Chapter XXVII: Part 27

Dr. PERRY. We have an express elevator that connects delivery room, operating room, emergency room and it is approximately 20 yards from trauma room two, I would estimate, just around the corner, in an even corridor and although I was not there as they took him up, I was in the operating room preparing and scrubbing, he was wheeled directly there to the express elevator and taken to the second floor where the operating suites are.

Mr. SPECTER. Approximately how long does it take to get a patient from the trauma room up to the operating room?

Dr. PERRY. It depends on a lot of factors. One is if the elevator is there or not or if it happens to be in surgery or in the delivery room. But I have on occasion where it was necessary that you must go with all dispatch to the operating room, have done it in a matter of a few minutes.

They brought him right in the door, placed him on the elevator with a finger controlling the hemorrhage where you could take him directly to the operating room. I have done that in a matter, I am sure, of less than 3 or 4 minutes if I had to.

Mr. SPECTER. Approximately how long did it take to get Oswald from trauma room two to the operating room?

Dr. PERRY. I don't know, I was told subsequently it was 12 minutes from the time we had him up. And----

Representative BOGGS. How long was it from the time he was shot until he reached the hospital?

Dr. PERRY. I have no knowledge of that, sir.

Representative BOGGS. Do you know?

Mr. SPECTER. No; I don't know.

Mr. DULLES. Was he conscious at any time so far as you know?

Dr. PERRY. No, sir; he did not say a word.

Mr. DULLES. He was not conscious?

Dr. PERRY. No, sir; and even had he been, of course, once we had the endotracheal tube in he could not have spoken.

Mr. SPECTER. Who was in charge of the operation performed on Mr. Oswald?

Dr. PERRY. Dr. Tom Shires.

Mr. SPECTER. Who was in assistance with Dr. Shires?

Dr. PERRY. I first assisted Dr. Shires and then Ronald Jones and Dr. McClelland were also at the operation.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe the operative procedures employed on Mr. Oswald please?

Dr. PERRY. Yes. From the nature of the trajectory of the wound and the nature of the path of the bullet on the other side it was obvious that it had traversed major vessels, the aorta and vena cava. The aorta and vena cava, the heart area, and then a midline incision was made. A rapid prep with iodine was done, the patient was draped. An incision was carried rapidly into the abdominal cavity at which time we noticed approximately 3 litres of free blood which is an excess of three quarts. This was removed by suction, lap packs and by just moving it out in the form of clots with the hands. It was noted there was considerable bleeding appearing in both the right upper and left upper quadrants of the body. There was a large hematoma retroperitoneally in the midline also, causing the bowels to be pushed forward rather strikingly.

We immediately dissected over the portal vein on the right since it was apparently injured, and placed a vascular occlusive clamp of the Sittinsky type in this area to control the bleeding. Noted an injury to the right kidney and to the lobe of the liver. We also noted there was an injury to the stomach, the pancreas, the spleen. At that point it became apparent that he had indeed struck major vessels, and appeared to be the aorta, so the left colon was reflected very rapidly in order to allow us to enter the space behind the intestines, the retroperitoneal space, and at that point I controlled the bleeding from the aorta by finger pressure below and above this area.

The bullet had knocked the superior mesenteric artery completely off the aorta exposing a large area.

After I had controlled the bleeding Dr. Shires was able to dissect around the area sufficient to allow us to gain control of the aorta, superior mesenteric artery and the vena cava and the placement of vascular clamps across these vessels in order to stop the hemmorhage.

At this point, he was being given blood and, of course, the suitable anesthesia measures which were oxygen under pressure. He did not require an anesthetic agent, I am told.

Mr. SPECTER. Who told you that, Dr. Perry?

Dr. PERRY. I think one of the residents did, one of the anesthesia residents. We at that point had restored his blood pressure. I don't know the exact recordings, but I was told subsequently it had returned to near normal levels since we had the bleeding controlled.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the situation with respect to his respiration at that time?

Dr. PERRY. It was being assisted and controlled, of course, by anesthesiology. This was no problem. We had a tube in place and was breathing for him so he had no problem with respiration. This was completely under control of anesthesia. The blood pressure was controlled and we stopped for a moment to determine how we would best go about repairing the structures and which would have priority, all the bleeding had stopped but, as I recall, the clamping of the aorta at the level of the superior mesenteric artery means, of course, that you must prevent blood from entering the kidneys, and this in itself can be hazardous if extended, and therefore we decided this must be repaired immediately in order to restore blood into the kidneys and the lower portion of the body.

Then Dr. Jenkins informed me and Dr. Shires that his cardiac action was becoming weak, and I don't remember all the details surrounding the medications and the things that were done at this particular time, but he developed a backward cardiac failure, his heart slowed abruptly and the blood pressure fell again and it was apparent the tremendous blood loss he had had set the stage for irreversible shock and lack of pumping action from the heart although he was being given massive transfusions, I don't know the exact number, probably he had 10 or 12 units. I believe it is in the record.

At this point when they told me a cardiac arrest had occurred as a result of the hemorrhage and blood loss I took a knife and opened the left chest in the fourth interspace and reached in to massage his heart, and the heart was flabby, and dilated, and apparently contained very little blood.

I began to massage the heart, to maintain it as we infused the blood and was able to obtain a palpable pulse in the carotid vessels going to the neck and into the head. We were unable to get the heart to go, and it began to fibrillate which is an uncoordinated motion of the muscles of the heart itself and the successive electrical shocks were applied with the defibrillator and to stimulate heart action, and we failed in this and the cardiac pacemaker was sewn in place, and it was handed to me by the thoracic surgery resident, and I sewed it into the heart to artificially induce heart action, this also was without benefit.

We were never able to restore effective heart action and then Dr. Jenkins informed as neurologically he was not responding, that his reflexes were gone, and he felt that he had expired.

Mr. SPECTER. At approximately what time did that occur?

Dr. PERRY. I don't know, Mr. Specter, I would have to look at the record.

Mr. SPECTER. At approximately how long after he arrived at the hospital did that occur?

Dr. PERRY. I don't know that, either.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you approximate the length of time of the operation itself?

Dr. PERRY. 45 minutes or so, I would say.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there any question but that he was alive during the course of your operative procedures?

Dr. PERRY. Oh, no, no question. The fact is we were very close, I think, to winning the battle. We have seen injuries of this magnitude, they rarely survive, this is a very serious injury and to the best of my knowledge I have not seen anyone with this particular set of injuries survive. But at one point once we controlled the hemorrhage and once I had control of the aorta and was able to stop the bleeding of that area I actually felt we had a very good chance since everything had proceeded with expediency.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you been interviewed by any representative of the Federal Government in connection with your treatment of President Kennedy, Dr. Perry?

Dr. PERRY. Yes, I have.

Mr. SPECTER. By whom were you interviewed?

Dr. PERRY. I regret that I do not recall their names. I was interviewed by two gentlemen from the Secret Service approximately the following week, as I recall, and again about a month ago.

Mr. SPECTER. And what questions were asked of you on the first interview by the Secret Service?

Dr. PERRY. Essentially in regard to the treatment and once again speculation as to where the bullets might have originated and what the nature of the wounds were and I was unable to supply them with any adequate information.

Mr. SPECTER. Were the responses given by you to the Secret Service on that first interview essentially the same as you have given today?

Dr. PERRY. With minor variations in wording, they are essentially the same.

Mr. SPECTER. Approximately when did the second interview occur with the Secret Service?

Dr. PERRY. I think approximately a month ago, although I am not sure of that.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the content of that interview?

Dr. PERRY. A gentleman identified himself as being connected with the Warren Commission and Secret Service. I asked for his credentials which he duly supplied and he asked me in regard to any further information I might have pertaining to the events of that weekend, and we reiterated some of these statements which I made previously, and since I had nothing more to add, why it was terminated.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you supply any information which was in any way different from that which you have testified to here today?

Dr. PERRY. In essence; no, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. On the second interview, did the man identify himself to you as a Secret Service agent who was conducting a further inquiry at the request of the President's Commission?

Dr. PERRY. Yes, sir; he said he was with the Warren Commission.

Mr. SPECTER. Did I discuss the facts within your knowledge or take your deposition in Dallas on Wednesday, March 25, 1964?

Dr. PERRY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And was the information which you provided at that time in advance of the deposition and during the course of the deposition itself the same as the information which you provided here today concerning the treatment of President Kennedy, your observations and opinions on President Kennedy?

Dr. PERRY. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. Have I made that transcript available to you this morning before we started this testimony?

Dr. PERRY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you at any time changed any opinion which you held concerning any matter relating to President Kennedy?

Dr. PERRY. No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you prepare a handwritten report on your care of President Kennedy which became part of the record of Parkland Hospital?

Dr. PERRY. I did.

Mr. SPECTER. Which you identified during the course of the deposition proceeding as being your report?

Dr. PERRY. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any other notes of your own relating to any of the matters which you testified here today?

Dr. PERRY. None.

Mr. McCLOY. What was the condition of, general physical condition, apart from the wounds, of Oswald, as you observed him? Was his body healthy?

Dr. PERRY. I made only a very cursory examination, Mr. McCloy. He appeared rather thin to me.

Mr. McCLOY. Not, you wouldn't call him a muscular type?

Dr. PERRY. No, he would be what we would describe as a thinnish individual, that is very thin; was wiry rather than bulky muscles.

Mr. McCLOY. Were there any signs that you observed cursorily, symptoms of any prior disease?

Dr. PERRY. No, I did not look for those.

Mr. DULLES. No distinguishing marks on the body that you saw, prior operations?

Dr. PERRY. No, sir; I did not look. There was no evidence of previous surgical operation on his abdomen, and I didn't examine anything else.

Of course, this also can be missed unless you are looking for it. We went through the midline and unless one went looking for it we did not have time and we would not see it.

Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Perry, was the chest tube inserted in the President's chest abandoned or was that operation or operative procedure completed?

Dr. PERRY. The chest tube, to be placed there, was supposedly placed into the pleural cavity. However, I have knowledge that it was not.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was the reason for its not being placed into the pleural cavity?

Dr. PERRY. I did not speak with certainty but at that point I think that we were at the end of the procedure and they just did not continue with it.

Mr. SPECTER. Had it become apparent at that time that the President expired?

Dr. PERRY. That, I think, is probably true, but I did not state that with certainty because I cannot state the exact sequence. I was employed myself at the time, and I think if it had been determined that this was not in, it would have been completed, if there was still time, but I am not sure of that. That is speculation.

Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the condition of the neck wounds, was it ragged or pushed out in any manner?

Dr. PERRY. No, it was not. As I originally described it, the edges were neither cleancut, that is punched out, nor were they very ragged. I realize that is not a very specific description but it is in between those two areas.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there blood in that area which tended to obscure your view?

Dr. PERRY. It was exuding blood during that procedure and thus I did not examine it very closely. In retrospect, I think it would have been of much more value had I looked at these things more carefully but I had directed my attention to other things.

Mr. SPECTER. Those complete my questions.

Representative FORD. Mr. McCloy?

Mr. Dulles?

Have you examined the autopsy report made by the officials in Bethesda?

Dr. PERRY. Yes, sir, I have.

Representative FORD. Does your testimony conform to the facts stated in that report?

Dr. PERRY. I think so. At the time the testimony which I have given here of my knowledge without the--was given the same as it was without the basis of that report. But now having had access to that report, I think it ties in very nicely. I see no discrepancies at all. For example, had I known that he had these other two wounds, it would have been much easier at the time to state a little more categorically about the trajectory of the missiles, but not knowing about those I could only speculate.

Representative FORD. There is no basic conflict between what you have testified to or what you have said previously, and the autopsy report?

Dr. PERRY. None at all.

Representative BOGGS. Just one question. I presume this question has been asked.

This neck wound, was there any indication that that wound had come from the front?

Dr. PERRY. There is no way to tell, sir, for sure. As you may recall, passage of a high velocity missile, the damage it does, is dependent on two factors, actually, one being deformation of the missile, increase in its relative caliber, and the other the expending of the energy of that missile in the object it strikes.

For example, the energy used to carry the missile beyond the object that it struck is obviously not going to cause much of an injury. If there is a missile of relatively high velocity, although I consider this a medium velocity weapon, that the missile for entrance or exit had the bullet not been deformed would not be substantially different, had it not been deformed nor particularly slowed in its velocity.

Representative BOGGS. By that, you mean it would be difficult to determine the point of exit and the point of entrance under those circumstances?

Dr. PERRY. Yes, sir; unless one were able to ascertain the trajectory. If you could, for example, make check points between what the missile might have struck, then you could ascertain trajectory. But with a relatively high velocity missile, this also is difficult due to the amount of blast injury which occurs in enclosed tissues, similar to those I am sure you have seen to those discussed, so blast injury can be an area remote from the exact passage of the missile itself.

Representative BOGGS. Of course, your main concern was to try to save the President's life and not----

Dr. PERRY. Yes, sir; it actually never occurred to me until all the questions began to come, and I was ill-prepared to meet them, but it never occurred to me that, to investigate, because I was busy, and I have done these types of things many times.

It just never occurred to me to look into it until afterwards.

Representative FORD. Any questions, Dean Storey?

Mr. STOREY. No, thank you, sir.

Representative FORD. Mr. Murray?

Mr. MURRAY. No.

Mr. DULLES. I have one more question I would like to ask.

Did you know anything about the spent bullet that was found on, I don't know what you call it--the litter?

Dr. PERRY. On the carriage?

Mr. DULLES. On the carriage.

Dr. PERRY. My first knowledge of that was one of the newspaper publications had said there was a bullet found there. I don't know now whether it was or was not. I didn't find it.

Mr. SPECTER. May I say, Mr. Dulles, on that subject, I took several depositions on that subject in the Dallas Hospital and I think we have a reasonably conclusive answer on that question; and, in fact, it came from the stretcher of Governor Connally.

Dr. PERRY. They were quoted as having removed a bullet from Governor Connally's leg, the press quoted that, but a bullet was not removed from Governor Connally's leg.

Mr. SPECTER. There was no bullet removed from Governor Connally's leg, but there was a wound there, but there was a very small fragment embedded in the femur, as the deposition of Drs. Shaw, Shires, and Gregory will show. But the bullet was found on a stretcher and the question arose as to whose stretcher it was, and we have traced the two stretchers in a way so as to exclude the possibility of its being the stretcher on which President Kennedy was carried, and we have traced the path of Governor Connally's stretcher and have narrowed it to two stretchers. And the bullet came off of one of the two stretchers, so that, through the circumstances of the facts, it is reasonably conclusive that it came from the stretcher of Governor Connally.

Representative FORD. How long did it take you to go from where you were when the page came to get down to trauma room No. 1?

Dr. PERRY. A matter of no more than a minute or so, Congressman Ford. It is down one flight of stairs and the door is almost immediately adjacent to the dining room where we would go and we did not wait on the elevator. We went down the stairs.

Representative FORD. How long after the President was brought in before you went to trauma room No. 1?

Dr. PERRY. That I don't know either. My last recollection in regard to time was approximately 12:30 when I was having lunch prior to rounds, and Dr. Jones picked up the page and as we went downstairs I took off my watch and dropped it in my coat pocket, rather expecting to do some kind of procedure, and I took off my coat and I never looked at the clock until afterwards.

Mr. McCLOY. One more question, I want to get clear.

The extent to which you examined Governor Connally's wounds, as I gather, you were asked to stand by.

Dr. PERRY. That is right, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Rather than to be involved in a close examination of the wounds.

Dr. PERRY. That is right, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. So you are not generally familiar?

Dr. PERRY. No, sir; all I did was come into the operating room, put on a scrub suit, cap and mask, and looked at the thigh wound before Dr. Shires started the operation. That was the extent of the episode into the wound, and I stayed there while he carried it down to the lower portion of the wound and indicated there was no serious injury, and I left the operating room at that point.

Mr. McCLOY. And you didn't see the other two wounds?

Dr. PERRY. I didn't see the other wounds at all, sir.

Representative FORD. Thank you very much, Dr. Perry.

Your testimony has been most helpful.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

_Tuesday, March 31, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER AND RONALD SIMMONS

The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on March 31, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Hale Boggs and John J. McCloy, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Charles Murray and Lewis Powell, observers; and Leon Jaworski, special counsel to the attorney general of Texas.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Frazier, the purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of yourself and Mr. Ronald Simmons.

You are, we understand, a firearms expert with the FBI, and Mr. Simmons is a firearms expert with the Weapons System Division at Fort Meade, Md.

You are asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in this work.

Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?

You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. FRAZIER. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, please.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, will you give your name and position?

Mr. 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 briefly state your training and experience in the fields of firearms, firearms identification, and ballistics?

Mr. FRAZIER. Beginning in 1937, I was on the University of Idaho Rifle Team, and the following year, 1938. In 1939 I enlisted in the National Guard and for 2 years was on the National Guard Rifle Team firing both small bore, or .22 caliber weapons, and the large bore, .30 caliber weapons, both being of the bolt-action type weapons.

In 1939 and 1940 I instructed in firearms in the Army of the United States, and acquired additional experience in firing of weapons, training in firing at moving targets, additional training in firing the .45 caliber automatic and machineguns. And to further my firearms, practical firearms training, I received in 1942 a training course offered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after entering on duty with that organization in--on June 9, 1941. That firearms training course consisted of a basic training in handguns--that is, revolvers and automatic pistols, training in autoloading rifles, training in submachineguns, shotguns, and various other types of firearms.

One year later, approximately 1943, I received a specialized administrative firearms course which qualified me for training other agents in the field of law-enforcement type firearms.

Over the past 23 years, I have received the regular FBI firearms training, which is a monthly retraining in firearms, and a periodic, or every 4 years, detailed retraining in the basic FBI firearms--the firearms training with the rifle, submachinegun, shotgun, revolver.

In the FBI, training includes firing both at stationary targets and moving targets with both revolver and rifle and shotgun, and includes firing at slow-fire targets--that is aimed fire for accuracy and rapid fire to increase speed of firing.

Generally in the field of firearms identification, where I have been assigned for 23 years, I received specialized training given in the FBI Laboratory to train me for the position of firearms identification specialist. In that field, we make examinations of bullets and cartridge cases, firearms of various types, for the purpose of identifying weapons as to their caliber, what they are, their manufacturer, their physical characteristics, and determining the type of ammunition which they shoot.

We examine ammunition of various types to identify it as to its caliber, its specific designation, and the type or types of weapons in which it can be fired, and we make comparisons of bullets to determine whether or not they were fired from a particular weapon and make comparisons of cartridge cases for the purpose of determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon, or for determining whether or not they had been loaded into or extracted from a particular weapon.

That training course lasted for approximately 1 year. However, of course, the experience in firearms is actually part of the training and continues for the entire time in which you are engaged in examining firearms.

Briefly, that is the summary of the firearms training I have had.

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.

Mr. McCLOY. Have you written any articles on this subject?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I have prepared 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 Maj. 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. May I ask that this person be accepted as a qualified witness on firearms?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed.

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 22.

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 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano.

It is a bolt-action clip-fed military rifle.

Do you wish a general physical description of the weapon at this time?

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, no; not at this time.

Can you explain the American equivalent to the 6.5 mm. caliber?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is the same as .25 caliber. Such weapons in the United States as the .25-20 Winchester, .25-35, the .250 Savage, and the .257 Roberts, are all of the same barrel diameter, or approximately the same barrel diameter. So a decimal figure of .257 inch is the equivalent of 6.5 mm.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you explain what the caliber is a measure of?

Mr. FRAZIER. The caliber is the measure of the distance across the raised portions or the lands in the barrel. The groove diameter, or the spirals cut in the barrel to form the rifling, will be slightly larger--in this case between 7/1000ths and 8/1000ths of an inch larger than the actual bore diameter.

The caliber is normally determined by the bore diameter.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain how you made the identification of this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. I identified it pictorially by comparing it with pictures in reference books. And the actual identification was of the manufacturer's name appearing on the barrel and serial number, which indicated it was an Italian military rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you independently determine the caliber of the rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you did that?

Mr. FRAZIER. The caliber and the caliber type may be confusing here.

The caliber, being the diameter of the barrel, is determined in two ways--one, by comparing the barrel with 6.5mm. Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, which we also chambered in the weapon and determined that it actually fit the weapon. And, secondly, we measured the width of the barrel with, a micrometer. And in that connection, I would like to point out that we made a sulphur cast of the muzzle of the weapon which permitted us to use a micrometer to determine the land width and the groove width in the barrel.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have that sulphur cast?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. And that was made by you or under your supervision?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it was made by me.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 540.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 540, and received in evidence.)

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. And is the 6.5-caliber weapon distinguished from the 7.35-caliber weapon by name?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is; it is by the model number. The model 91/38 designates the 6.5-mm. rifle, whereas the model 38 designates the 7.35.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you taken photographs of the various markings on the rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have those with you?

Mr. FRAZIER. Actually, I think we forwarded those photographs to the Commission.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are these the photographs that you took, or had taken?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Has the Federal Bureau of Investigation been supplied with information concerning the meanings and significances of these various markings?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; we have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state the source of that information?

Mr. FRAZIER. This information came to us by mail as a result of an inquiry of the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service, abbreviated SIFAR, by letter dated March 26, 1964, through the FBI representative in Rome, Italy.

This information is classified as secret by the Italian Government, who have advised that the material may be released to the Commission. However, they desire the retention of the information in a secret category.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this essential to the proof?

If it is not, I think we would rather not have it, because the fewer things we have to keep in secret, the better the situation is for us.

Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Back on the record.

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.

Mr. EISENBERG. All right.

Now, without reference to any classified information, could you briefly describe the markings shown on these photographs?

Mr. FRAZIER. The first photograph is an overall photograph of the rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me.

These photographs--when you say "first photograph"--these photographs are marked No. 1, No. 2, et cetera, on the back.

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they are.

Photograph No. 1 is an overall photograph of the rifle.

Photograph No. 2 is made of the top of the barrel, showing the serial number C2766.

Photograph No. 3 is also of the top of the rifle, showing a portion of the inscription on the telescopic sight, and the figures 1940, which is the manufacturer's date, the words "Made Italy" and a figure in the form of a crown, under that the letters "R-E," and then a portion of the word "Terni."

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the significance of "Terni?"

Mr. FRAZIER. Terni is the location for an Italian ordnance plant in Italy where rifles are made, and it is apparent that this weapon was made in Terni, because it is stamped with that name.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the significance of that crown?

Mr. FRAZIER. I think that would be just an Italian identification mark or proof mark.

Mr. EISENBERG. And are the words "Made Italy" likely to have been put on the weapon at the time of manufacture or subsequently?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the words "Made Italy" would be stamped on the weapon by a purchaser or an individual desiring to send the weapon to another country, to establish actually its origin.

Photograph No. 4 is again of the top of the weapon showing the same information--1940, "Made Italy," the crown, the place it was made, and the inscription "Caliber 6.5" across the top of the rear sight.

Photograph No. 5 shows a small circle which appears on the forward end of the receiver, or that portion into which the barrel is screwed, with the words "TNI" in the circle, and over these letters is again a small crown. This could be a proof mark or an inspector's stamp.

Photograph No. 6 is of an inscription on the side of the rear sight which has the appearance of the letter "i," or the letter "l," followed by a capital letter "A," and the capital letter "G," with the numbers "47," and "2," stamped underneath them. I do not know what the significance of that is. It could be, again, an inspector's stamp or a proof mark of some type.

Photograph No. 7 is made of the cocking piece on the end of the bolt, which gives the word "Rocca." This apparently would be the name of the manufacturer of that part of the rifle.

Photograph No. 8 is an inscription "PG" on the top of the bolt of the weapon. This inscription--I do not know of my own knowledge what that is--but it could be the mark of a manufacturer or a proof mark or an inspector's mark made at the time the handle was made to be welded to the bolt.

Photograph No. 9 was taken of the bottom of the receiver of the weapon, with the stock removed. It shows the Number "40," which could refer again to the year of manufacture, 1940, on the receiver, and at the rear of the photograph a small lettered inscription referring again to an inspector stamp, a proof stamp, of some nature. The identity of this, I do not know.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that these photographs be admitted as a group under the number 541.

The CHAIRMAN. You are going to put all of them in under one number?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. They have the subnumbers on the back, which will differentiate them.

The CHAIRMAN. They will be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 541, and received in evidence.)

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.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?

Mr. FRAZIER. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this weapon----

The CHAIRMAN. I didn't get that last.

Mr. FRAZIER. It showed the effects of wear and corrosion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this weapon used when it is sold into the United States?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it is a surplus type of weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that it is impossible to attribute any given amount of wear to the last user?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it is impossible.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you measured the dimensions of this rifle assembled, and disassembled?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us that information?

Mr. FRAZIER. The overall length is 40.2 inches. It weighs 8 pounds even.

Mr. McCLOY. With the scope?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, with the scope.

The CHAIRMAN. And the sling?

Mr. FRAZIER. That is with the sling, yes, sir. The sling weighs 4-3/4 ounces. The stock length is 34.8 inches, which is the wooden portion from end to end with the butt plate attached. The barrel and action from the muzzle to the rear of the tang, which is this portion at the rearmost portion of the metal, is 28.9 inches. The barrel only is 21.18 inches.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say, "this portion," Mr. Frazier, I don't think that is coming down clear in the record. I wonder whether you could rephrase that so as to describe the part of the barrel or part of the stock to which you are pointing when you say "tang."

Mr. FRAZIER. The tang is the rear of the receiver of the weapon into which the rear mounting screw is screwed to hold the rearmost part of the metal action of the weapon into the wooden stock. From the end of that portion to the muzzle of the weapon is 28.9 inches.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the length of the longest component when the rifle is dissembled, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER. 34.8 inches, which is the length of the stock, the wooden portion.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us the telescopic sight on the rifle in terms of----

Mr. McCLOY. Before you get to the sight, can I ask a question?

Mr. EISENBERG. Surely.

Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.

Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?

Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.

It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned again to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession since then.

Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.

Mr. McCLOY. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the telescopic sight on the rifle? Magnification, country of origin?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is a four-power telescopic sight employing crosshairs in it as a sighting device, in the interior of the scope.

It is stamped "Optics Ordnance Incorporated, Hollywood California," and under that is the inscription "Made in Japan." It is a very inexpensive Japanese telescopic sight.

The mount attached to it was also made in Japan.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you removed the mount?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. How many holes did you find drilled into the receiver?

Mr. FRAZIER. There are two holes in the receiver.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you form an opinion as to whether these were original holes or whether new holes--new and larger holes had been formed over the original holes?

Mr. FRAZIER. Normally, the receiver would have no holes at all, and would have to be drilled and tapped for the screws. In the sight itself there normally are three holes, two of which have been enlarged to accommodate the two mounting screws presently holding the mount to the rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think, based on your experience with types of screws used in mounts, that these were the original screws and the original holes for the screws?

Mr. FRAZIER. I could not say--I could not answer that specifically. However, they appear to be the same type of screw as is present on the rest of the mount--although they are somewhat larger in size than the remaining hole which is present in the lower portion of the mount.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I now hand you a rifle which is marked C-250. Are you familiar with this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe it briefly?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is an identical rifle physically to the rifle Commission's Exhibit 139, in that it is the same caliber, 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Italian Military rifle, Model 91/38.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine by use of this rifle whether the scope was mounted on Exhibit 139 by the firm which is thought to have sold Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Would you repeat that, please?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

Did you make an attempt to determine, by use of this C-250, whether the firm which had sold Exhibit 139 had mounted the scope on Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe how you made that attempt?

Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination.

In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you----

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring.

Mr. EISENBERG. On the----

Mr. FRAZIER. On the C-250 rifle.

When we received the rifle C-250, we examined the mount and found that two of the holes had been enlarged, and that screws had been placed through them and threaded into the receiver of the C-250 rifle.

The third hole in the mount had not been used.

We also found that an identical scope to the one on the Commission's rifle 139 was present on the C-250 rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were the screws used in mounting the C-250 rifle--in mounting the scope on the C-250 rifle--type of screws as those used in mounting the scope on Exhibit 139?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the holes were the same dimensions?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, they are. And the threads in the holes are the same.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like C-250 admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 542.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 542, and received in evidence.)

The CHAIRMAN. At this time I will interrupt to say I must now leave to attend a session of the Supreme Court, and I will return at the conclusion of the session.

In the meantime, Mr. McCloy will preside at the Commission hearing, and in the event he should be required to leave, Mr. McCloy, whatever Commissioner is here will conduct the examination in his absence.

(At this point, Chairman Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)

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. Apart from the addition of this sling and mounting of the telescopic sight, have any modifications been made in the C-139 rifle--in the Commission Exhibit 139 rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. You would suggest, I gather, Mr. Frazier, that this is a homemade sling?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it appears to have been cut to length by inserting this strap, or this sling, on the rifle, and then trimming off the excess ends of the two straps to fit.

Mr. McCLOY. How would that broad patch on the sling--how would that be used, in your judgment, in firing the rifle? Would it be wrapped around the base of your----

Mr. FRAZIER. I find it very difficult to use the rifle with a sling at all. The sling is too short, actually, to do more than put your arm through it.

Mr. McCLOY. You get quite a leverage with that?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir, you do, in one direction. But it is rather awkward to wrap the forward hand into the sling in the normal fashion.

Mr. McCLOY. This gives a pretty tight----

Mr. FRAZIER. It can be used. But I don't feel that actually the position of this broad piece is of too much significance as far as use of the sling goes.

Mr. McCLOY. But certainly the sling would tend to steady the aim, even in this crude form?

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.

Mr. McCLOY. It would make more easy an offhand shot than if you didn't have a sling? It would make it more accurate?

Mr. FRAZIER. It would assist more in offhand than any other type of shooting, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to the scope for a moment, on the basis of the experiment, so to speak, which you had Klein's conduct, would you form an opinion as to whether the telescopic sight was mounted on Exhibit 139--was likely to have been mounted--by Klein's, or likely to have been mounted subsequently?

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I could not deduce from that--from the way the scope is mounted--who mounted it. I can only say that the two are mounted in identical fashion. And it is possible that the same person or persons mounted the two scopes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly explain the operation of this rifle, the bolt action and the clip-feed mechanism?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the weapon is loaded by turning up the bolt handle, drawing the bolt to the rear, and inserting the clip from the top of the weapon, after the clip has been loaded with the number of rounds you desire to load.

The maximum number of rounds the clip holds is six. However, the weapon can be loaded with a clip holding 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 round.

This is done by inserting the clip in the rear portion of the ejection port, and pushing it downwards until it clears the bottom of the bolt. The weapon then is loaded by moving the bolt forward. It picks up one cartridge out of the clip, carries it into the chamber of the weapon, and the bolt is then locked by turning down.

To fire the weapon, it is merely necessary to pull the trigger, since the closing of the bolt has cocked the cocking piece on the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you proceed to show the extraction and ejection mechanism?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The extraction is merely by raising the bolt and drawing it to the rear. When the cartridge is first loaded, the rim on the base of the cartridge is caught under the extractor in the face of the bolt, so that drawing the bolt to the rear draws the fired cartridge or a loaded cartridge if it has not been fired, out of the chamber to the rear, where the opposite side of the cartridge strikes a projection in the ejection port called the ejector. The ejector strikes on the opposite side of the case from the extractor, causing the shell to be thrown out of the weapon on the right-hand side.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, to fire the next shot, is any further action necessary, apart from closing the bolt and pulling the trigger, if remaining cartridges are in the clip?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you pull out the clip and explain any markings you find on it?

Mr. FRAZIER. The only markings are the manufacturer's markings, "SMI," on the base of the clip, and a number, 952. The significance of that number I am not aware of. It could be a part number or a manufacturer's code number.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any reason that you can think of why someone might call that a five-shot clip?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir, unless they were unfamiliar with it. There is an area of confusion in that a different type of rifle shooting larger ammunition, such as a .30-06 or a German Mauser rifle, uses five-shot clips, and the five-shot clip is the common style or size of clip, whereas this one actually holds six.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to purchase ammunition for this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the ammunition come in the clip?

Mr. FRAZIER. Normally it does not. The ammunition that we have purchased for this rifle comes in 20-shot boxes. It is possible--and I say this as a result of reading advertisements--to buy ammunition for this rifle, and to receive a clip or clips at the same time, but not necessarily part of the same shipment.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you ordered C-250, which is now Commission Exhibit 542, did you receive a clip with that rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you deduce, therefore, that the clip--that someone wishing to shoot that rifle and use a clip in the rifle would have purchased the clip later?

Mr. FRAZIER. They would have to acquire it from some source, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it commonly available?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Can you use that rifle without the clip?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; you can.

Mr. McCLOY. What is the advantage of the clip?

Mr. FRAZIER. It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one shot at a time.

Mr. McCLOY. The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; one shot at a time.

Mr. McCLOY. When you say a six-cartridge clip, could that gun have been fired with the clip fully loaded and another one in the chamber?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. The same as the .30-06?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the weapon will hold a maximum of seven.

Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a cartridge in an envelope, marked Commission Exhibit 141. Are you familiar with this cartridge?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I am. I received this cartridge for examination in the FBI laboratory, submitted to me as a cartridge removed from the rifle at the time it was recovered.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe that cartridge in terms of name, manufacturer, and country of origin?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co., at East Alton, Ill.