on the fact which I have
asked you to assume, that a bullet could have gone through the
President and missed the interior of the limousine and all of its
occupants between frames 207 and 225?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I can give you my opinion based on this reconstruction,
as I understand your question. All of these things refer to the reconstruction
and assuming particularly that the path of the projectile to the President
was also the same path, the same angle as it went through his body and
then on, and in that connection, yes, in my opinion the bullet had to strike
in the car, either the car itself or an occupant of the car."

MR. SPECTER -- "And is that a probable opinion of yours based on what
you saw during the tests and the facts I have asked you to assume?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. And in fact, I think it is rather--it is obvious
when you look at the photographs themselves that the crosshair of the
telescopic sight actually would give you the point of impact of the bullet
if the weapon is sighted in and if there is no change in the line of sight,
the bullet had to strike the car shown in each of these photographs which
is frame 225 on this end of this series, and frame 207 on the other end
of the series. It shows that there would be no chance for the bullet to
miss the car at all...if it had no deflection in its path."

MR. SPECTER -- "Did you have an opportunity to examine the car shortly
after the assassination?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, I did; on the early morning of November 23, 1963."

MR. SPECTER -- "The record will show you have testified about it
heretofore, but will you again state at this juncture whether or not
you found any indication within the car that the interior of the car
was struck by a missile proceeding at a high velocity such as 1,775
feet per second?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; we found none. We examined in particular the
passenger's section, the rear seat area of the back of the automobile
clear up to the back of the rear seat, the rear seat itself, the
floorboards and the back of the front seat, the backs primarily of the
jump seats, and other areas in the front of the car, the windshield
and the chrome and the front hoods and fenders and sides of the
automobile and we found no evidence of a bullet impact having those
characteristics you mentioned."

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "Based on the position of Governor Connally as depicted
in the Zapruder slides at frames 222 and 225, could he have taken a
shot, assuming the firing point to have been the sixth floor of the
Texas School Book Depository Building, which entered and exited from
his body in accordance with the known medical evidence?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I have not made a very thorough study of the Zapruder
film which I understand you mentioned in this particular question with
reference to the Zapruder film itself."

MR. SPECTER -- "We will take it with reference to the reconstructed
positions of Governor Connally in frames 222 and 225, which you have
testified you did observe at the time the measurements and photographs
were taken."

MR. FRAZIER -- "I would say, yes, under the conditions that I mentioned
previously, that the reconstruction would represent the Governor as it was
in November, then he could have been struck anywhere in that frame area
of from 207 to 225."

MR. SPECTER -- "How about the same question in frames 231, 235, 240
and thereafter?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "There is only one position beyond frame 225 at which
the Governor could have been struck according to the information
furnished to me and from my examination of his clothing that he was
struck near the right sleeve seam and that the bullet came out through
the inside pocket of his jacket. At frame 231 the Governor is, as I
saw it from the window on that date, turned to the front to such an
extent that he could not have been hit at that particular frame."

MR. SPECTER -- "Why not, Mr. Frazier?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "The angle through his body, as I measured it on the
coat is approximately 20 degrees from the right toward the left. On
May 24 in our reconstruction I found that the Governor had turned
farther to the front from a position slightly facing the right than he
was in at frame 225. He had turned back to the front so that a shot
which struck him in this [right] shoulder in the back...near the seam
would have come out much further to his right than the actual exit
hole described to me as being just under the right nipple."

================================

MR. McCLOY -- "As I get it, Mr. Frazier, what you are saying is there
is only a certain point at which the bullet could pass through the
President, could have hit Mr. Connally, and that is at a point when he
[Governor Connally] is not sitting full face forward and at a point
when he is not too far turned around."

MR. FRAZIER -- "That is exactly right."

MR. McCLOY -- "Somewhere when he [Connally] is turning to the right."

MR. FRAZIER -- "He was placed approximately 20 degrees to the
right. .... That is 20 degrees according to my examination of his
clothing, but I don't know the exact figures of the angle through his
body."

================================

MR. SPECTER -- "Mr. Frazier, assuming the factors which I have asked
you to accept as true for the purposes of expressing an opinion
before, as to the flight of the bullet and the straight-line penetration
through the President's body, considering the point of entry and exit,
do you have an opinion as to what probably happened during the interval
between frames 207 and 225 as to whether the bullet which passed
through the neck of the President entered the Governor's back."

MR. FRAZIER -- "There are a lot of probables in that. First, we have
to assume there is absolutely no deflection in the bullet from the
time it left the barrel until the time it exited from the Governor's
body. That assumes that it has gone through the President's body and
through the Governor's body. I feel that physically this would have
been possible because of the positions of the Presidential stand-in
and the Governor's stand-in, it would be entirely possible for this to
have occurred.

"However, 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 certainly say it
was possible, but I don't say that it probably occurred because I don't
have the evidence on which to base a statement like that."

MR. SPECTER -- "What evidence is it that you would be missing to
assess the probabilities?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "We are dealing with hypothetical situations here of
placing people in cars from photographs which are not absolutely
accurate. They are two dimensional. They don't give you the third
dimension. They are as accurate as you can accurately place the people,
but it isn't absolute.

"Secondly, we are dealing with the fact that...I don't know technically
whether there was any deviation in the bullet which struck the President
in the back, and exited from his front. If there were a few degrees
deviation then it may affect my opinion as to whether or not it would
have struck the Governor.

"We are dealing with an assumed fact that the Governor was in front of
the President in such a position that he could have taken. So when you
say would it probably have occurred, then you are asking me for an opinion,
to base my opinion on a whole series of hypothetical facts which I can't
substantiate."

MR. McCLOY -- "Let me put it to you in another way -- from your best
judgment about what you know about this thing, what was the sequence
of the shots, and who was hit, and when in relation to---?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I will say this--I have looked at the film and have
seen evidence of one shot occurring which struck the President in the
head. That was at frame 313. .... Commission Exhibit No. 902.

"I have seen evidence in the film of the President with both arms up
clutching at his throat, and having examined his clothing and having
seen the hole in his shirt and his back, I might assume that he is
clutching his throat because a bullet exited from his throat. I don't
have the technical knowledge to substantiate that. There was no metal
on this hole in front, and there is no way for me to say from my own
examination that it actually was a bullet hole. Nowhere else in this
film have I seen any indication of a bullet striking."

MR. SPECTER -- "The President?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Either the President or the Governor. Because I do not
know the reaction time which would exist from the time a bullet struck
until someone made a move. It may be a half second, it may be a full
second. It may be a tenth of a second. It depends upon the intensity
of the pain, and actually what happened.

"And therefore, in looking at the film, you can't say a bullet struck right
here because he started to move his hands here. It may have been a full
second, a half second behind that spot. I would say that two bullets at
least struck in the automobile.

"I cannot say that three bullets did not strike in the automobile from my
examination, but it appears and due to the reconstruction at Dallas, it
appears that if the one bullet did strike the President, then it landed in
the automobile, and if it landed in the automobile, and we found no
evidence of it having hit the car itself, then I say it is possible that it
struck the Governor.

"Now, as to the sequence of the shots, that one obviously was before
the head shot. If there was a third shot fired, I could not tell you from
anything I know whether it was the first, the second, or the third."

MR. McCLOY -- "It is possible, according to your analysis of it, that
the first shot could have gone through the back of the President and
exited through the front of his neck, and the second shot could have
hit Connally, and the third shot could have hit the President."

MR. DULLES -- "Where would the first shot have gone under that thesis?"

MR. McCLOY -- "I just say I don't know where it could have gone."

MR. FRAZIER -- "From what I know from my examination that is true,
because I have seen bullets strike small twigs, small objects, and
ricochet for no apparent reason except they hit and all the pressure
is on one side and it turns the bullet and it goes off at an angle. If
there was no deviation from the time the bullet left the rifle barrel
until the time it exited from the Governor's body, then the physical
setup exists for it to have gone through the President, and through
the Governor."

MR. SPECTER -- "You mean from the time it exited through the
Governor's body?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "That is right. Otherwise, you have nothing to base a
conclusion upon. If you have deviation anywhere along the line then
you both affect the position at which the Governor could have been
shot--for instance--if the bullet entered the Governor's back and
immediately took a 20-degree leftward angle, then the Governor could
have been shot when he was facing straightforward in the automobile.

"Now, I can't tell that, and therefore I can only say that my opinion
must be based on your assumption that there was not a deviation of
the bullet through the President's body and no deviation of the bullet
through the Governor's body. No deflection. On that basis, then you can
say that it is possible for both of them to have been hit with one bullet."

GERALD R. FORD -- "Does that opinion rule out the possibility or cast
doubt on the possibility of a third shot?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "It does not rule out the possibility of a third shot
-- no, sir. Because I can only base my opinion on what I saw and my
own experience, and that is that a bullet could have struck the
President, if it had deflection in the President's body it could have,
and he happened to be in a certain position in the car which would
affect the angle, the bullet may have exited from the automobile."

MR. FORD -- "As I understood your assumptions there was no deviation
and no deflection, and I thought I phrased my question based on your
opinion under those facts, it might rule out a third shot."

MR. DULLES -- "Do you mean rule out a third shot entirely or just rule
out a third shot hitting in the car?"

MR. FORD -- "Rule out a third shot in one instance or establish the
possibility of a third shot that missed everything."

MR. FRAZIER -- "As I understand your question, I am now assuming
these various factors to exist, that there was no deviation, no change
in the path of the bullet."

MR. FORD -- "The bullet went through the President and through the
Governor."

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, then under that premise and the reconstruction
showing the position of the car with reference to the path of the
bullet, then it is entirely possible that these two individuals were
hit with one bullet and that there was not another bullet that struck
in the car other than the one that struck the President in the back of
the head and exited from his head."

MR. FORD -- "Under these assumptions, there is a possibility there was
not a third shot or there was a third shot that missed everything."

MR. FRAZIER -- "That missed everything; yes, sir."

MR. DULLES -- "Is there any way of correlating the time of the shot
with the position of the car so as to know whether possibly the first
shot was fired before the car was out from the tree and it might have
hit a branch of the tree and be deflected so it didn't hit the car? If
he had fired too soon. I guess it is impossible."

MR. FRAZIER -- "It is possible. I don't have any evidence to support
it one way or the other...as to whether or not a limb of the tree may
have deflected one shot. However, I think it should be remembered that
the frame 207 is just as he exits under the tree. From there to frame
225 to where the President shows a reaction is only a matter of one
second. He is under the tree in frames 166 until frame 207, which is
about two seconds. So somewhere in that three-second interval there
may have been a shot--which deflected from a limb or for some other
reason and was never discovered." ....

MR. FORD -- "Again, making those same assumptions we made a moment
ago, is there any evidence that a third shot hit the car or any occupant
of the car?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Assuming all those assumptions we had before--no. I
would say that, and again I have not the technical evidence to back
this up one way or the other, but you make these assumptions and I
would say under those conditions only two shots hit the occupants or
the car because the one through the President had to cause Connally's
wound otherwise it would have struck somewhere else in the car and it
did not strike somewhere else. Therefore, it had to go through Governor
Connally. And the second shot had to strike the President in the head."

MR. McCLOY -- "How about these shots you spoke of, one of the
fragments, at least, hitting the glass, the windshield and one
possibly hitting the chrome. Was there anything, could it have been
any fragmentation of the first shot which didn't hit, the first shot
that hit the President, let's say, but didn't hit Connally, might that
again make the possibility of three shots, one of them hitting the
President and fragmenting as you indicated, and a second one hitting
Connally, and the third one hitting the President for the lethal
shot?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Under that circumstance, the bullet exiting from the
President would have had to strike something else in the car to break
it up."

MR. McCLOY -- "Break it up inasmuch as it was broken up?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. There was no evidence that the bullet which
exited from the President was in any but complete condition; that is,
there was only one hole through the shirt, there was only one hole
through his coat or shirt actually and the testimony of the medical
examiners was that it made a relatively straight path through the
body." ....

MR. DULLES -- "There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating
there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot or what
is believed to be the report--explosion--of the first shot and the second
and third shots. That is not absolutely unanimous, but I would say it is
something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind, what would you say,
2 to 1, 3 to 1?

"Is it possible that the assassin attempted to fire when the car was
behind the tree or going into the tree, that that shot went astray, and
that that accounts for, if there was a longer delay between one and two,
that would account for it, and then the lethal shots were fired or...the
one shot that was fired that hit the two and then the lethal shot was
fired immediately after. It is speculation."

MR. McCLOY -- "I think that must be speculation because there certainly
is conflicting evidence as to the intervals between the first and the
second shot and the second and the third shot."

MR. DULLES -- "I think if you will read the testimony you will find it at
least 2 to 1, except for the people in the car."

MR. McCLOY -- "Maybe, but what weight do you give these? I don't know.
I think that is quite possible that a bullet was deflected by that tree,
but there is no evidence whatever of the bullet landing anywhere in the
street or among the crowd. And yet there seems to be no doubt at all
that three shots were fired."

MR. DULLES -- "That seems to be the evidence."

MR. McCLOY -- "At least three shots were fired, and probably three
shots were fired because of the three shells that were found."

MR. DULLES -- "Three shells?"

MR. McCLOY -- "Yes."

MR. DULLES -- "We probably won't settle that today."

MR. FRAZIER -- "I don't know how to answer that question except
possibly to go back to the frame numbers of the Zapruder film and you
will find they are about equally spaced from frame 161 just before the
tree to frame, say, 220, which is just a few frames after the tree.
That is 59 or approximately 60 frames, from that point.

"But from frame 222 to the last shot of frame 313 is 78 and 13, 91
frames, so there is more time between the second and third than the
first and second, assuming that the second one actually occurred and
that it occurred at about the middle of that interval."

MR. McCLOY -- "In the middle of that frame, yes. I think that is
pretty persuasive."

MR. DULLES -- "I didn't quite follow that."

MR. McCLOY -- "There seemed to be more frames between, going
backwards, between the third shot, that is between the time that---"

MR. DULLES -- "The first shot went astray, you don't know whether it
was fired. You have no way of getting at that."

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. McCLOY -- "Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier."

=========================================

[DVP -- NOTE REGARDING THE EVIDENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MURDER OF DALLAS POLICE OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT:

Even though FBI Agent Robert A. Frazier didn't specifically testify in front
of the Warren Commission about any of the ballistics evidence concerning
the investigation of policeman J.D. Tippit, it should be noted that Frazier
himself did, indeed, examine several pieces of evidence connected with
Officer Tippit's murder, including the four spent cartridge casings (i.e.,
bullet shells that Lee Harvey Oswald was seen removing from his Smith &
Wesson revolver after Oswald shot Officer Tippit four times on Tenth Street
in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff less than one hour after President Kennedy
was assassinated.

FBI firearms identification expert Cortlandt Cunningham provided extensive
testimony to the Warren Commission regarding the ballistics evidence in
the Tippit case. [See Warren Commission volumes 2, 3, and 7 for
Cunningham's complete testimony.]

Here's a pertinent excerpt from Cunningham's testimony, relating to the
Tippit bullet shells and relating to Robert A. Frazier:

CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM -- "I first marked these cartridge cases
[Commission Exhibit 594] upon receiving them. There were four. I would
like to state, first of all that Special Agents [Robert] Frazier and
[Charles] Killion also independently examined these four cartridge
cases, and made the same comparisons that I am going to state. I am
telling you what I found--although they independently arrived at the
same conclusion.

"The cartridge cases were first marked and examined for the presence
of any individual characteristic marks on these cartridge cases whereby
it would be possible to identify them as having been fired in a weapon.

"I then test-fired Commission Exhibit 143 [Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson
revolver], using similar ammunition, and microscopically compared the
four cartridge cases--one at a time, that is Commission Exhibit 594--with
the tests obtained from the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143." ....

MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594
in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143,
the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?"

MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "I did."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you tell us your conclusion?"

MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "As a result of my examination, it is my opinion
that those four cartridge cases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in
the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other
weapons."]

=========================================

David Von Pein
May 2009
September 2010

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (MAY 25, 2009)