Part 54

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?