Governor Connally: Fraudulent Enactment

Act Two
The questioning of special agent Frazier by Specter sought corroboration of key points in the testimony of Shaneyfelt. Arlen began by asking if Connally were in position and lined up at frames 207 and 210 for a bullet from the sniper's nest to pass through his body as indicated by his wounds. Frazier conditioned his affirmative answer on the absence of deflection by the transiting bullet. This condition meant that a slight rightward rotation of Connally's torso permitted the defects of his coat to align with the trajectory of the incoming and the outgoing bullet.

Frazier’s affirmation raises a serious question because the public version of Zapruder frame Z-199 shows that Connally was turned sharply to his right when he sank beneath the Stemmons sign a few frames earlier than Z-207. By contrast, frames 207 and 210 of the re-enactment show the stand-in for Connally turned slightly to his right.

Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 167
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.

The positions of the victims gives them the direction of the inshoot. While the locations of the chest and the thigh wounds wound give them the direction of the outshoot since the wounds of the wrist indicated transit by a bullet without deflection. By definition the deflection angle equals the angle between the outshoot and the inshoot directions. So Frazier’s claim of having no technical evidence to exclude deflection by the bullet which transited Connally’s torso shows that he was intellectually unprepared to design or analyze the re-enactment.

Specter sought confirmation of Shaneyfelt’s claim that Connally emerged from behind the Stemmons sign with an orientation consistent with his torso wounds. Frazier claimed that frames 222 and 225 of the re-enactment were consistent with Connally being struck. However, the orientation of the stand-in for Connally on frame 222 shows a slight rightward turn of about twenty degrees while frame 225 pictures the stand-in nearly facing forward.

Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 169
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.

If Frazier studied slides made from the public version of the Zapruder film then an honest answer would have excluded the wounding of Connally at Z-222 and Z-225. Instead Frazier evaded the question by claiming ignorance of the Zapruder film then contradicted himself by asserting that the reconstruction was representative of the Governor in November. This assertion required a study of the Zapruder film which he denied in his previous statement.

Arlen Specter asked Frazier whether the stand-in for Connally could have been struck on frame 231 according the defects on the coat. Frazier answered negatively and explained that the stand-in was turned to the front to an extent which excluded being hit. A comparison of frame 231 with frame 225 shows nearly identical orientations, which differ substantially from the orientation on frame 222. These discrepancies challenges the authenticity of the re-enactment frames published by the Warren Commission or the accuracy of Frazier’'s testimony.

Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 170
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.

Frazier was mistaken by requiring a twenty-degree rightward rotation of Connally’s coat for an undeflected bullet to have made the defects. This conclusion assumed that the direction of the inshoot coincided with the long axis of the limousine. However, a bullet from the sniper’s nest had a considerable right-to-left lateral angle, which reduced the required rightward rotation angle of the torso. For frame 231 this lateral angle was eight degrees and increased to nine degrees for frame 225. These errors of 40 to 45 percent in the orientation angle of Connally were secondary to the error caused by neglect of the medical evidence, which gave an 11-degree sagittal angle between the sagittal plane of Connally’s body and a straight line joining his torso wounds. So the correct rightward rotation angle for an undeflected bullet to have inflicted Connally’ s torso wounds would have been the 11-degree sagittal angle reduced by the lateral angle. For these frames Connally had to have been a few degrees to the right of facing forward for wounding by an undeflected bullet.

Earlier work by Frazier gave him cause to question use of the coat to determine the right-to-left angle of an undeflected bullet through the torso. On May 13, 1964, he told the Warren Commission of his 35-degree measurement of the upper-rear to lower-front transverse angle on the coat. This 35-degree transverse angle implies that Connally was leaning backward by the 16-degree difference between this transverse angle measured on the coat and the 19-degree declination angle for frame 231 measured during the re-enactment.

Arlen Specter had additional cause to reject use of the coat since on April 21, 1964 he took the testimony of Doctor Shaw who measured a 25-degree transverse angle on the torso of Connally. For this case the 19-degree declination angle implied a more reasonable 6-degree angle of lean.

Specter asked how would the bullet have passed through the body on frame 235 and Frazier’s answer reaffirmed use of the Zapruder film to orientate their stand-in for Connally. This statement implies that the re-enactment also used a derivative of the Zapruder film to orientate their stand-in on frame 210 or frame 222.

Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 170
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.

Frazier ignored the trajectory from the wound below the right nipple to the wound of the thigh had a right-to-left angle of about thirty degrees. This terminal portion of the overall trajectory required a leftward deflection of the bullet while transiting the torso. However, the required leftward rotation angle of the torso would have been substantially less this thirty degrees since the bullet had to deflect gradually and in doing so would have emerged at a sharper right-to-left angle than the leftward rotation angle. If the deflecting bullet followed a parabolic trajectory then a 16-degree leftward rotation angle would have placed the exiting bullet on the correct right-to-left course for entry into the thigh. This 16-degree angle agrees well with the 20-degree figure, which Connally placed on the angle of his left turn when struck by the bullet.

Arlen Specter led his witness to bound a second window of feasibility.

Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 170
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.

Frazier implicitly placed this window of feasibility between frames 235 where Connally was facing too much toward the front and frame 240 where the victim had turned too far to the right. If the re-enactment used the 11-degree sagittal angle determined from locations of Connally’s torso wounds and considered the right-to-left lateral angle of the incoming bullet then the window of feasibility would have been much wider and would have encompassed frames 225 through 235. In fact these corrections of the faulty re-enactment analysis surround the Z-231 to about Z-234 span identified by Connally as showing his posture when wounded.

Specter went on to establish the second window as the latest window of opportunity by asking if the posture of Connally permitted wounding by an undeflected bullet on frame 249 or frame 255.

Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 170
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.

At this point Shaneyfelt and Frazier presented two windows of opportunity for a bullet to have caused the defects of Connally’s coat. These spans were frames 207 through 225 and frames bounded exclusively by 235 and 240.

McCLOY asked a question perhaps designed to have Frazier give a summary of their main point.

Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 171
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.

Frazier’s answer further discredited the re-enactment by explicitly stating that Connally’s had to turn to the right by approximately twenty degrees, a threshold that ignored the considerable lateral angle of the inshoot, and then acknowledged his ignorance of the different 11-degree sagittal angle for the wounds of the body.