Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. That would obstruct a bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. The tree--it is a live oak tree which retains its
leaves all year around and the limbs at that point are relatively small.
Mr. DULLES. All right.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you compare the appearance of the foliage on the
pictures taken by the Secret Service, about which Inspector Kelley
earlier testified, with the appearance of the foliage on May 24?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. What was that comparison?
Mr. FRAZIER. They are so nearly identical that you could not really
pick out any difference between the foliage and the photograph taken
previously in November.
In Commission Exhibit No. 891, which is marked frame 186, this is the
adjusted position to which the car was moved to accommodate the 10-inch
distance at which the actual wound in the President would have been
located had the car been the actual Presidential limousine rather than
the stand-in car.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you standing, seated, or kneeling at the time when
these photographs were taken and the sighting of the rifle was made by
you.
Mr. FRAZIER. I was actually sitting on a carton with my left elbow
resting on the boxes stacked in front of the window.
Mr. SPECTER. Did that position represent to you the most likely
position which the rifleman assumed on November 22, 1963, based upon
the positioning of the various boxes?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And the eyewitness accounts as to how far the rifle
protruded?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, in all of the frames that you have described up to
now, did you position the automobile on the street or give instructions
over the radio as to where the automobile ought to be stopped for those
various sightings?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibits Nos. 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 No. 892, also marked frame No. 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 No. 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. Could Governor Connally have taken a shot in the range of
frames 207 to 210 which would have traversed his body with the entry
and exit points being approximately what they were shown to be through
the medical records?
Preliminarily, let me ask you if, for the record, you had seen or had
made available to you the contents of the medical records showing the
point of entry on the back of the Governor and the point of exit on the
front side of his chest?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I don't recall having seen the medical testimony.
However, information has been furnished to me by Commission members as
to the relative positions on the back and the front of the Governor.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you in addition had an opportunity to examine
personally the clothing worn by the Governor consisting of his jacket
and shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I have.
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.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
I now hand you Commission Exhibits Nos. 894 and 895 and ask you if you
saw the photograph as depicted on the "photograph through rifle sight"
on those exhibits?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Commission Exhibit No. 894 is marked frame 222, and the photograph
through the scope is the same field which I saw looking through the
telescope on May 24, 1964.
This is similarly true of Commission Exhibit No. 895--895 being frame
No. 225.
Mr. SPECTER. I now show you Exhibits Nos. 896 and 897 and ask you if
the picture shown on "photograph through rifle scope" is that which you
observed at the times those pictures were taken.
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This Exhibit No. 896 is also marked frame No.
231, and represents the relative positions of the President's and
Governor's stand-in on May 24.
Commission Exhibit No. 897, which is marked frame 235, also represents
the positions of the Presidential and Governor's stand-in as I saw it
from the sixth floor on that date.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Exhibits Nos. 899, 898, and 901 and ask
if you saw the pictures or if your view was the same as "photograph
through rifle scope" depicted on those exhibits?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they are. In each case Commission Exhibit No. 898,
which is marked frame 240, Commission Exhibit No. 899, which is also
marked frame 249, and Commission Exhibit No. 901, which is also marked
frame 255.
In the "photographs through the scope" the individuals representing the
President and the Governor are as they were positioned on May 24.
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 cars 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 deviation in its--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. Did you also examine the windshield of the car, interior
and exterior?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And the chrome of the car on the interior and the exterior?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you also examine the front portion of the Presidential
limousine?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; we did. That portion, the dashboard below the
windshield and the dashboard in the area immediately under that were
particularly examined, because the rest of it would have been shielded
from a shot due to the height of the dashboard and the height of the
back of the front seat.
Mr. SPECTER. Did any of that area examined disclose any impact of such
a missile?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; not of a high velocity. Only the lead area
smeared on the inside of the windshield from a relatively light object
which struck the inside, and did not even break the inside surface of
the glass, and then there was a possible bullet impact area at the top
of the chrome to the right of the rearview mirror. This was made by a
projectile not having the weight or velocity of a whole bullet moving
at, in the range of a thousand to 1,500 feet per second or more.
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° 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 shoulder in the back----
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the right shoulder?
Mr. FRAZIER. Indicating the right shoulder 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. SPECTER. How would the bullet have passed through his body based on
his position as shown in frame 235?
Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 235, which is Commission Exhibit No. 897, the
Governor in our reconstruction, according to the Zapruder film was also
facing too far, too much towards the front. The angle of the bullet
through his body, assuming no deflection, would not have corresponded
to the angle through his clothing or according to the information
furnished from the medical examiners.
Mr. SPECTER. How about the Governor's position in frame 240?
Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 240 the Governor again could not have been shot,
assuming no deflection of the bullet prior to its striking his body,
from the window on the sixth floor because he is turned in this case
too far to the right.
Now, this obviously indicates that the Governor in between frame 235
and frame 240 has turned from facing completely forward in the car
around to the right to the point that a bullet entering his back on the
right shoulder area would have exited in my opinion somewhere from his
left chest area rather than from his right chest area.
Mr. SPECTER. How about the Governor's position at frame 249?
Mr. FRAZIER. In frame 249 a similar situation exists in that the
Governor, as represented by his stand-in in our reconstruction, has
turned too far to the right, even further than frame 240, so that in
frame 249 represented by Commission Exhibit No. 899, he again could not
have been hit by a bullet which came from the window on the sixth floor
and struck him in an undeflected fashion and passed through his body
undeflected.
Mr. SPECTER. How about frame 255?
Mr. FRAZIER. On frame 255 which is in Commission Exhibit No. 901 the
Governor is turned again too far to the right, and the same situation
would hold true as to what we saw in frame 249.
The bullet would have exited too far on his left side, provided there
was no deflection between the window and the point of exit from the
Governor's body.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, based on the angles, distances, and speeds of
the car and bullet in this situation, what lead would a marksman have
to give to strike the moving target, allowing for all of those factors?
Mr. FRAZIER. The lead would be approximately the same for all of these
positions represented by your frame or rather your Commission Exhibit
No. 888, which is frame 161, all the way up to frame 313 which I don't
have, the Commission's Exhibit is No. 902 on frame 313, a lead of 6
inches above the point of impact would be sufficient to account for
the movement of the car during the flight of the bullet.
The fact that the same lead would be necessary at each place is because
at the closer frame numbers, the lower frame numbers, 161, 166, 185,
and so forth, there is a relatively steep downward angle beginning at
40°, whereas the last shot, the downward angle is approximately 17° or
20°, in that neighborhood.
Just one thing more, it would require less apparent elevation of the
crosshair over the point of impact at the distant target to allow for a
further movement of the car of approximately 2 feet at the point where
the head shot occurred.
So the lead would be constant between 5.9 inches above the point of
impact to 6.3 inches above the point of impact.
Mr. DULLES. Have you asked the witness--I was studying these frame
pictures--at about what frame he thinks the body of Governor Connally
would have been in a position to receive a bullet that would go through
the body with this trajectory?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes; I believe I did.
Mr. DULLES. I wasn't quite clear.
Mr. FRAZIER. I testified that it would have been in position from
anywhere from frames 207 to 225.
However, I cannot limit it to 207 because at that point the car goes
back under the foliage and you can't actually see clearly enough.
Mr. DULLES. Between frames 207 and 225?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; approximately frame 207 to approximately frame
225.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. SPECTER. Looking at Exhibit No. 902, frame 313, on the view shown
on the "photograph through rifle scope," is that the way you saw it at
the time of the reconstruction, when the car was in that position as
shown in that exhibit?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is.
Mr. SPECTER. At this time I move for the admission into evidence of
Commission Exhibits Nos. 885 through 903 which constitute all of the
photographs referred to by Mr. Shaneyfelt and Mr. Frazier during their
testimony.
(Commission Exhibits Nos. 855 through 903 were marked for
identification, and received in evidence.)
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
Mr. SPECTER. That completes the questioning.
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
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 is turning to the right.
Mr. FRAZIER. He was placed approximately 20° to the right.
Mr. McCLOY. To the right.
Mr. FRAZIER. That is 20° according to my examination of his clothing
but I don't know the exact figures of the angle through his body.
Mr. SPECTER. I have one additional question.
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 we don't know whether, 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.
Mr. SPECTER. Frame 313? Yes.
Mr. FRAZIER. 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° 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.
Representative 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.
Representative 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?
Representative 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.
Representative 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.
Representative 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.
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Mr. FRAZIER. 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 1 second.
He is under the tree in frames 166 until frame 207, which is about 2
seconds. So somewhere in that 3-second interval there may have been
a shot--which deflected from a limb or for some other reason and was
never discovered.
Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, may I return to questions that I was
asking Mr. Frazier?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Representative 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 of 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. SPECTER. That completes my questions of Mr. Frazier.
Mr. DULLES. Could I ask just one more question?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; Mr. Dulles.
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?
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DULLES. 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 wound, 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.
Mr. SPECTER. I want to call Inspector Kelley for observations from the
underpass.
May the record show that Inspector Thomas Kelley has returned to the
witness chair.